AW a 
ot Any 


yas Asis Veihee lips 


SS 


oe 


=s 


= 
= 
SS 

SSS 


=< 


Gia 
Ay lie Wit 
PAE 
ays 
Davee 1 
Hapa apap. 
TAN ghcan ieee 
an ! 


ne 
ath 
Ss 
SESE 
= 


Be 


Sa 


Se = 
= eee 
ee ee F 5 
Sa5, = 2 
Fa 


SS 
TMS so 
Ls = 


HH « 
janis 


‘yelpalp ah i 


sh 


ph cee ee 


Sees 
= = ress ; : #2 pe: 
oy = r 5 oom =a. —_ a= - 
2 k - = =. icy a= Se B25 at - ao z eS = 7 
enw mets = CSE cage oS Be paps Sk te pare Meee Fe ge Te Ye pa ee on : Set Fe Se 
= sacs rene 2 aera 2 Leste s. Soeir eak 2 sexes ary es pees pe Se 3 
3359S; SSL PASE re een ee rear eee BA EE Be eee er oes: sigisseysig iy iets zssseg egestas 
2 2 tas =e ara 3 ee: +3 re ; Ss aS Se Saas eee b - === 
Se RE I CPO Gg EY gee Rn ere pe Seber is ores aoe eese pera et ei eee 
a: Seca apap eae Paired ss ets gree ete — : Se = Sere 335 seers > erites, 
BS ee ee ee oa ae ER ae ey = = : : = = 


Sy 


net ih 
Anlst 
ivy ite 


ml 


el im te 
SAL 


aS > 
pt? 


Ati 


See ge 
Posie 


te, 


a, 
ae 


crenata 
oe 
‘ i aie 
eran i be 
AEE a 
cee 
ae 


= Ss. 
—* 


Ath 
ith Pal 
tidaea rss 


healed 
i 


l 
a 
: Th 


1 USN Dae , Ws 200) ah rae 
My iy { 4 eae tts ie Wen alt 64 
NSS AVRCeL CAAT ARC Ra 
Hanahan DObO CUED EE ft Magaty 
Pash \ 

yu by aa tes i) e 
all in Mid 
rf] Wan} RANT Ke i 
A i q 

Hato A 


if ua 
why 
a 


So Seeteseszes: ao 
Zaene soap ode a saetei esse 
Sgeasa: i= = 
= 
: 


a 


re 
SS 


=. 
SSE 





TT 
= 


+ ¥ 
AN 


me\elt! 


S2siete tee 
gf eiiei cate 





Coed 


ea 


iy 


M 


Mt 








A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW 
TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF 
HISTORICAL RESEARCH 


4 BY 
A. T. ‘ROBERTSON, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Lrvr.D. 


Professor of Interpretation of the New Testament in the 
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 
Louisville, Ky. 


"Exopev 6€ Tov Oncoavpoy TovTov & daTpakivots oKeleoty, 
iva 7 UrepBodAn THs duvvdyews F TOU Oeod Kal pH EE HUav. 
— 2 Cor. 4:7 


THIRD EDITION 


HODDER & STOUGHTON 
NEW YORK 
GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


CopyriGcut, 1914, By 


GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


Sreconp Epirion, REVISED AND ENLARGED 
CopyRIGHT, 1915, By 


GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED 
CopyRIGHT, 1919, By 


GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


Composition, Electrotyping, and Presswork: 
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U.S.A. 


TO 
THE MEMORY OF 


John A. Broadus 


SCHOLAR TEACHER PREACHER 


_ Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2019 with funding trom 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/grammarotgreekneOOrobe_2 


PREFACE 


Ir is with mingled feelings of gratitude and regret that I let 
this book go to the public. I am grateful for God’s sustaining 
grace through so many years of intense work and am fully con- 
scious of the inevitable imperfections that still remain. For a 
dozen years this Grammar has been the chief task of my life. I 
have given to it sedulously what time was mine outside of my 
teaching. But it was twenty-six years ago that my great prede- 
cessor in the chair of New Testament Interpretation proposed to 
his young assistant that they together get out a revised edition 
of Winer. The manifest demand for a new grammar of the New 
Testament is voiced by Thayer, the translator of the American 
edition of Winer’s Grammar, in his article on “Language of the 
New Testament” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. 

I actually began the work and prepared the sheets for the first 
hundred pages, but I soon became convinced that it was not 
possible to revise Winer’s Grammar as it ought to be done without 
making a new grammar on a new plan. So much progress 
had been made in comparative philology and historical grammar 
since Winer wrote his great book that it seemed useless to go on 
with it. Then Dr. Broadus said to me that he was out of it by 
reason of his age, and that it was my task. He reluctantly gave 
it up and pressed me to go on. From that day it was in my 
thoughts and plans and I was gathering material for the great 
undertaking. If Schmiedel had pushed through his work, I 
might have stopped. By the time that Dr. James Hope Moulton 
announced his new grammar, I was too deep into the enterprise 
to draw back. And so I have held to the titanic task somehow 
till the end has come. There were many discouragements and I 
was often tempted to give it up at all costs. No one who has 
not done similar work can understand the amount of research, 
the mass of detail and the reflection required in a book of this 
nature. The mere physical effort of writing was a joy of expres- 
sion in comparison with the rest. The title of Cauer’s brilliant 
book, Grammatica Militans (now in the third edition), aptly 
describes the spirit of the grammarian who to-day attacks the 

vil 





Fhe 


Vill A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


problems of the language of the New Testament in the light of 
historical research. 

From one point of view a grammar of the Greek New Testa- 
ment is an impossible task, if one has to be a specialist in the 
whole Greek language, in Latin, in Sanskrit, in Hebrew and the 
other Semitic tongues, in Church History, in the Talmud, in 
English, in psychology, in exegesis.!. I certainly lay no claim to 
omniscience. I am a linguist by profession and by love also, but 
I am not a specialist in the Semitic tongues, though I have a 
working knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, but not of Syriac 
and Arabic. The Coptic and the Sanskrit I can use. The Latin 
and the Greek, the French and German and Anglo-Saxon com- 
plete my modest linguistic equipment. I have, besides, a smat- 
tering of Assyrian, Dutch, Gothic and Italian. 

I have explained how I inherited the task of this Grammar 
from Broadus. He was a disciple of Gessner Harrison, of the 
University of Virginia, who was the first scholar in America to 
make use of Bopp’s Vergleichende Grammatik. - Broadus’ views 
of grammar were thus for long considered queer by the students 
who came to him trained in the traditional grammars and unused 
to the historical method; but he held to his position to the end. 

This Grammar aims to keep in touch at salient points with the 
results of comparative philology and historical grammar as the 
true linguistic science. In theory one should be allowed to as- 
sume all this in a grammar of the Greek N. T., but in fact that 
cannot be done unless the book is confined in use to a few tech- 
nical scholars. I have tried not to inject too much of general 
grammar into the work, but one hardly knows what is best when 
the demands are so varied. So many men now get no Greek 
except in the theological seminary that one has to interpret for 
them the language of modern philology. I have simply sought 
in a modest way to keep the Greek of the N. T. out in the middle 
of the linguistic stream as far as it is proper to do so. In actual 
class use some teachers will skip certain chapters. 

Alfred Gudemann,? of Munich, says of American classical 
scholars: ‘‘Not a single contribution marking genuine progress, 
no work on an extensive scale, opening up a new perspective or 
breaking entirely new ground, nothing, in fact, of the slightest 
scientific value can be placed to their credit.’ That is a serious 
charge, to be sure, but then originality is a relative matter. The 


1 Cf. Dr. James Moffatt’s remarks in The Expositor, Oct., 1910, p. 383 f. 
* The Cl. Rev., June, 1909, p. 116. 


PREFACE ix 


true scholar is only too glad to stand upon the shoulders of his 
predecessors and give full credit at every turn. Who could make 
any progress in human knowledge but for the ceaseless toil of 
those! who have gone before? Prof. Paul Shorey,? of the Uni- 
versity of Chicago, has a sharp answer to Prof. Gudemann. He 
speaks of ‘‘the need of rescuing scholarship itself from the 
German yoke.” He does not mean ‘‘German pedantry and 
superfluous accuracy in insignificant research — but .. . in all 
seriousness from German inaccuracy.” He continues about “the 
disease of German scholarship” that ‘insists on ‘sweat-boxing’ 
the evidence and straining after ‘vigorous and rigorous’ demon- 
stration of things that do not admit of proof.” There probably 
are German scholars guilty of this grammatical vice (are Amer- 
ican and British scholars wholly free?). But I wish to record my 
conviction that my own work, such as it is, would have been im- 
possible but for the painstaking and scientific investigation of the 
Germans at every turn. The republic of letters is cosmopolitan. 
In common with all modern linguists I have leaned upon Brug- 
mann and Delbriick as masters in linguistic learning. 

I cannot here recite my indebtedness to all the scholars whose 
books and writings have helped me. But, besides Broadus, I 
must mention Gildersleeve as the American Hellenist whose wit 
and wisdom have helped me over many a hard place. Gilder- 
sleeve has spent much of his life in puncturing grammatical 
bubbles blown by other grammarians. He exercises a sort of 
erammatical censorship. ‘‘At least whole grammars have been 
constructed about one emptiness.’’* It is possible to be “‘ grammar 
mad,” to use The Independent’s phrase.t It is easy to scout all 
grammar and say: ‘“‘Grammar to the Wolves.”® Browning sings 
in A Grammarian’s Funeral: 

“He settled Hoti’s business — let it be! — 
Properly based Oun — 
Gave us the doctrine of the enclitic De, 
Dead from the waist down.” 


1 ¥, H. Colson, in an article entitled ‘“‘The Grammatical Chapters in Quin- 
tilian,”’ I, 4-8 (The Cl. Quarterly, Jan., 1914, p. 33), says: ‘The five chapters 
which Quintilian devotes to ‘Grammatica’ are in many ways the most valuable 
discussion of the subject which we possess,”’ though he divides “‘grammatica’”’ 
into “grammar” and “literature,” and (p. 37) “the whole of this chapter is 
largely directed to meet the objection that grammar is “tenuis et jejuna.’”’ 

2 The Cl. Weekly, May 27, 1911, p. 229. 

3 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., July, 1909, p. 229. Set OLL Dat kits 

5 Article by F. A. W. Henderson, Blackwood for May, 1906. 


x A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Perhaps those who pity the grammarian do not know that he 
finds joy in his task and is sustained by the conviction that his 
work is necessary. Prof. C. F. Smith (The Classical Weekly, 
1912, p. 150) tells of the joy of the professor of Greek at Bonn 
when he received a copy of the first volume of Gildersleeve’s 
Syntax of Classical Greek. The professor brought it to the Semi- 
nar and ‘‘clasped and hugged it as though it were a most precious 
darling (Liebling).” Dr. A. M. Fairbairn! once said: ‘No man 
can be a theologian who is not a philologian. He who is no 
grammarian is no divine.” Let Alexander McLaren serve as a 
good illustration of that dictum. His matchless discourses are 
the fruit of the most exact scholarship and spiritual enthusiasm. 
I venture to quote another defence of the study of Greek which 
will, I trust, yet come back to its true place in modern education. 
Prof. G. A. Williams, of Kalamazoo College, says”: “Greek yet 
remains the very best means we have for plowing up and wrink- 
ling the human brain and developing its gray matter, and wrinkles 
and gray matter are still the most valuable assets a student can 
set down on the credit side of his ledger.”’ 

Dr. J. H. Moulton has shown that it is possible to make gram- 
mar interesting, as Gildersleeve had done before him. Moulton 
protests*® against the notion that grammar is dull: ‘‘And yet there 
is no subject which can be made more interesting than grammar, 
a science which deals not with dead rocks or mindless vegetables, 
but with the ever changing expression of human thought.” I 
wish to acknowledge here my very great indebtedness to Dr. 
Moulton for his brilliant use of the Egyptian papyri in proof of 
the fact that the New Testament was written in the vernacular 
xown. Deissmann is the pioneer in this field and is still the 
leader in it. It is hard to overestimate the debt of modern New 
Testament: scholarship to his work. Dr. D. 8. Margoliouth, it is 
true, is rather pessimistic as to the value of the papyri: “‘ Not one 
per cent. of those which are deciphered and edited with so much 
care tell us anything worth knowing.’’* Certainly that is too 


1 Address before the Baptist Theological College at Glasgow, reported in 
The British Weekly, April 26, 1906. 

2 The Cl. Weekly, April 16, 1910. 

§ London Quarterly Review, 1908, p. 214. Moulton and Deissmann also 
disprove the pessimism of Hatch (Hssays in Biblical Greek, p. 1): ‘The lan- 
guage of the New Testament, on the other hand, has not yet attracted the 
special attention of any considerable scholar. There is no good lexicon. 
There is no good philological commentary. There is no adequate grammar.” 

4 The Expositor, Jan., 1912, p. 73. 


PREFACE Xl 


gloomy a statement. Apart from the linguistic value of the 
papyri and the ostraca which has been demonstrated, these 
letters and receipts have interest as human documents. They 
give us real glimpses of the actual life of the common people in 
the first Christian centuries, their joys and their sorrows, the 
little things that go so far to make life what it is for us all. But 
the student of the Greek New Testament finds a joy all his own 
in seeing so many words in common use that were hitherto found 
almost or quite alone in the New Testament or LXX. But the 
grammar of the N. T. has also had a flood of light thrown on it 
from the papyri, ostraca and inscriptions as a result of the work 
of Deissmann, Mayser, Milligan, Moulton, Radermacher, Thumb, 
Volker, Wilcken and others. I have gratefully availed myself of 
the work of these scholars and have worked in this rich field for 
other pertinent illustrations of the New Testament idiom. The 
material is almost exhaustless and the temptation was constant 
to use too much of it. I have not thought it best to use so much 
of it in proportion as Radermacher has done, for the case is now 
proven and what Moulton and Radermacher did does not have 
to be repeated. As large as my book is, the space is precious for 
the New Testament itself. But I have used the new material 
freely. The book has grown so that in terror I often hold 
back. It is a long step from Winer, three generations ago, to 
the present time. We shall never go back again to that stand- 
point. Winer was himself a great emancipator in the gram- 
matical field. But the battles that he fought are now ancient 
history. 

It is proper to state that the purpose of this Grammar is not 
that of the author’s Short Grammar which is now in use in various 
modern languages of America and Europe. That book has its 
own place. The present volume is designed for advanced stu- 
dents in theological schools, for the use of teachers, for scholarly 
pastors who wish a comprehensive grammar of the Greek New 
Testament on the desk for constant use, for all who make a 
thorough study of the New Testament or who are interested in 
the study of language, and for libraries. If new editions come, 
as I hope, I shall endeavour to make improvements and correc- 
tions. Hrrata are sure to exist in a book of this nature. Occa- 
sionally (cf. Accusative with Infinitive) the same subject is 
treated more than once for the purpose of fulness at special 
points. Some repetition is necessary in teaching. Some needless 
repetition can be eliminated later. I may explain also that the 


mere 


Xi A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


works used by me in the Bodleian Library and the British Mu- 
seum had the citations copied twice with double opportunity for 
errors of reference, but I have guarded that point to the best of 
my ability. I have been careful to give credit in detail to the 
many works consulted. 

But, after all is said, I am reluctant to let my book slip away 
from my hands. There is so much yet to learn. I had hoped 
that Mayser’s Syntax der griechischen Papyri could have ap- 
peared so that I could have used it, but he sorrowfully writes me 
that illness has held him back. Neither Helbing nor Thackeray 
has finished his Syntax of the LXX. The N. T. Vocabulary of 
Moulton and Milligan, though announced, has not yet appeared. 
Deissmann’s Lexicon is still in the future. Thumb’s revision of 
Brugmann’s Griechische Grammatik appeared after my book had 
gone to the press.t. I could use it only here and there. The same 
thing is true of Debrunner’s revision of Blass’ Grammatik des 
neutest. Griechisch. New light will continue to be turned on the 
Greek of the N. T. Prof. J. Rendel Harris (The Expository Times, 
Nov., 1913, p. 54f.) points out, what had not been recently no- 
ticed, that Prof. Masson, in his first edition of Winer in 1859, 
p. vii, had said: “‘The diction of the New Testament is the plain 
and unaffected Hellenic of the Apostolic Age, as employed by 
Greek-speaking Christians when discoursing on religious sub- 
jects . . . Apart from the Hebraisms — the number of which 
has, for the most part, been grossly exaggerated — the New 
Testament may be considered as exhibiting the only genuine 
fac-simile of the colloquial diction employed by wnsophisticated 
Grecian gentlemen of the first century, who spoke without 
pedantry —as iéid7ar and not as goguorai.”? The papyri have 
simply confirmed the insight of Masson in 1859 and of Lightfoot 
in 1863 (Moulton, Prol., p. 242). One’s mind lingers with fas- 
cination over the words of the New Testament as they meet 
him in unexpected contexts in the papyri, as when épern (cf. 
1 Pet. 2:9) occurs in the sense of ‘Thy Excellency,’ éyw zapa- 
oxetv TH of aperH, O. P. 1131, 11 f. (v/a.pD.), or when tzepGov (Ac. 
1:18) is used of a pigeon-house, rov brepGov rorov Tis brapxovons 
ait@ &v Movxuvp oixias, O. P. 1127, 5-7 (a.p. 183). But the book 
must now go forth to do its part in the elucidation of the New 


1 Prof. E. H. Sturtevant (Cl. Weekly, Jan. 24, 1914, p. 103) criticises Thumb 
because he retains in his revision of Brugmann’s book the distinction between 
accidence and syntax, and so is ‘‘not abreast of the best scholarship of the 
day.’’ But for the N. T. the distinction is certainly useful. 


PREFACE X1il 


Testament, the treasure of the ages.‘ I indulge the hope that 
the toil has not been all in vain. Marcus Dods (Later Letters, 
p. 248) says: “I admire the grammarians who are content to 
add one solid stone to the permanent temple of knowledge in- 
stead of twittering round it like so many swallows and only 
attracting attention to themselves.” I make no complaint of the 
labour of the long years, for I have had my reward in a more 
intimate knowledge of the words of Jesus and of his reporters 
and interpreters. Ta pyuata & eyo eNdAnKaA byly Tvedud éeorv Kal 
ton éorw (Jo. 6:68). 

I must record my grateful appreciation of the sympathy and 
help received from many friends all over the world as I have 
plodded on through the years. My colleagues in the Seminary 
Faculty have placed me under many obligations in making it 
possible for me to devote myself to my task and in rendering 
substantial help. In particular Pres. E. Y. Mullins and Prof. 
J. R. Sampey have been active in the endowment of the plates. 
Prof. Sampey also kindly read the proof of the Aramaic and 
Hebrew words. Prof. W. O. Carver graciously read the proof of 
the entire book and made many valuable suggestions. Dr. S. 
Angus, of Edinburgh, read the manuscript in the first rough 
draft and was exceedingly helpful in his comments and sympa- 
thy. Prof. W. H. P. Hatch, of the General Episcopal Theological 
Seminary, New York, read the manuscript for the publishers and 
part of the proof and exhibited sympathetic insight that is greatly 
appreciated. Prof. J. 8. Riggs, of the Auburn Theological Semi- 
nary, read the proof till his health gave way, and was gracious in 
his enthusiasm for the enterprise. Prof. Walter Petersen, Ph.D., 
of Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas, read all the proof and 
freely gave his linguistic attainments to the improvement of the 
book. Last, but not least in this list, Mr. H. Scott, of Birken- 
head, England, read the book in galley proof, and in the Accidence 
verified all the references with minute care and loving interest, 
and all through the book contributed freely from his wealth of 
knowledge of detail concerning the Greek N. T. The references 
in Syntax were verified by a dozen of my students whose labour 
of love is greatly appreciated. Pres. J. W. Shepherd, of Rio 
Janeiro, Brazil, and Prof. G. W. Taylor, of Pineville, La., had 
verified the Scripture references in the MS8., which were again 
verified in proof. The Index of Quotations has been prepared by 


1 Brilliant use of the new knowledge is made by Dr. James Moffatt’s New 
Testament (A New Translation, 1913). 


Be 





X1V A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Rev. W. H. Davis, of Richmond College, Va.; the Index of Greek 
Words by Rev. 8. L. Watson, Tutor of N. T. Greek for this ses- 
sion in the Seminary. All this work has been done for me 
freely and gladly. The mere recital of it humbles me very much. 
Without this expert aid in so many directions the book could 
not have been produced at all. I must add, however, that all 
errors should be attributed to me. I have done the best that I 
could with my almost impossible task. I have had to put on an 
old man’s glasses during the reading of the proof. 

I must add also my sincere appreciation of the kind words 
of Prof. Edwin Mayser of Stuttgart, Oberlehrer H. Stocks of 
Cottbus, Pres. D. G. Whittinghill of Rome, Prof. Caspar René 
Gregory of Leipzig, the late Prof. E. Nestle of Maulbronn, Prof. 
James Stalker of Aberdeen, Prof.. Giovanni Luzzi of Florence, 
Prof. J. G. Machen of Princeton, Profs. G. A. Johnston Ross and 
Jas. E. Frame of Union Seminary, and many others who have 
cheered me in my years of toil. For sheer joy in the thing Prof. 
C. M. Cobern of Allegheny College, Penn., and Mr. Dan Craw- 
ford, the author of Thinking Black, have read a large part of the 
proof. 

I gladly record my gratitude to Mr. G. W. Norton, Misses 
Lucie and Mattie Norton, Mr. R. A. Peter (who gave in memory 
of his father and mother, Dr. and Mrs. Arthur Peter), Rev. R. 
N. Lynch, Rev. R. J. Burdette, Mr. F. H. Goodridge, and others 
who have generously contributed to the endowment of the plates 
so that the book can be sold at a reasonable price. I am in- 
debted to Mr. K. B. Grahn for kindly co-operation. I am deeply 
grateful also to the Board of Trustees of the Seminary for making 
provision for completing the payment for the plates. 

It is a pleasure to add that Mr. Doran has shown genuine 
enthusiasm in the enterprise, and that Mr. Linsenbarth of the 
University Press, Cambridge, has taken the utmost pains in the 
final proofreading. 

I should say that the text of Westcott and Hort is followed 
in all essentials. Use is made also of the Greek Testaments of 
Nestle, Souter, and Von Soden whose untimely death is so re- 
cent an event. In the chapter on Orthography and Phonetics 
more constant use is made, for obvious reasons, of variations 
in the manuscripts than in the rest of the book. It is now four 
hundred years since Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros 
had printed the Greek New Testament under the auspices of 
the University of Aleal’ or Complutum, near Madrid, though it 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION XV 


was not circulated till 1522. Erasmus got his edition into circu- 
lation in 1516. ‘The Complutensian edition of 1514 was the first 
of more than a thousand editions of the New Testament in Greek” 
(E. J. Goodspeed, The Biblical World, March, 1914, p. 166). It 
thus comes to pass that the appearance of my Grammar marks 
the four hundredth anniversary of the first printed Greek New 
Testament, and the book takes its place in the long line of aids 
to the study of the “Book of Humanity.” The Freer Gospels 
and the Karidethi Gospels show how much we have to expect 
in the way of discovery of manuscripts of the New Testament. 

I think with pleasure of the preacher or teacher who under 
the inspiration of this Grammar may turn afresh to his Greek 
New Testament and there find things new and old, the vital 
message all electric with power for the new age. That will be 
my joy so long as the book shall find use and service at the hands 
of the ministers of Jesus Christ. bees 

A. T. RoBEertson. 
LovISVILLE, Ky., 1914. 


PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 


THE second edition has been called for so soon that I did not 
have the opportunity for rest that I desired before preparing for 
it. But I have gone steadily through the book with.eager eyes. 
The result is that some five hundred changes have been made in 
the text here and there, all for the improvement of the book in 
one way or another, besides the Addenda at the end of the book. 
Most of the changes are small details, but they are all worth 
making. The Addenda are as few as possible because of the great 
size of the volume. I have been more than gratified at the kindly 
reception accorded the book all over the world in spite of the 
distraction of the dreadful war. Many scholars have offered 
helpful criticisms for which I am deeply grateful. In particular 
I wish to mention Prof. C. M. Cobern, Allegheny College, Mead- 
ville, Penn.; Prof. D. F. Estes, Colgate University, Hamilton, 
N. Y.; Prof. Basil L. Gildersleeve, The Johns Hopkins Univer- 
sity, Baltimore; Prof. E. J. Goodspeed, the University of Chicago; 
Prof. D. A. Hayes, Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, IIl.; 
Prof. James Moffatt, Mansfield College, Oxford, England; Prof. 


gg 
’ 
5 
. 





XV1 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


C. W. Peppler, Trinity College, Durham, N. C.; Prof. W. Peter- 
sen, Bethany College, Lindsborg, Kansas; Mr. William Pitfield, 
Manchester, England; Rev. Dr. Alfred Plummer, Bideford, Eng- 
land; Mr. H. Scott, Birkenhead, England; Prof. James Stalker, 
United Free Church College, Aberdeen, Scotland; Dr. Gross 
Alexander, Nashville, Tenn. I hope that future editions may 
make it possible to improve the book still further. Various minor 
repetitions have been removed, though more still remain than is 
necessary. But the book is at least made more intelligible there- 
by. The numerous cross-references help also. 

In the Neutestamentliche Studien (1914) in honour of the seven- 
tieth birthday of Dr. Georg Heinrici of the University of Leipzig 
there is a paper by Heinrich Schlosser “ Zur Geschichte der bib- 
lischen Philologie.’”? He tells the story of “‘the first grammar of 
the New Testament Greek” (1655). It is by Georg Pasor and is 
entitled Grammatica Graeca Sacra Novi Testaments Domini nostri 
Jesu Christi. His son, Matthias Pasor, Professor of Theology at 
Groningen, found his father’s manuscript and let it lie for eighteen 
years because many held grammatical study to be puerile or 
pedantic and the book would have few readers. Finally he pub- 
lished it in 1655, since he held grammar to be “‘clavis scientiarum 
omnisque solidae eruditionis basis ac fundamentum.’’ He was 
cheered by Melanchthon’s “fine word’: ‘‘Theologia vera est 
grammatica quaedam divinae vocis.” It is only 260 years since 
1655. 

New books continue to come out that throw light on the lan- 
guage of the New Testament. Part I (through a) of Moulton 
and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from 
the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (1914) is now a rich 
treasure in the hands of students. Sharp’s Epictetus and the New 
Testament (1914) is a very helpful monograph full of suggestions. 
A note from Dr. Albert Thumb announces that he is at work on 
a revision of his Hellentsmus. So the good work goes on. 


A. T. ROBERTSON. 
August, 1915. 


PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION XVli 


PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION 


My grammar has had to live and do its work in spite of the Great 
War, but the time for the Third Edition has come. In a letter Dr. 
Alfred Plummer says: ‘‘That so technical and expensive a volume 
should be already in a third edition in the fifth year of the war is 
indeed triumphant evidence of the value of the book. Scientific 
grammar is appreciated more widely than one would antecedently 
have ventured to expect.” These few years have allowed time for 
a thorough verification of the multitudinous references. This 
enormous task has been done as a labor of love by Mr. H. Scott, 
of Birkenhead, England, whose patient skill has placed all users 
of the book under a debt of gratitude that can never be paid. He 
had already put his invaluable services at my disposal, but now 
his leisure permitted him to employ his really wonderful statistical 
knowledge of the Greek New Testament for the benefit of stu- 
dents. These extremely useful tables are found in the Addenda to 
this Edition. I am sure that all New Testament students will 
appreciate and profit greatly from these tables. 

A brilliant student of mine, Rev. W. H. Davis, has found some 
striking illustrations in the papyri that appear in the Addenda, be- 
sides a number from my own readings. Dr. Davis is at work on 
the lexical aspects of the papyri and the inscriptions. If his studies 
lead him on to prepare a New Testament lexicon, the world will 
be the better for such an outcome. 

Mr. J. F. Springer, of New York City, has also made some 
valuable contributions which appear in the Addenda. I am in- 
debted also to Prof. Robert Law, of Knox College, Toronto, for 
errata. 

I have watched with eagerness for criticisms of the book and 
have done my best to turn them to the improvement of the gram- 
mar. It is gratifying to know that ministers are using it in their 
studies as one of the regular tools in the shop. In the classroom 
only selected portions can be covered, but the preacher can use it 
every day (as many do) in his reading and study of the Greek 
New Testament. There are many ministers who read the Greek 
New Testament through once a year, some of it every day, be- 
sides the solid, critical study of a Gospel or Epistle with commen- 
tary, lexicon and grammar. This is the work that pays one a 
hundredfold in his preaching. My own reward for the long years 
of devotion to this grammar is found in the satisfaction that 





XVlll A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


scholarly ministers are using the book for their own enrichment. 
I have been gratified to learn of laymen who use the book regularly. 

Besides the correction of infelicities and errata that could be 
found here and there and the Addenda at the end of the volume 
I have inserted a detailed Table of Contents which will greatly 
aid one in finding topics in the various chapters. ‘The minute 
subdivisions with page references will supplement the various 
Indices to great advantage. The Index of Greek words, large as 
it is, was still incomplete. It has been doubled in this edition by 
Mr. Scott’s assistance. The Additional Bibliography records the 
most important recent contributions. 

Death has been busy with New Testament linguists. Dr. Gross 
Alexander, of Nashville, has been claimed by death. Dr. George 
Heinrici, of Leipzig, is dead. Dr. Albert Thumb, of Marburg, has 
likewise passed on. Dr. H. B. Swete, of Cambridge, and Principal 
James Denney, of Glasgow, have also joined the great majority. 
These are irreparable losses, but there are others and even greater 
ones. Dr. Caspar René Gregory, of Leipzig, though seventy years 
old, volunteered for the army and was killed in battle in France. 
With his death perished the hope of a new and revised edition of 
Tischendorf’s Novum Testamentum Grece for many years to come. 
A younger man must now take hold of this problem and make 
available for students the new textual knowledge. 

Dr. James Hope Moulton fell a victim in April, 1917, in the 
Mediterranean Sea, to the German submarine. He was placed in 
a boat, but after several days succumbed to the exposure and 
cold. It was he who first applied in detail Deissmann’s discovery 
that the New Testament was written in the current xo.v) as seen 
in the Egyptian papyri. He had planned three volumes on the 
New Testament grammar. Volume I (the Prolegomena) appeared 
in 1906 (Third Ed., 1908). He had nearly finished Volume II 
(Accidence), but had done nothing on Syntax, the most important 
of all. His death is an unspeakable calamity, but his work 
will live, for his Prolegomena preserves his interpretation of the 
‘New Testament language. The Accidence will appear in due time 
(is already in press). Prof. George Milligan, of Glasgow, has 
completed the publication of the Vocabulary of the New Testa- 
ment. 

The workers die, but the work goes on. It is pleasant to think 
that Greek is renewing its grip upon the world. Professors Stuart 
and Tewksbury are preparing a grammar and lexicon for Chinese 
students of the New Testament. Japan will do likewise. Prof. 


PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION |. X1X 


H. P. Houghton, of Waynesburg College, Pennsylvania, is con- 
fident that Greek can be saved for the college and the university, 
for ‘‘it is the basis of true culture” (The Classical Weekly, Dec. 11, 
1916, p. 67). There is nothing like the Greek New Testament to 
rejuvenate the world, which came out of the Dark Ages with the 
Greek Testament in its hand. Erasmus wrote in the Preface to 
his Greek Testament about his own thrill of delight: ‘These 
holy pages will summon up the living image of His mind. They 
will give you Christ Himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the 
whole Christ in a word; they will give Him to you in an intimacy 
so close that He would be less visible to you if He stood before 
your eyes.” The Greek New Testament is the New Testament. 
All else is translation. Jesus speaks to us out of every page of the 
Greek. Many of his ipsissima verba are here preserved for us, for 
our Lord often spoke in Greek. To get these words of Jesus it is 
worth while to plow through any grammar and to keep on to the 
end. 

At the age of sixteen John Brown, of Haddington, startled a 
bookseller by asking for a copy of the Greek Testament. He was 
barefooted and clad in ragged homespun clothes. He was a shep- 
herd boy from the hills of Scotland. ‘‘What would you do with | 
that book?” a professor scornfully asked. ‘“TI’ll try to read 
it,” the lad replied, and proceeded to read off a passage in the 
Gospel of John. He went off in triumph with the coveted prize, 
but the story spread that he was a wizard and had learned Greek 
by the black’ art. He was actually arraigned for witchcraft, but 
in 1746 the elders and deacons at Abernethy gave him a vote of 
acquittal, though the minister would not sign it. His letter of 
defence, Sir W. Robertson Nicoll says (The British Weekly, Oct. 3, 
1918), ‘deserves to be reckoned among the memorable letters of 
the world.” John Brown became a divinity student and finally 
professor of divinity. In the chapel at Mansfield College, Oxford, 
Brown’s figure ranks with those of Doddridge, Fry, Chalmers, 
Vinet, Schleiermacher. He had taught himself Greek while herd- 
ing his sheep, and he did it without a grammar. Surely young 
John Brown of Haddington should forever put to shame those 
theological students and busy pastors who neglect the Greek 
Testament, though teacher, grammar, lexicon are at their dis-. 
posal. | 

In Current Opinion for January, 1919, page 18, in an article 
called “ Europe’s Ideas of Wilson the Man,” one notes a pertinent 
sentence: ‘‘President Wilson once told a member of the diplo- 


XX A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


matic corps in Washington, who repeated it later in Paris, that if 
he were going to college all over again he would pay more atten- 
tion to the Greek language and literature, which American uni- 
versities, on the whole, neglect.”” So the scholar-statesman feels. 
So the preacher ought to feel. 

A. T. RoBERTSON. 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


eA CH: cue" Stuy os os NEE ea at eee i) ei Were wale ay 
PetAG Mars WOONDMLIDITION@ ce... 2 ee ek ie Se ek eee 
PRERAGHs TO RLBIRDSHDITIONY Bt 4. a sib) Wee eee os 
ierTeOreyyORKSe\LOsT OFrrEen KEFERRED TO Ps f « 3). evened eo. 
ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY TO THIRD EDITION. ......... 


Pate LNT RODUGTION. 3... 2 es. 3 


Ger ine ae OCU VI GLOliIOL Get (1 See ne i ad oe 
SPIER teat ramiiniar Lae amend) S840. bs okt e mee tre) go. 5 


Wee Petre dere ero 2 os ee es eS et 


PED CRDELY ICOZOIMVVUT ET Sant Cn ere fe gs oe we a ls 
(a) Winer’s Inconsistencies . 
(b) Winer Epoch-Making . a OO ee MA ms a 
PeeC OU C Mmmn Me ees er ee ee a 
(CB DULEDIOUT Mee ake ee) oe coe sie A he ee ie ee 
fees Gene eee ee eee, er ce ee a 


TiN OOMVLCMIET MISCrIQLS rt i erey.. eam sal! crete of Pe dey fe 
Oye LGlssiuanii= gia ee. Fes. Sats aR ES ae a as fens 
Tip MUASWUPE SS ec oo. ee ect AR a 
Ae) MOTE al sung aa Aa A as erg 
CAB ILNCrPONUrIDUNONS. Csr os. wos fe ve es 
fer ichnucescOUr NV Aberial =) fs. Sos ates. 
IV. The New Grammatical Equipment ....... 
(a) Comparative Philology . 
1. The Linguistic Revolution 
2. A Sketch of Greek Grammatical Boar 
3. The Discovery of Sanskrit oie 
4. From Bopp to Brugmann . 
(6) Advance in General Greek Grammar . 
(oe critical Editions ofsGreek:Authors:..) : na). 9). 7s)... « 
(OV VOressOne nOIvidiial, WTItETS 2. os 40 pets Benge eile 
(e) The Greek Inscriptions . . . Pes Ae as ae a ee 
(f) Fuller Knowledge of the Dialects SAE) oa ees at ae 
Gomer eapyreand.Ostracd 9. ss 4. atieaeibory nati +s 


(h) The Byzantine and the Modern Greek . ....... 
Sxl 


3-30 


oa 
SCOMDADADWD NDA AOAaA aah PPP CF LW 


en 
“J Oo H= Co Co bo 


21 


XXll 


V. 





A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(i) The Hebrew:and "Aramaic 3) .00-. 2... 
Livthe OlGRVieweow. 4. Se Ls Ge ne Js 
2; A Change-with Kennedy,-.4. <...°:) © 3a 
3. Deéissmann’s Revolt = 2. >. 3... . .a co 


Cuaprrer LLP The Historical Method 2% 2. (iu eee 


Ii 


18 tS 


III. 


LV; 


Ve 


Language.as. History ©... 0:9) 982 7 
(a) Combining the Various Elements. ... ........, 
(6) Practical Grammar a Compromise 2 9a... eer 


Language as a, Living Organism), feo 9-0 
(a) The Origin of Languages 272). cee 
(6)> Evolution in Language ~)325 2 ee ee 
(c) Change Chiefly in the Vernacular .......... 


Greek Not an Isolated Language > 2 > .9 i925 29). ee 
(a) The Importance of Comparative Grammar. . .... . 
(6) <The Common Bond in Languages 23 vi ene 
(c) The Original Indo-Germanic Speech ......... 
(d) Greek as a “ Dialect’ of the Indo-Germanic Speech 


Looking at the Greek Language asa Whole. ....... 
(a) Descriptive Historical Grammar. ...:....... 
(b) Unity. of the Greek Language geese ee 
(c)-’ Periods of the Greek Language 45.9 .9- ere 
(d) Modern Greek in Particular, <3) ".92. 2a ee 


The Greek Pomt-of- View <3 ss ee 


Cuaprer III) ‘The Kowh 75 20. ee ee 


if 
in 


106K 


The Term: Kowh 0 520" See eee 


The Origin of the Kownrek a ae ee oe pie ae 
(a): 'Ernumph of the Atices fee eee eee a 
(b) Fate-of the Other- Dialects) Se eee eee, 
(c) ‘Partial’ Koines <>) gee eee rea 
(d) Effects of Alexander’s Campaigns .......... 
(e); The: March toward.Universalisin ee eee 


The Spread ‘of ‘the Kory =) see ee ee ae 


(a) ‘A’ World-Speccher aman eens arene fae | 


(6) (Vernacular andebiterary eet eee ee ey, 
1.) Vernacular: <.uee cee eke rrte ened eee tte nee oS. 
2.:- LAterary Dh) cee ee tse Oe) seem et Pt. cosh)’ 3 ee 


(c) "The ‘Atticiatio’ Reaction wae oes a ae 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


IV. The Characteristics of the Vernacular Kowf. . . ... 60 
(Qmevermacularerttic nine DASChm. . fe)... ew Gl eee 60 
(bene OtnersDisicets.in the Koi oie op 3) Foy So ae 62 
(eon DislecticalChangesm si. ee. wk kk 64 
(d) New Words, New Forms, or New Meanings to Old Words. 65 
(Oy PRO REN VEG a5 Ae ee 66 
Gh MeL eB er Ola er UALIOND ii seal on wick stalled 0%"! | 69 
OP USING. eyo ee ta SAA 0 71 

Phone estan OirDorerTapn yes wot. eis Shey ee 71 

LV OCU ALY me eM ORe hisils oe irk alvalyenie Slee se Ss 72 
VEL tCOrt LOMA ae te eA er tend | 72 
PUCCIO CL CG Mann BE Mb tosh ia, co ae Ore) ay 72 
SERED oe 0) BURR Oy Sa ae 73 

V. The Adaptability of the Kown tothe Roman World ..... 74 
Cuapter IV. The Place of the New Testament in the Kowf . 76-139 
I. The New Testament Chiefly in the Vernacular Kown . . . . 76 
(yee leo st OUCa CrTeCkK ak teeta hy ie” Ae 76 

(b) Proof that N. T. Greek is in the Vernacular Kowy 79 
SCX Che eran nee rennet the Piecvah Guudel sald Ny | 80 
Crain LICH an an at Caprese, ey oS Dos be i eek 82 

II. Literary Elements in the New Testament Greek. . . ... 83 

Re emiitienr NIUeCNCG: 2A tee et css ee dete fees 88 
Cpe LOA ETACELOLeME TR Sroteiet tee. ie; LUPE ee re 88 
(b) The View of Deissmann and Moulton. ........ 89 
(Cmplaitie: Directzuebrew- influences) 2 8298 ee. 94 
(d) A Deeper Impress by the Septuagint ......... 96 
Bo) GENRE FER IEG S ly STL Re Se Aa en ae a 102 
PO) \Wewepalatee IRAE SUITRY a Gay ake Vat Be ihn nrg en 106 

IV. Latinisms and Other Foreign Words ........... 108 

Pe Ome TING ATMA CIC OUse gearless aise ho ca destin Sake ue ts. VWs 112 

MMII SIU PE OCUMIATICICE iar 5. 5003.2 ooh sued nei" ad hues ye spew sis 116 
By UNAS «ok a CS A, Sana nc iy ae ana eter taeiel Wi Be 
IUD UWE ENE ee ee on ss ewe. ees 6) aye 119 
(Cums KCmaer Te eet eras fate Sh Soles lia haces elt 120 
vk. ASUS 2 2p ap bh ecgee tk SoG arn) eee eee aera 123 
fy UO. rly ERS ao ea 124 
Oi ee EN ee se. oat el ely oil Tice. ate, hela vod 125 

erect is ek oat chyba ce aelti! Gen ees 127, 

EY ILE SOLPELCDICWSa 4h acs Woh ese bed e nskisiet) et fle a 132 

ol elie 9. 5 RM ee me Onan en a ea 130 

VII. N. T. Greek Illustrated by the Modern Greek Vernacular. . 137 


i’ 


XXIV A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 
: PAGE 
PART IT—ACCIDENCE ... 3... 141-376 
CHAPTER V;» Word-Formation % °."-.0 222: 0 or . ee 143-176 
lL. Etymology ro so se lew ee ee) eS; 1438 
TT ROOtS erie ccm os ast an, epee 144 
Illy Words with Formative Suffixes: 22-2 == eee 146 
Oe VGLDS tums sis Pit soda eae 2 tL een ee LAG 
1. Primary or Drama Verbs 2-4. 9 a ein, LAG 
2. secondary ot Derivative Verbs ©. [2 s5.. . 147 
(ds Substantives:.°s o<.5. Fo eet ee 5) ea 150 
1. Primary or Prinieive Stibstantives sot a Ce eee OR 150 
2. Secondary or Derivative Substantives ....... 151 
(a) #Thoserom:-verbsaye 2) ee eee 151 
(8) Those from substantives 7 =) 154 
(y) Those from adjectives © 4.95 wy chee Beeps LOG 
(c) FAdIeCtivess eae: sc iene cme * Ly, 
1. Primary or iathatine avectives eee) ee Eo! 157 
2. Secondary or Derivative Adjectives ....... meee i S0) 
(a) Chose:fromiverbs! a 5 ee ee 158 
(8). Chose-from substantivesss 0. eee en 158 
(y)) Those from adjectives” 5 2.) se00ennenm 159 
(6)» Those from adverbsrjtg.a see cue 160 
(d)The Adverb =... \0g35 Sen acne oe 160 
IV. Words Formed by Composition (Composita). ....... 160 
(a) Kinds of Compound Words in Greek ......... 161 
(6) Inseparable Prefixes) 9), 4-20ee eee ete melt 
(c) Agglutinative Compounds (Juxtaposition or Par thesis) Sates 
1. Verbsi\& She ee ee ae | 
2>Substantives= 45.c .* see ence ee DS pe es Gite 
8. Adjectives au. vt.2- taaees ue ee rae ss =e). Os 
4. Adverbs ‘h. .25.00rk a ae Be ae ee, ne 169 
V. Personal Names Abbreviated or Hypocoristic ....... 171 
Vii ~The: History ofsWOrdsemen ie ame ee 173 
VIT. -The Kinship/of Greek Words yr ee ne 174 
VIII... Contrasts.in Greek) Words on Synonyms) .5. 5. seeee . Lio 
Cuapter VI, Orthography and Phonetics... 95.252)... 177-245 
I; ‘The Uncertainty.ot the Evidence man ene ne, 177 
(a) The Ancient Literary Spelling ... ....... io) pee 
(b) The Dialect-Coloured Vernacular. ..........-178 
(c) The: Uncials S355", Pee ae os | ee 179 


(d))The*Papyriy cise ee ese eens oe. ee 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


II. Vowel-Changes 


TE 


(a) The Changes (Interchanges) witha. . 


(0) 


(c) 


(d) 


(e) 


(f) 


(7) 


(I) 
(1) 


a and ¢ 
e anda 
aandy . 


a and o ye ead Pee c. ane 
GQranich, woo. tee tee 


aanda . 
aandav.. 
au and « oe 


The Changes with e 


€and: ec. 

e and 

e and. 

e and o 

éay and a . 


The Changes with 7 


nm and u 
mande...... 
ne and e 
nandy . 
nandv . 


The Changes with t 


cande . 
Pike bata hye 
cand o 
cando . 
cand v 


The Changes with o 


o and ov. 
o and v 
ond wat 
wando . 


The Changes with v 


vandev . 
v and ov . 


The Changes with w 


w and ov 
w and wi 


Cee CeerOee Oa © ere) ES em. @ Peo ve Lief 10:4. '@ 


Oley Ouee Bar o.88 0. eRe fee miss 9p 0 | 8, Oe Of, 6m (e © Ss 


© 0 eue0 e@ oh ec oo @F “eo 


CS or FORGO aC One a dane = ER Reet ne me SB or 


oun er ekre! ele bce” eh ee) Se Iker ee a 6 ye 


ef! Cem SF Fee 


+) e ‘e, «ie Ve 


e Be) 6) ve) is 


OL eprist | oe 


Ce BOW Ol a 


CO a6) MY ehas .8 he 


oe? 6. Pe fe ie Pe 16. ee) 4 REDO Se, ere ¢ 


oye" Ger «ie gre Ce 66 


Contraction and Syncope . 


Diphthongs and Dieresis Mts 
Apheeresis and Prothetic Vowels’... : . . .0. «+. 


Elision 


Crasis 


Consonant-Changes 


(a) Origin and Character of the Consonants . . 
(b) The Insertion of Consonants . 


on 645 Cee: ewe of 6 FS 


Cw ere id Cee een 


ee er rete te 4s (6 let em 6 6, 18 





XXV1 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


PAGE 

(c) The Omission of. Gonsonants =. <.. 2). acer 2 210 

(d). Single‘or, Double Consonants i+.) 1.2. . ee 211 

(e) Assimilation’of Consonants: <'..°.° . «1 yaveeueee. 215 

(f) Interchange and Changing Value of Consonants .... 217 

(9) Aspiration of Consonants. a0. o..) sis name 219 

(i) Vaniable Final Consonants 7.740%.» .. «ae 219 
‘(a)etMetathesis «5... sks. se tere) oe > neekee nn mn ern 22) 
IV. Breathines ™, 3° !. eae ce 221 
(a) Origin of;the Aspirate 9. -areu) a e ee 221 

(b) Increasing De-aspiration (Psilosis) .......... 222 

(c) Variations in the MSS. (Aspiration and Psilosis) . . . . 223 

(d) ‘Transliterated Semitic Words’ > 2a. 7s yeeueuee 220 

(e) The Use of Breathings withp andpp ......... 225 

(f) “Che Question: of ;Atrov< apes 2-2 ee ee 226 

VioMA CCODE coin 22) oP a Ae een ee aie ee 1 gl SoS ok Fite satan 226 
(a)*The Age of Greek Accent. > #20.) see eee, 226 

(b) Significance of Accent in the Kow# .......2.2.~. 228 

(c) Signs of Accént:s--0 2 ye he, eee 229 

(d) Later Developments in Accent. ........=... 229 
(e)eN. Te Pecultarities 10 oo e, erne ne ee 230 

1. ‘Shortening Stem-Vowels) 7-3.) en 230 

2: Neparate: Words xa.. ) oo 2 yee Oe 231 

3. Difference.in Sense. p42 6. ee 232 

4% Enclitics {and -Proclitics)”. 22.2 ee Peo 

5. Proper Namesioct, 26.0 2 kus eee nr ne 235 
6.,Foreign’ Words... wt ake ee ee 235 

VI. Pronunciation inthé Kow) (e052 ee ee 236 
VIT.. Punctuation® ..0....54 20.9. sf ee 241 
(a)""The Paragraph ’y =-. - 20 ein set ee 241 

(b) Sentences). °..e.0 as re, tee eel 242 

(ec) Words: 9s ee ee 243 

(d) ‘The Editor's Prerogative fase mnt eae 244 
Cuaprmer: VII: 'The.Declensions). = 2) =] tein ee 246-302 
I. .The:Stibstantive <5.) 2 wy mentee eee, 246 
1. History of the DeclensionsS#,5 see 246 

2: ‘The Number, of the: Gases sess ee ae ee) 247 

(a) The History of the Forms of the Cases... .... 247 

(b) The Blending of Case-Endings .......... 249 

(c) Origin of .Case-Suiixes eee ae ee 250 

3: Number in:Substantives gee ee ee p45 | 

4. Gender in’Substantivesaeemn sree eee eee) oo 252 


(a) Variations in Genders ec ee eae ok 4 eee 


1h i 


TIT. 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS XXV11 


CO Je IL TILELDTEtOLION OL Uierla NN rem city beg) Ags! vk: 
(c) Variations Due to Heteroclisis and Metaplasm 


eLNe HiTswOL as LeciensiOlNw ae vn). ec 


(a) The Doric Genitive-Ablative Singular a . 
(b) The Attic Genitive-Ablative Singular . 
(c) Vocative in —a of masc. nouns in —77s . 
(d) Words in ~pa and Participles in —via 

(e) The Opposite Tendency to (d) . 

(f) Double Declension . 

(g) Heteroclisis and ATS AD IASI 

(h) Indeclinable Substantives . 


. The Second or o Declension 


(a) The So-Called Attic Second Declenwiane 
(b) Contraction. . nets; Ata Fie Dargah Mina he 
(c) The Vocative 

(d) Heteroclisis and Mefaningin 

(e) The Mixed Declension . 

(f) Proper Names . : 


. The Third Declension (consonants and close vowels « and v) 


(a) The Nominative as Vocative 
(b) The Accusative Singular 

(c) The Accusative Plural 

(d) Peculiarities in the Nominative 
(e) The Genitive-Ablative Forms . 
(f) Contraction . . Hho Ae 
(g) Proper Names . ; 
(h) Heteroclisis and flea niecne ee 


8. Indeclinable Words . 
The Adjective . 


1s 
2. 


The Origin of the Adjective 


Inflection of Adjectives 

(a) Adjectives with One eertitationt 

(b) Adjectives with Two Terminations . 

(c) Adjectives with Three Terminations . 

(d) The Accusative Singular 

(e) Contraction in Adjectives. ..... ar. ie meh 
(iim INOECINAD BSAC IECLIVGd.s hn tality as cae) 6 fe cethe's 


MACOMIDALICON LOMA OICCEIV Cartas or) viens ta! ome re es 


CCC NOLLOSILIVe MPMI Ge kts Gar t . e e ak sete tes 
Ci ORC OUITIAY ACI Gare tia taba ee fees Se heel es : 
(erm Ue PUNCrIAtIVGl ma ucghs cy kes gee ie 


sa iinai Ter gak et iy, Sel Os Tom tin | a GA aa SR gn sn mea 


ib 
2. 


The Origin of Numerals ....... 

Variety among Numerals. . 

(a) Different Functions Re ee Gale Sears can), 
(PE NerOarninniss Mier trish Peas tatiy: ella em se 3 


XXVlll A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


PAGE 

(c)'- The Ordinals 04 28 eae a ahetee ee 283 
(d) Distributives in the N. ee) a eee 284 

(e) .Numeral"Adverbss. <5 < et. sts 20 cece. 284 
IV..-Pronouns 2 .0y er 8s ghee LS ee ee ee 284 
Lyiidea‘of Pronouns: .- 20:7. hee a eae eo ee, 284 
2. Antiquity. of; Pronouns? a,c)! Bi. osu) as ee en, 285 
3: Pronominal Roots... ete ee ee 285 
4\Classification . ..-.°.. .s sesso ee 286 
(a) The Personal Pronouns 4492.00 eee 286 
(b)= The Intensive;Pronotini ge 2a eee 287 
(c) ‘Reflexive: Pronouns) 29525 cece eis ee 287 
(d)- Possessive: Pronouns, ssetyee as oh ee . 288 
(e) Demonstrative Pronouns. .= 1-3. pepe ree oe L2Ou 
(jf): “Relative Pronouns") ree) cee ee 290 
(9) Interrogative! Pronouns 4009), ee eee 291 
(h) Indefinite Pronouns .. . ee eee a 292 
(t) Distributive and Reciprocal Drononne OF ir ie ee 292 
Wise Adverbs. iy «jeu: cce oxo Wh weeps ihc tee taetabe da Nein aa 293 
I. Neglect, of Adverbstiiiaie ar aa. ete ee eee 293 
2. Kormation:of the-AGverd ae ee 294 
(a) Fixed Cases. 9). 4 9 eee en 294 
(1) The-Accusative (ee ee As Pr, 7 294 

(2). The Ablativel? 3.° 2° Rene ee 295 

(3) ‘The: Genitive: (5-255 .ge 2 ee 295 

(4): The bocative 7.2: 7 2) ee eee 295 

(5)" The Instrumental? 7.95522) ee ee 2 

(6), The: Dative... 34.8 ae ee 296 

(b) Suffixes. . .°. ee oe ae 296 
(c) Compound averbe Pee Pe eS 8 PS 296 
(d) Analogy ... ee he ee) Ss 297 
(e) The Comparison ai Adverts Oy eee, 297 

3. Adverbial (Stemse. = oi ccsd) ec eee Cho yy 
(a) iSubstantives <4 "eles. auc pee ee 298 
(b) ~Adjectives:..). 6 4Pgid ee es eos 
(e) Numerals’). 24-1. vc ae ae em ey ee 298 
(d) Pronouns’): ea & i+. yee Cat 20s 
(e) << Verbs o 06) 5 RW cae aoa ee 298 
4. Use of Adverbs: 32 Ves. 2 2 ae eet 299 
(a) Adverbs of Manner, 55.) ae ee 299 
(bv): Adverbs of: Place* Se 427" e ee eee ee care 299 
(cy. Adverbs of Time: “= ee ee ee ee Oe 300 

5. Scope of Adverbs .... . Aare eee 5s) 
(a) Relation between Adverbs Sid erepoaiione ae me) eg 0 
(6) Adverbs and Conjunctiongae se: soa eee 6. 2 ee 

(c) Adverbs and Intensive Particles. ......... 302 


(d) Adverbs and Interjectionse)sayeema 2 ue) ie eee eau 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS XX1X 


PAGE 

GHAPTER MY LiL COMUlatION OL Chen. erp igansect. Be ieee 34, 303-376 
Dee IULCULLYeOL LOG SUDJOCh Mss. 5. cliente eine Pec ets! tes 303 
REN ACULCTOLSIIGSY CLOMetiTs MMe ipl ae 6 oo eS es Shee dala: 303 
(CLAY, CLOLAIICL HN OUT eee. eee ee atte OR Ba 303 

i mVicanine Ole PGE VT ms Rous eat cee tee er eah ACB) 0), 304 

(CI EUre Atel VOMUs Ver ps ru nets bet) eee et Me 2 304 
Hee Deri kine olethOs Vel segs oe e Sea ek. os ak ak eet > 305 
vege Nes survival Ol Ut. VerO0Ss oct « Aacss Pee uo endd o ottawa del lie 306 
COS BOE BGI @ae Sy Sei ee ae ee Oe 306 
(babe: oldestaVerisummuiwes teach le tA a belo 306 

(EGG Pace isaDDCcranCOme a Gtk. art. woe 2 eid 306 
(Nae De Usa te ae Lie 08 VETOES ne) Ws tio sf ve Wek ne ne a She 307 

1. The Second Aorists (active and middle) Ae. Sateen OL 

Om OLOE te LLOSCHtS as aay ees Pete ie sex es wutie ue Old 

Sm OLS HiPECrieCtstate yah ets sb ht. yee ae. oll 

Vee Lne: Wodés a4 aes & hos Ge eee. O20 
(a) The Number of the Moods or iy reaes Ml odi) hor 4on, aoc 

(b) The Distinctions between the Moods ......... 821 

(C\m Rhesitidicativesig .. <3 ek Kem i ree eae 322 
CHEERS UCL LV Caren a tute ate can: wa ee te <x ee 323 

(ec) The Optative ....: . SRE AR ORNL Bend Soe, ch Eyed, 325 

(f) The Imperative ... Fs 2 On 3 ee ee ee 327 

1. The Non-Thematic Seth Ste ome TO oS ee ers 7-7 & 

Dee Hey LNeniabic, Stamm btee elisa Gol tee- a. 327 

Seer il Ker baer RINE AE-otits e ReAE AI nigh bein O25 

4. The Sufix -—rw. . . oS) Gs, vy, Ud ee See Oe 328 

5. The Old Injunctive Raed Garrat Wag aoe Wh. 5 a OLD 

Ga Ornis eo alee ass hin ee, Pal eats ol ee Che eas: 329 

(eee Hes Poria ai—cove a) fe a.) ke a se ey 4) 
SMITH UMCLEOU mame te Eee ce S tt wage, here te pel ge tc ess 329 

ee PTOI TONS ai ase ram it ace Be he ge, lec ae ew OOO 

TO ericctal mm pera tiv escm wie: oe ah aaa weet og chiA 330 

Pie Reni NTAstleslTesen sa, uee en oik. sp heir 10 iea Au? aocle 330 

Pe CCUM OCULIOUS bimini ibe Ute eter eae Baus! beds 330 

ieee TeV GOlCld mene eee Or BeBe a teem he fey 330 
(jae ransitiverandelntransitivesturs, Yo Nee. ae eS 330 

ime LGM Anon Olen OICOS arte Satett sh et ee) wt ek Pee 331 

(fe Lhe nelative Age Olithe VOICES. 6.6 tee: ow perge os oh 332 

(d) The So-Called ‘‘Deponent” Verbs .......... 382 

(e) The Passive Supplanting the Middle ......... 333 
CmeeUeLE crsOne AUNCINGS » gets isy aes eel oA st at a. 335 

(QD oe AINSI OES 2 87 Se aie a ee ees ea 335 


Gage AW oye lene ah ee Way asW Arey Ee en eres ahh Cee at Sn eee 309 


XXX 


VIL. 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(4)" The Middle Endings 393.97). (i272) geen een eee 
(7) -PasstveeEindimgss 72/.°2) 2.5, dope: Use ee eae, 
(kK) “Contract Verbs” "1-6 tela v0 oe ee 


he Wenses oo 4. fee fe a ea a, Ge 
(a) The*lerm “Tense; «.. 4.) - oe a ee aes 
(6) -Gonfusion in Names ?.. .@20¢0.iien es eee 
(c) ~The Verb=Root. 0 tees She ce see 
(dq). The Aorist Tense “20. -. 20>. sues en ee 


(e) <The: Present-Tense xv.0'i-. 0s. Sane ee a. 
. The Root Class. Si .0 5. ssc hae 
. The Non-Thematic Reduplicated Present. .... . 
. The Non-Thematic Present with —-va— and —vv- 
. The Simple, Thematic Present... > 2 Saas eee. 
. The Reduplicated Thematic Present ........ 
. Lhe ‘Thematic Present with: suiixs 9. oan 
(a) The ziclass: 0 
(8) The‘y tlass” 0 5. 2. in see ee ee 
(y) “The ox class). 0: W464 cosc) 7 ee 
(6)2The'r.class*, <5) tin ses kee ee ee 
(e)'. The 6. class.) 30 0 Ses 


(f) “The Future ‘Tense. «5-2-0 cue eee 


(g). The.Perfect: Tenses 0. ee ee 
« The ‘Namé sy Yeu. a oe Se ee 
The, Original Perfect: 5:05) eee iar Se Ue 
5, The. «Perfect: ...-3. * 20.5 Sat ee ee 
The Aspirated Perfects 7.y a0 cuesnee cn eae 
Middle. and, Passive: Formse..72) =) ee ee 
The Decay of the Perfect Forms. - . .. 1... .. 
The Perfect in the Subjunctive, Optative, iwaayaws 
The Perfect Indicative’ .7 4. *.2 3 ee 
. 2 in Perfect Middle and Passive and Aorist Passive 


(h) sReduplication® 23. 25ers 
1: Primitive Se: 4 92 ee ee ee 
2. Both Nouns and Nerbs cy So! Bn eects at ai a eam 
3. In Three Tenses in Verbs. ........-... 
4. Three Methods in Reduplication ......... 
5. Reduplication in the; Perlects earn eee 


(i). Augment:<..) fs din eee ee ee 2 
1. The Origin of Augmentaa see tee ee. 
2.° Where Found: ee tevea ee eee ee 
3. Lhe, Purpose of AUugmentaeret: 1 ee eee, or 

4. The SyllabictAugment seen ene eee es ae 

5 

6 

7 


Oor WN eR 


OO NO TR Oo No 


. The Temporal Avgment weet eee a tw | ae 


. Compound Verbs ese ae lay OA 45 i a 


.. Double-Augment: >= 2) einstein: ce) ee 


“NII; -The:Infinitives 5 See eae ec ae es, eee 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS XXXI 

PAGH 

De Xe Caee lH OFMNS neo) oe mais en oad Te. he ie 368 

Om ILOaV OCG AUGE LeDBG enero alee hi ous Mein |B, 369 
OE CPsO rials NOLES ered 4 Sets Mia Nis Wars x= Sy ale tan es 370 

Om ati voor OCHhVe IN MONM: cm hk, eee) 4, 6 Se eee 370 

Gon Uheseresence of tne:Arucleyaie wie we Testing, ses) 371 

7. The Disappearance of the Infinitive. ......... 371 

| Soe OTOL Nate OTIS Meee ee ees I go te i at 371 
VG EMG aH 0) es Sie ae a en ede oe 371 
Tee USerN Le seme para ite ea MaKe Melee sa Ts. s on 371 

enV CLORICICCUIVES PM foe gl niawih betray eee hot 372 

CU LTUCHG EL UIClLCnamecsec aus ig or tart. Shaikh Tee 8s 373 

A LUS CON OrastiCeu coe ence. soo sy Gata SOMA Ae 4: 6. 374 
BAR LRU as oN ALR ee ae. 377-1208 

Cuaprer IX. The Meaning of Syntax ............ 379-389 
I. Backwardness in the Study of Syntax .......... ' 379 
Ti aeNews bestamenty Limitations. \; 1.06. .6 iettess dene cas 381 
bie .ecentrad Vance py. Delbrickws is) | owas eh ietoes, 383 
DV wee DEE TOVINCE OUD YULAK sy. 1sin ee 2 pileeanviL ete fs) os: 384 
MTP USAVYOLG. IVINGAX a, wt Rzio ns cee ts aiewedbaiied ce) cs 384 

CB DCODEIOL SY NCAX fm eet IE), 9 oc etamenbe dat 1. £63 c2 385 

(c) Construction of Words and Clauses. ......... 385 

LA VEEUISLOLICAMOVOULK: Gf eae ceeereiD iin cree aya wtebis. (a) .. \s 386 
PeyeRLTrerUlsriticd wus fh eerie hel) ieee TR Els, 386 

Vem ner cunod ofthis Graninar si cite Otel. Ts). 387 
LEVEL TING DIGS, NOs INCSoa aiid ast eisal tn eimurel’s eek db steele! ss 387 

(Oe Ee orig ial Ie TINICAN COm ne Onde Gh tole ha xs cook > se 387 

Ce me OLI ANG EIN C HON mie tig ata i Sara! is vey E's! 387 

MDI SVCIODMICN ares cin eh eget Ae suck hc eb 388 

Ha) UGA © a glo eek ce Ae es gine cn Me an I eae ea a 388 

CR MMECLUSIA IOI Ie ii sitie cs eden ie ec. tease Wes cn! dose 3 389 

RO CURIIUR Oless VUNG ett rn ey Bette ke ace ae ie TGS. es 389 
CHaprer X. TheSentence ...... WE hea 390-445 
PeeU eR SCULCOUCCLANC OV ILLAX. fa amine, tc mediten i let oh me ta 390 
Die ne mencence: Weunede mut, tamer setae ntet ft) eM Ee 390 
PBC OMIPiexs@OncentiOn, miageestamei kos Se te Seas ae 390 

Pee WOSUSAeNT IAL POrismaee wert ey ret es ees a el zis 390 
()One-Membered:Sentencess f° f' 8-2 2. 391 
PDmiUinica) wcntendeweus toe ae ih She Geo. 391 
femmonly Predicate; .. 2) 4 os wn hs RC a ty 391 
Gomonly.aubject- 4 ss a Oar ROSY ARE B98 
(gavero noutne-.Only Predicate “same: doe. a. 394 


XXXIl 


Tite 


WITT: 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(h) Copula not Necessary oe Ce 
(i) The Two Radiating Foci of the Sentence ...... 
(j) Varieties of the Simple Sentence . . 


The Expansion of the Subject . 
(a) Idea-Words and Form-Words 
(b)- Concordtand*Government 599 (7. <0. 0 en eee 


(c) ‘The:Group- around the Subject] === (7 te. 9) eens 
1..Subordinate:\Clause, 5-2-4227." 42 oe 
we With the Article = .287 4 2 "s0 ee 
“EhG AGVERD ss! hoe sce Boat ee eee rot 
« Lhe Adjectives...- 2: sate. S82 5a ee 
The: Substantive’ sce ue, 6s ek we 
(a) By an obliquetense hel) a.0.-k.. . queen eee ; 
(8) Apposition <.204. 2c). as 49s he, oe Cee ee 


or Rm W bo 


The Expansion/of the Predicate.) +) = See ee 
(a) Predicate in Wider Sense .... . 

(b) The Infinitive and the Participle . : 
(c) The Relation between the Predicate and Substant tives 
(d) The Pronoun Slt ae eee he 

(e)sAdiettiveseee wees ce eo oe a ak 

(f) sThervAdverbi. = tae. 3) 5 ea eee ; 

(g) Prepositions . EAS 

(h) Negative Particles ot and uy . . . 

(t) Subordinate Clauses 

(7) Apposition with the Predicate aia Lssiee Amplinentete ; 


Subordinate Centres in the Sentence. ........ 


~ Concord inePerson-s <.5. 82 be 2 Sn kee 


VII. 


Concord. invNumber’ | *%. 20) 2 2 2230 2 eee 


(a) Subject'and Predicate 22) .8. 4... ee in 
~ Lwo Conflicting Principles™. c, 1) ca eee 
. Neuter Plural and Singular Verb . 

. Collective Substantives . : 

> The: Pindarie: Construction —2 20 2 ee 
Singular’ Verb with First Subject 2. ssa ae 
~) Lhe Literary, Plural; =. 20> tie ee 
(6) Substantive’and Adjective... .1,.. 2 ieee ce 
(c) Representative Singular. 2 .)50.5. see 


aon PWN 


(d) Idiomatic Pluraliin Nouns. <pis0.0 fe) eet 
(e) Idiomatic Smgular in Nouns.) 2%.) eee eee te 
(f) Special Instances. 4%... G.. ive tee Oh. 
Concord in Gender, 7.3 23 5,2. 3) ee. Se 


(a4) Fluctuations in.Gendér) =. -.. 5, aeons 2) ee 
(bo) The Neuter Singular: ki." sy eee ee” fe ee 


IX 


».@ F 


Ok 


(c) 
(d) 
(e) 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Explanatory 6 éorw and rotr’éorw . . . .. 
TIN SEET TES wg WTO) LSB oa ena Me ele DM Bin 
EG CCV COMMENT at Sa Na ee rare tee ay 


ReONCOLU LIMO DSC Merce use Ore ease eek! ros bene. g 


(a) 
(0) 
(c) 
(d) 


(e) The Absolute Use of the Cases einer patie ab- 


XU ICCELY Comment om eiron Metab a ta eoh gen ls 
ATIC) DICHMME ane etree) Suareh tc - ce eel ase. Be tSe s 
The Book of Revelation . iY ¥ 

Other Peculiarities in Apposition . 


lative and accusative) . 


Position of Words in the Sentence. ...... 


(a) 
(b) 
(c) 


(k) 


CPeCOOTH TOMS Les tea eis cobs ene bic 
Predicate often First . . 

Emphasis . Shit fe aaa 

The Minor Words in a Benen , 

Euphony and Rhythm 

Prolepsis 

ELV SCeLOneC TOUT OU meee arenas 2 anc ui tates. 
Li erin COG mime Se Aare kes Gono gab. wc. Cul; Kx 
Postpositives uae 

Fluctuating Words . . 


XXXIil 


CF 5€ le 6s Ae 


. . . . 


Ce ee 4! e . 6 


ies? “or we ya 


The Order of Clauses in Choeund Sanibiiess - 8 OY ee 


SOOT DOU DU SELUCN CER Pelee Cotte? Net mes Meas 


(a) 
(0) 
(c) 
(d) 


Two Kinds of Sentences .. . pee ee 
Two Kinds of Compound Bette cee “yg hah 
BATS UACLIC MOC LEN CES © sist a: ve eltend ss Pateteld esas 
Hypotactic Sentences . 


Connection in Sentences 


(a) 
(0) 


Single Words 

Clauses . . , 
1. Paratactic Shaaedaapees ; 
2. Hypotactic Sentences 


erase’ Gen 46 ‘o 


eo a her ane? |e &,. ¢ 


. . 


3. The Infinitive and enol as RConmeci ce 


Two Kinds of Style. : 
iehesParenthesisv.2 2 4... 


Anacoluthon . . 

1. The Suspended Subiect 

2. Digression : 

3. The Participle in nacoluths 


4, Asyndeton Due to Absence of 6€ and ANd Ae 


Oratio: Variata ... . . . ee ot 
1. Distinction from Rreeninihone SER Ror. 


AeeIGLerOPenCOUSs OLTUCctUTe . +. . 4 ees tt 


ety em 0s OES: 


XXX1V A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


> Ghat: 


CHAPTER XI. The Gace 
Te 


II. 


LL: 


IV. 


VE 


3. Participles in Oratio Variata sa) soe 
4. Exchange of Direct and Indirect Discourse . 


(g) Connection between Separate Sentences. . 
(h) Connection between Paragraphs .... . 


Borecast™ of 448 26 th see ie eee 


History of the Interpretation of the Greek Cases 


(a) Confusion . j ee 
(b) Bopp’s Contibuten Rages oe AL 2 


(Cle Modern-Usagets 7: =.) san se ere 

(d), Green’s: Glassification: <7 sot a ee eee 
(e) Syncretism of the Cases. 2... . 0. 
(f{) Freedom un: Use of. Casen = = fy eres 


The Purpose. ofthe: Gases] se.) eee 
(a) Aristotle's Usage: 5) 9.) ic. ee 


(b) Word-Relations 


© | OO Re TAS? Le) . Ce pvemne 


eee Ut Lease Se 


. . . . 


444 


.... 446-543 


. . 


. . 


Cee rt ae ey 


The Encroachment of Prepositions on the Cases . 


(a) The Reason . 


(b) No “Governing” of Cnet oh ee a ee 


(c) Not Used Indifferently 

(d) Original Use with Local Cases . 

(e) Increasing Use of Prepositions . . . 
(f) Distinction Preserved in the N. T. . 


The Distinctive Idea of Each of the Cases . . 
(a) Fundamental Idea . . . . Sky ee 
(b) Cases not Used for One anes ‘anes ae 
(c) Vitality. of, Gase-ldes 2a eee 
(d) The Historical Development of the Cases . 
(e) The Method of thisGrammar ...... 


The Nominative, Case fy .05 3) 
(a)s Not the Oldest: Case #0) 2 regen nee 
(6) Reason for the;Cases 9. eee ure Sy hes 


(c) Predicate Nominative ..... 
(d) Sometimes Unaltered . . . . 
(e) The Nominative Absolute . 


(f) The Parenthetic Nominative ...... 
(9) In Exclamations 67s ae eee ee 
(h) Used as*Vocktivel: secre eee cs cee 


The. Vocative. ase eee te ee 


(a) Nature of the Vocative . . . 


Co i ) 


. . . . 


7s. i.e .e 


Ce ee ee 


. . . 


. . . . 


446 
446 
446 
447 
447 
448 
448 


449 
449 
449 


450 
450 
450 
450 
451 
451 
452 


453 
453 
454 
454 
454 
456 


456 
456 
457 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
461 


461 
461 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW 
TESTAMENT IN THE LIGHT OF 
HISTORICAL RESEARCH 


BOOKS BY PROF. A. T. ROBERTSON 


CriticaL Norres to Broapus’ HarMoNny OF THE Gos- 
PELS. Eighth Edition ; 

Lire AND LETTERS OF JOHN A. Broapus. Popular Edition 

TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING Gop THE FATHER. 
Teaching of Jesus Series 

THE STUDENT’S CHRONOLOGICAL NEW TESTAMENT 

KEYWORDS IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS 

SyLuaBus FoR New TESTAMENT Strupy.: Fourth Edition 

Epocus IN THE Lire or Jesus. Popular Edition 

A Sort GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 
Fourth Edition. Italian, German, French, Dutch trans- 
lations 

Epocus IN THE Lire oF Pauu. Popular Edition 

CoMMENTARY ON Marruew. Bible for Home and School 


JOHN THE Loyau. Popular Edition 
THe Guory oF THE Ministry. Third Edition 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEw TESTAMENT IN THE 
Licut oF HistroricaL ResearcuH. Third Edition 


PRACTICAL AND SocriAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY: THE 
WISDOM OF JAMES. Second Edition 

STUDIES IN THE NEW TrEsTAMENT. Many Editions 

THe DIvINIrTy OF CHRIST IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
Second Edition 

Paut’s Joy IN Curist: STUDIES IN PHiuippIANs. Sec. Ed. 

Maxine Goop In THE MInistry: A SKETCH OF JOHN 
Mark. Second Edition 

THe New CIrizENSHIP 

‘Tue PuHarisEES AND Jesus. The Stone Lectures for 
1915-1916. In press 

Srupies IN Marx’s GospEL 





VII. 


ViLDiS 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


COE ALIO US: LDCVICES arememe Pe th canenree rk yeas, 4. en 3 
(Clip UserOl orwith thes ocativer. hut. Gos Ss. 
(d) Adjectives Used with the Vocative ....... 
(GmeATDOsILION tothe, VOGALIVG! 40. (2 sent ee ees 
Ui mVOCAblyanlehTediCatG tel. Vallee wisn Sup eee ew. 
(g) The Article with the Vocative.; 2 24. .%... .. 


PURGE CCUBAULVGLWOCO rm Gur eats baie Cueshe Vee, 
(GEL NGsNAMC 2 Wan ony sean N eis ty FS Pe ae 
(b) Age and History . eM ie 

(c) The Meaning of the ee. Bip tho tae 

(d) With Verbs of Motion 

(e) Extent of Space... . 

(f) Extent of Time ‘ 

(g) With Transitive Verbs . 

(h) The Cognate Accusative 

(t) Double Accusative . 

(j) With Passive Verbs 

(k) The Adverbial Accusative 

(l) The Accusative by Antiptosis . 

(m) The Accusative by Inverse Attraction 

(n) The Accusative with the Infinitive . 

(0) The Accusative Absolute . 

(p) The Accusative with Prepositions 


Mibererenturvaw Tue) *Gasen CP eo ate eee 8 
(a) Two Cases with One Form 
(b) Name Incorrect 
(c) The Specifying Case 
(d) The Local Use. . 
(e) The Temporal Use . 33 Oe ere 
(f) With Substantives .. . oa 
1. The Possessive Genie 2 
. Attributive Genitive 
. The Predicate Genitive 
Apposition or Definition . 
The Subjective Genitive . 
The Objective Genitive 
. Genitive of Relationship . 
. Partitive Genitive : : 
. The Position of the Coie : 
10. Concatenation of Genitives 
(g) The Genitive with Adjectives 
(h) The Genitive with Adverbs and Bemeeaitinnd 
(i) The Genitive with Verbs 


DOONAN PR wD 


XXXV1 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


IX. 


ol 


1 


. Verbs of Ruling : 
. Verbs of Buying, Selling, Bene Worehy of . 
. Verbs of Accusing and Condemning . ; 
. Genitive Due to Prepositions in Gomposrion es 
0. 


“Very Common 7 ase ee eee are te re oe 
. Fading Distinction from.Accusative. ....... 
. Verbs of Sensation 
. Verbs of Emotion . 


Cp Peel) Fe “Ge eve Te” Pee? ee OO @ 
i eee eo ae ee 


Verbs of Sharing, Periekine ang iting a eee 


> 6 Mee ee ce 


Attraction of the Relative . . 


Oe Se ee ewe Oe 1e 6 


(7) “The Genitive ofthecininitive ss set aee = ere. 
(ky “The Genitive Absolute tyes eee ae ee, ns 


The-Ablative'Gase: oe aeSe eae enero! 
(a). The Name6? cet A eee ee 
(6) ‘The Meaning: ©2025 i eee aot ee re 


(c) 
(d) 
(e) 
(f) 


Rare with Substantives . 


ioe ee eR et a Ree ee ery ae i eg 


The Ablative with Adjectives’ o.. as). uu: 
The Ablativé-with Prepositions 7a ee eee 


The Ablative with Verbs 


IOo rr WNW rH 


Ce i are tee A Cet ee ee ee | 


. Verbs of Departure and Removal . ........ 


. Verbs of Ceasing, Abstaining 


es “30> 53s Ge “ie 7s ey |e 


. Verbs of Missing, Lacking, Despairing ...... . 
.. Verbs:of. Ditiering? Excellinigaresapaceee eee 
. Verbs of Asking and Hearing iysn ae ee 
:\Verbs with the Partitive Ideal] =) a eee 
. Attraction of the Relative™.. = 2a: ease. 


‘The Locative Cases) (2) ya) ee 


(a) The Name Locative. 


(b) The Significance of the Licentive BP ae IME Se Aes en 
(c).- Place Go nce Bek ee ee 
(dye Limne gee ee eee 5.5 hay eat a oe ers Be oS 
(e) Locative with uvujeniees RN Pee 2 a 


(f) Locative with Verbs 


6a AS Re Tipe Serete (eee ce Jee aig 6 « 6f —® 


(9) The Locative with Substantives tes ase eee eee 
(h) The Locative with Prepositions. ........... 


(i) The Pregnant Construction of the Locative ...... 


The Instrumental Case. . . . 


7 ee 0, 2 eee sete se 6 fa! Ue. Ete 


(a) ‘The: Term: Instrumental iar eee ee ee 
(6): Syncretistic?:; -2 Uae ae ae ee 

(c) Place . 

(d) Time . eS 

(e) The Weenie: ties iation ‘ <a ee 
(f) With Words of Likeness and fica Se a bcs: 
(g) “Manner; «22 25 eee ee 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS XXXV11 

PAGE 

(ome OETea lon DiterenCce ire fant Sune Geiee ict oe bee 532 

RRS Sean ree er ere ei Sy ase ay Bee ayo tet “oe! gh a 532 

Cia VCH US enn Meas rate be ke sine eH eke ek) Sha wo 532 
CMV UURE LOD OSILIONS GE hse tins 6 it, ela? ol a 6S 534 
Pali mee Cos Auver, Tila): scree mine ton a At Se a ee 535 
(UPR) PS NTOREIRTET Seo 0S Cones GE ACen a ee Dad 

(Dae lnveneca ve Ol COC ALIVed dee ecg te eo 8 ee tele. es 535 

(Gym NesLOCa OLLbesDALVOR mses lO. uo) co eee ha em 536 

(d) The Dative with Substantives ........2.4.2.. 536 

Cem WIILOSATITCOLIVGS peeees airtime taht mee ies IR ee 537 

(77 UneACVerps ANGE reposltionss \ chs eer me Bk eo Se 537 

(Gm VILOS Versa nec wal ace wtrtbtamsrwa 4: Wt rurqedte wig’ Lgl S 538 

1. Indirect Object etn Pee a Rt sy os Sg 538 

2. Dativus Commodi vel Ticcrnrind: (Ethical) el ae 538 

SOIT ECELC CCU MemE SSR eres oi Oe bs ms aus 539 

4. The Dative with Trreneative Verbs 541 

5. Possession. ... . ; 541 

6. Infinitive as Final Dae AU AE TS ea 541 

7. The Dative of the Agent . LAs Co ae Pe Gea 542 

8. The Dative because of the Preposition . ...... 542 

Cia meAtuDIeOUseieernDles src? yn re tees ve te ke 543 
eres Poe AU Ver Ode ie es rcs ein ee ee “Sk 544-552 
DES DECIAIROIIICUtCc eet rae emt ke FSR)... 544 
fDenatirenithera verb sieved 2 er el oy 544 

(b) The Narrower Sense of Adverb '.. ......... 544 
LICVETOSUWiLiTeV eT Dae tere pene el fe 545 
MU EeCInImONest WsGe. ) sels Geena ay se 545 

(b) N. T. Usage . Le ASA a Lp Ss Bs LASS eee ey a 545 

(c) Predicative Uses with yivoua and eivi. . 2. 1 ww 545 

(d) With éxw Goh. oh Sacer AS by age RRR ald cae a a 546 

WS AWG A USES ATA ao RN A) os aha Te a 546 

Pm SOOReTeIMWON TO GOCAV ETD Le sit. fe sek eC ee a Ns 546 

III. Adverbs Used with Other Adverbs. ........... 546 
HIVPEPACIVIETOSIWILTEACIECtLVCS (hoe) fey) es eee we se ew 546 
NEP ATIVOCrDS WIL OUDStANUVCS for vulelch chs «ey ee! oe) 0s ce ts 547 
Vimacverbs (rested as SUDStARUVES 6 <b G@ eyle ee ek hs 547 
Vil eee Crernantau senreAt yer pisnw: fs 2. sce alps ea l's) Gove ss 548 
Vid Aer Depa Nl aris OM Dty Gs mia. ue ey ca sice pale lel ee) 548 
IX. The Adverb Distinguished from the Adjective. ...... 549 
(a) Different Meaning ERS SPORE R Dye tas eg iste e | ae 549 

(b) Difference in Greek and English Idiom PTC ek See 549 


XXXVI 


»€ 


CHAPTER 
th, 


Ty 


Ine 


Le 


VI. 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Adverbial Phrases2, °“s 6 7 ge ae ee ee ee. 
(a) IncipientsAdverbs rere: ae et ee 
(b) Prepositional) Phrasesesas waa; ime meee ee 


(c) “Participles, 5.52 35 eee ke ee 
(d) The Verb Used Rovere Leg, We eG Ott 


OUI, Prepositions, |= argc ee ieee ee 


The‘ Name yi)... ao eee ee. 
(a) ‘Some Postpositiy6 yaaa eee 
(6) Not Originally, Used with) V erbss 
(c) Explanation: > 2. cee meee wenn nee Sa eee. st. 
The Originiof Prepositions 45.1000 ane ae ee 
(a) Originally Adverbso. 9) geuuee ee 
(b) Reason for Use of Prepositions. ......... 
(c)) Varying Historys .4 2%. ee ee ee 


Growth in the Use‘of Prepositions, 06. ne eee 


(a) Once No Prepositions . 


(b) The Prepositions Still Used as Neresiae in Nee 
(c) Decreasing Use as Adverbs after Homer ..... 


(d) Semitic Influence in iN: [oe 


(e) In. Modern. Greeks. yan ee 


Prepositions in Composition with Verbs ...... 


(a) (Not the Main Function (9a ee 
(b); Preposition-Alone 9). 2) eee ee 


(c) Increasing Use . 

(d) Repetition after Verb . : 

(e) Different Preposition after Verb 

(f) Second Preposition Not Necessary . : 
(g) Effect of Preposition on Meaning of the Verb 
(h) Dropping the Preposition with Second Verb . 
(z) Intensive or Perfective 

(7) Double Compounds 


Repetition and Variation of Prepositions . 
(a) Same Preposition with Different Cases 
(b) Repetition with Several Nouns . 

(c) Repetition with the Relative 

(d) Condensation by Variation 


The Functions of Prepositions with Cases . 
(a) The Case before Prepositions. 

(b) Notion of Dimension . dhe 

(c) Original Force of the Case. . . 


ip soue 


VII. 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


(d) The Ground-Meaning of the Preposition ...... 
(e) The Oblique Cases Alone with Prepositions ..... 
CmOTIPID aie LCCUON) meyer ten ee Gla suena me vs 


(g) No Adequate Division by Cases 


Ce ICU AiO CLLCTN cick come ar ee gy heed: te Mies Nes, gg 


1. Those with One Case 

2. Those with Two Cases . . 
3. Those with Three Cases 

4. Possibly Four with ézi . 


(1) Each Prepositionina Case ....... 


Proper Prepositions in the N. T. 
(Over APUMMPAES UE e Wd Omak oe othe >. 
(DMAP Rats Ge Re yr See Pel tie 


UA) FAN ee ym ae a ence 

: Orginal Bieiitance 

. Meaning ‘ Back’ cee es Abe, Saket 
. “Translation-Hebraism”’ in ¢oBetcOar ard. 
. Comparison with é . 

. Comparison with wap . 

. Compared with iré . . 


_ OorPwWNnNneH 


= 
Rg 


(d) eas, oe eee 
. The Root-Idea . : 

‘By Twos’ or ‘ Between’ 

. ‘Passing Between’ or erhreete 
. ‘Because of’ . 


ie] mown 


~ 


(e) ee a a Oe ne ether et. | 
. Old Use of & with Accusative or Locative . 
. ’Ev Older than eis . 

Place . : 

Expressions of thar: 

‘Among’ 


As a Dative? . ; ; 

Accompanying Gienmetates 
‘Amounting to,’ ‘Occasion,’ ‘Sphere’ 
MeINSULUINEN ale BCLOL ere ihre N. iho eee lesa ws 


SP AED AE tac fee 


= 
coh le 


. Original Static Use . ee Meat t.. 
Vint erOacols WLOWON ates eek. 
With Expressions of Time . 
. Like a Dative 
Aim or Purpose 
. Predicative Use ; ; ; 
. Compared with ézi, mapa ma T pOs 
(9) ’Ex (éé) 
1. Meaning . 


2. In Cannan Le eC alk Udy UR A SO end ak 


‘In the Case aw ‘in the Person of’ or simply ‘in’ 


xl A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(h) 


() 


(7) 


(k) 


(7) 


(m) 


Time 3s ok AS Se seca caiey Beem ha a Bie ee amis ¢ tates rs 
Pielke i) amet as dro a a ey ere 
OTIgtiy OF SOURCE: i). sine eee ee were ts 15) sie 
..Cause or Occasion 7. ee en tee 
~ Lhe Partitives Use of/éc eae eens ee. 
"Ex and. ey. G4 Sasi eee”, 


"Bart ee ee See ee CS, og 
; Ground-Meaning’) 36 v2 see ee eee, 
In’'Composition in the N= late eee. 
. Krequency: iN 7 Ua 2)0. oe ee ee. 
With the: Accusative: 79 ce ee. 
: With the: Genitiver: es. te eee ee ee 
. With the-Locatives = leo... oc ee eee. 
The True-Dative: 244 ti ee se es 


O ONDA AP 


ee. eS -@ > ve 8) Fel 18, 6) 8) 8) Pree ren 6) ee hee emo 6. |e 


. Distributive Sense... 202-3". ae 
» Karéin Composition 9: 2 vn te ee ee 
. With the Ablatives (50) -.20 29 er 
. With the Genitive.) 20) 2200. eee 
; With the Accusative’) -72.0. 9 <0.) e ae) ae ee ees 


OnkRWNHE RR NOahwhre 
“ 
R~ 


. In Composition.” 9 2). in) 5st eer 
, Compared with ciys.. 2.00.) a ee 
Loss ‘of ‘the LocativetUse” (1). <9). ae 
With the: Genitive: /.. 2... 
With the Acctsative: i.) ee re 


eee ce 


11) rar emer tenant nO lA el og a. Ee 
Significance . w/e By Sil el ies 
“(Compared:with wpés’ 7.) 29. ee 
In-Composition: 3.9) 5). Soe 
With the: Lotative s 20). .2 ape en 

. With the Ablative i) 0 pose ce ees ee eg oe 
. With'the Accusative 2:0... ee ee ee 


€pl. ad Av ee WE ee oy RB ee ee re 
. The Root-Meaning:\757> eee ee 
. In Composition MPRA eee Lt ot ae 
. Originally Hour,Cases: Used. tj .es-umm een aren) 
. With the Ablatives.. 0) eee ee 
.” With the Genitives 2%, (on eee ee 
; With the Accusative (2) 32) ee eee see 


Tp eens: vee Get oe Ay, ee ec 
1): The Original Meaning | tee 
2. In Composition © 2 Sel ae Ape Peay she ol 5 RS De ele 
3. The Cases: Used‘ with apd) s. een ne. eee 
4, Place 


DoPWNE yy OArPWN HE 


ee, ee Ce we, ee I el PY hs i Cee oar ee Wey Wa Pre oe 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS xli 


PAGE 
DELI G Mee es Te Cil on Sorin Gor staes se Rieti: G8 's Loe a ao PAL 
Gap DClIOlC Venema ices CREM ay neh lil spe yee? O22 


(n)MIlpés* i. ER reais ee cetatliom st Ser ete sd) oes) -« > «O22 
. The Meanings hs, on CER AN SORT MCU Po tea) bil Une le RS 8 9? 
. In Composition ... HRC gh tne te) Sa | Reed Fie 6-235 
. Originally with Five Canes Mee Tey Eats.) cats to 
EL DCEA DICtiVCete Pann toug we Pechec cee ht... . 623 
PV ILD ier LOCalIVOrambalete tah ie eet hes 624 
Oey tiene eh CCUSAUIVE fn hon eh. on eee eee he te a, OSS 


(OyaOy ae, cee deer eee te Thar ee by eh LO 
Leche Nemminee Nt, Led SE, Rata reas A io 00 oe pire A ane 0 6 
ee IO LOL ae CME eee rt heer. We ear Lv omery ye ODT 
DMS IT USL IOA ere Gua ity ct ! ee et ie (Ole 
re NOU OOD ere ere Ne eet. OCs ees So 628 


GOR ig See Bee Rey ALG leche ods ta tere asl o eeteiyess,.. O20 
1. The Meanine: ee ee are, tite O20 
eens OU Mme etn wee fee ee ee ene O29 
me VR ILICCreDIGLV eum ne er le ee ee Be a a el G29 
4. With Ablative ... ee eee tee Sarat oe (O80 
DMCC eA CCUSNIIVEIWILD UTED Ue. sk de ew ss es | * O32 


(Q)ee Croce nk PUNT Sane ants ein hte x, OOO 
1. The Origine! Renee 2 UN gal g. OF Ute ye hm ne a RL 6 7 
Beet COMpPOSICION a. ee een eee Tw), CoG 
i The Cases Once Used eres UROPteee fire et kek," OOF 

SMELL CEACCURSIIVG? 9a Seo yg ame. te we es ©6635 
MVM Bist OIdtl Verma sta tal ewes ee ee. «6685 


oP WN FR 


Wal eel nemeAverolalo a hrepositiOonss 42 8, i. is. 05 oe 2) ye ws 686 
Aree MT ea eh eee se A oe Ro” a (OBS 
GWIESD one lan (A AOS Be? Se Re aed ky ne ay One a 9S 
BAU KOl <a ar rare: Meer tae Pe aay UR rid ie es | OOS 
CADET Cit an tee aa ete a are net GRR Ae a, 688 
WASEDA nt ta) Oa A sa OR ns Ecce ees Me a ta. «3 689 
cA rej meee ee ren WN ee eee) Baw Me Oe wes a % 639 
cAnpis vere een a. fea ets ieee oe ts 2 G39 
i) ree oe eek, tig ts Sree h feta O89 
tC ne eer ere Tee ETO ayer. hs» ¢ 640 
Li Mer DOO UC Eee rte ates tee abe began a cic ae.) 3 O40 
ieee tierra eee a ee wR Ete) Ges ies . O40 
1 ee OC ET LOU mee ee eee wi Sa. A rl ee ccstals O40 
Lome reknt eee eet ones seers we es OAL 
Ae Der Osten Gee enn de le ahr eames vs i sl ay OAT 
eI DCON On eee eee ore hoe etre oe i ks en OAT 
Wa, SADR oe 2 eke a Re OR ede a a 622 
eel ect eC e yee ean Gums me a G42 
LAR ee OM Re Ter ite Sia h ioe. ye aad eres 642 
Ti amet eke oun meee et ee eer sul oo es to hist kr, O42 
at ee eee ee eter ee Se, Bete ee. B42 
DC ee ee ede 1, Me a te cee ere. «G48 
Apevia ee ae Meer ae tat wed bal TS) O49 


SSP Ea TE ad aS Ah 


xlii 


CHAPTER 
it 

Ee 

IIT. 


Ly; 


VII. 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


23. -Karevorioy:. ©...) 5. +s 0 vr tie ye eee ee ae 
24; e Kughdbey... a6 we A ee Soy por ee 
VASP CT ON ae ee PM rte Pee We Pky ha Go 
26. Meéoor . 

27. Meraév Ey a At 

DO NLEN DU ss 5-) ig! wehbe) PA Oe 

29. "“Omcbev . 

30. ’Oriow 

31. ’Ove 

32. Ilapa-rAnovor . 

Sos Llap-exros* Gogo. i ee lee 
34. Ilépar . 

oo. TlAnv . 

36. IAnctor . 

37. ‘Trep-avw 

38. ‘Trep-exevva 

39. ‘Yaep-ex-repicood . 

40. ‘Y2o-KaTw 

41. Xap . 


42.0 Xupls co ho ee eee ee ee 


Compound Prepositions < 02)... eee 
Prepositional Circumlocutions . 

(a) Meoor . 

(b) "Ovopa 

(c) Ilpdcwzov 

(d) Tropa . 

(e) Xeip 


XIV. Adjectives 
Origin of Adjectives . 


The Adjectival or Appositional Use of the Substantive . 


The Adjective as Substantive . 

(a) Any Gender . : 

(b) With Masculine eee 

(c) With Feminine Adjectives . 

(d) With the Neuter . 

Agreement of Adjectives with Substantives . 
(a) In Number 

(b) In Gender . 

(c) In Case . 

(d) Two or More Adjectives 


. The Attributive Adjective 
. The Predicate Adjective 


Adjective Rather than Adverb 


PAGE 


644 
644 
644 
644 
645 
645 
645 
645 
645 
646 
646 
646 
646 
646 
646 
647 
647 
647 
647 
647 


648 
648 
648 
649 
649 
649 
649 


650-675 


650 


VIET 
1B 
X. 
XI. 
XII. 


XIII. 


XIV. 


DONG 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


IUhenr erson dis COUSETUICLION: tt isc ated sh pe 
AACIOCLIVes) UiseCawiltl Cases. atx 1 he tod eds 
Adjectives with the Infinitive and Clauses . . 
HEM UICOUYVCIASUACVErD ist) Mure tnlt. hae cae 
The Positive Adjective. ..... 
(OER elatly cs cOlUristams otneat ne tase Sun. uc 
(b) Used as Comparative or Boner tige 

(WALI EETeEDCSIGIONSUN. «thes yayh ene 
(d) Comparison Implied by # ........ 
(eee eA DSOLULermenise ws aunt. hears fica, teas 


ce A ne) 


The Comparative Adjective. ........ 
(me GOIt Ast Ole Ura IL yee Ore ve alice s. Sce ces 
(b) Degree .. . oe ee ee 
(c) Without Suffixes TRS Fae AR Ee et 
(d) Double Comparison .. . en ae 
(e) Without Object of Comers 


CU ELOUCWEOUD Vitae ars ea nals lark ace b. gece 


(g) Followed by the Ablative . neg Oe 
(h) Followed by Prepositions . . . 
(i) The Comparative Displacing the Seeritive 


The Superlative Adjective ......... 
(a) The Superlative Vanishing ....... 
(b) A Few True Superlatives in the N.T.. . . 
(c) The Elative Superlative . 


| (d) No Double Superlatives. ........ 


(ymlouowed by-Ablative 9. :...) 5 ca .5. . 
(f) No “Hebraistic” Superlative ...... 


INTITNCTAlS Pe ne lad es) cea G oie 5 Met hanes 
(yr Teenie i patos ee eee eR rec) ek 
(b) The Simplification of the “Teens” Sy ett eae 
(cme Loesineuistve OTomalere gre stake ds Ss 
(Aes IStPIDULIVES Ieee So. Reis, OS 
(Ha tiewearcinaleharé st ale ea. iu kw 8 
(f) Substantive Not Expressed ....... 
(OmAaverps WwitheNumMerais.. 9. (G4. . < ..- 
bye icisae NOCiNife ATOICIC es ek. ls ca. ine 
(i) Els=Tts . . . PARES vical: aes es 
(7) The Distributive tes of 1 TLC MP eee 


CHAPTER XV. Pronouns®.... . 8) io Cpa ae eee 


1b 


PePrSCUGI Se POUOLIIS tmee eet fe) yc ere She oe 

(vm UliGeNOMIDAIV EI ern se. ek 
ieee neshirsts ercons Gece. ove so-so G) Pa 
PRLNeOvOnC LE ersOon 9, facies. 6 2. 40% 
3. The Third Person . 


. . . . 


De eet) hy ACR oar 


Cee AOlewiee 6, 16 


Sy Oh Ve) © FR oy 


. . . 


ne eye) 8 


. . 


. . 


. e ‘ 


Sees hes) ed ie ce 


Ons yee Le, 4.6. Fe 


Cae ea Oe ey. Oe 


Cy) Pc A See Geen 


OF vem (67 6) es.) 0 


. . . . 


ek ee ee eo ed 


. . . . 


Cae ten er a 10) 5 6 2 te 


or ies ef Wie 67h. @ 


eo: og © ‘a. ae =e) |e 


om 0 7 *) 5.8 el 


676 


xliv 


Tie 


it: 


TVS 


VI. 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(0) 


(c) 
(d) 
(e) 
(f) 


The Oblique Cases cf the Personal Pronouns. .... . 
1. Originally Reflexive ; 
27 Absrov — ec ieee ee ee eee eens: 7, aes 
3. Genitive for Deeseesion Narain Se Gl oa eee 
4-Enclitic Forms) sess ye eee, oe. aa 


The Frequency of the Personal Pronouns ....... 
Redundant: :/ 2.26. eae Geet eee eee ee eset 
According to Sensees 2. 25s inrae eee ane ec) coe 


Repetition of the Substantive somes seen es 


The Possessive Pronouns. <1 +. oe 


(a) 
(0) 
(c) 
(d) 
(e) 
(f) 
(9) 


Just the-Article * 41.9% Aa ao ee eee 
Only for First‘and Setond Versonsues ae 
Emphasis, When) Used) i507. @3 sae ete) sce 
With the Article 2%. 25)" 252s ee eet et oe 
Possessive and Genitive Togetherimcuce wae. 
Objective Use:. #25 Fi ost ee a on 
Instead of Reflexive: 2 3/22) S55 tee 


‘The: Intensive and Identical Pronouns. en eres se 
(a). The Nominative Use oieAtrtss. a.ue ee ts 2. 


(0) 


(9) 


Varying Degreés of in phasis: sername, | 


Atrés. with otros?) See ee eee 


Aizés ‘almost: Demonstrative... a ee eee 


In the Oblique Cases . 


Aurés Side by Side with the Reflexive PAP pris ice ke te. 


“O atréss a a CO i ee ee ey i 


The’ Reflexive: Pronoun ey et ce 
(a) Distinctive, Use: {oe ce ee 


(0) 


(h) 
(7) 


The Absence of the Reflexive Pane the ent ee 

The Indirect Reflexive: 22a) yemeemiee eee) 
In‘the Singular? -2 5 ae eee se 
In the:Plural® ) sok.) set eee. cee ee, ee 
Article with 2 0) 38s 205 sear eee tere a eae Sarees fs 
Reflexive in the Reciprocal Sense. . .......2... 
Retlexive-with, Middle: V 01cessescw: ae ae ee ee 
The Use: of “Idtes cy, = tte eC ee. 


The: Reciprocale Pronoun se avant ee en ee 


Demonstrative Pronouns... eee ee ae 


(a) 


(b) 
(c) 


(d) 
(e) * 


eure gig Ui Oe ae ee kre eet ct a 


MOE Pe erscre et yor che cyt oe ae eee ee 


PAGE 


680 


680 
681 
681 
681 


682 
683 
683 
684 
684 
684 
684 
684 
685 
685 
685 
685 
685 
685 
686 
686 
686 
686 
687 
687 


687 
687 
688 
688 
688 
689 
690 
690 
690 
691 


692 


693 
693 
693 
693 
695 
696 


VL 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


(f) Otros . 


. The Pareles etcic Next ; 

. The Contemptuous Use of odzos . 

. The Anaphoric Use . 

. In Apposition 

. Use of the Article . 

. Article Absent . ‘ys 

. Odros in Contrast with éxetvos . 5 
. As Antecedent of the Relative Prenoun 2 
. Gender and Number of Odros : 

. The Adverbial Uses of rotro and radra . 

. The Phrase rodr’ éorw . , ‘ 

. In Combination with Other Renna ae 
. Ellipsis of Otros 

. Shift in Reference -. 


(g) ’Exetvos . 


. The Purely (sey . 
. The Contemptuous Use . 
. The Anaphoric . 


The Remote Object (Contrast) 
Emphasis 
With Apposition 


As Antecedent to Relative . 


. Gender and Number 
10. 


Independent Use . 


(BAU TOS eS ain tartar.) 
(i) The Correlative Demonstratives . 


Relative Pronouns . 

(a) List intthe N. T. . 

(b) The Name “ Relative” 
(c) A Bond between eee 


(dq) 0s— 


. In Homer . 

. Comparison with Other Rete 

. With Any Person. . 

SCTENCET ec aed ore 

2, MNT SYOP cs Gai Soh eh 


nes 
ee} ide) @e) SS 


Ooarwhd be 


Case : 
(a) Absence of paisa tan ale 
(8) Cognate accusative 


a ters 68 6's” 16) 


. Article with Nouns Seat her reediente ; 


(vy) Attraction to the case of re Breedent 


(6) Inverse attraction . 
(e) Incorporation . 


. Absence of Antecedent aot 
. Prepositions with the Precedent Ait Ale Reine 
Melati Ves NiaSeS tse tidiael ooh eueet eee shes 
~ Pleonastic Antecedent. ....... : 


. . . . 


xlv 
PAGE 
697 
697 
697 
697 
698 
700 
701 
702 
703 
704 
704 
705 
705 
705 
706 


706 
707 
707 
707 
707 
708 
708 
708 
708 
708 * 
709 


709 
709 


710 
710 
(pus 
711 


oat 
CLE 
OLS 
712 
712 
714 
714 
714 
715 
715 
cal’ 
718 


719 
(21 
721 
722 


xlvi A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


PAGE 


lly The: Repetition ordse9:a0 ae ee ee 
12. A Consecutive ldésa, = ee ete et es 
18. Causal | 97:2:35-300 Sie eee tee pet eee tomes ko) mae 
144 In: Direct Questions 7", ete ee en es 
15.>In- Indirect’ Questionss]. ae eter teen arts ee 
16%, The Idiom otéels eoriv os ee ee es nee 


(@) OoTis couse ek I eae ae een ec 

1.’ Varied Uses 27 ale. ne ee en). | Ry 
. The Distinction between és and éo7mus . . ..... «726 
- TheiIndefinite, Use iin.2, ae eee 4 yon 
The-Definite Examples?) og. een eee ee 
Valtte: of 8s? 7.55 see ee ne cs 
Case ry ee a ele ew hae et 7 2S 
Numbers vo i 3. 2" dk ea De ee Bee 
Gendet* bank Ga Se a ee ee en 
. Direct, Questions’, a.) Ge outs ee 2, eS) 
. Indirect: Questions 2: Us 720 ee 


(f)\.Olos ice, ers oe nc ate) he oe aie ee a ay 
1. Relationct0:.65~ 7): oatcs oes ee er 
2. Incorporation 4) 25 ca.) oe ee i 
3; Indirect: Questions. =). ee en, eo) 
4: Number Ais oo. ee oo ee es Ta 
Be. Obra Earp, 0) hs, set oe ae ee nas 


(g) “Omotos inside cet Ge ey ve ca 
1.. Qualitative }/v...°°Y .-)e ee fo 
2. Double Office 22...2 <p eee eg 
3.. Correlative |) 34.25 5 a ee es 


(Ch) “Ooos i ssi 3 4 8 ae Se a an a a 
Quantitative te. eee i ee eee he 
. “Antecedérnity © 2 1.2) ies ee ere ka 
Attractions: ~. 05 +. Gee eee a oo 
; LDGOPPOTAtiON 0) oe) eee i et oe e ee 
Repetition. “sccin'4 -o -aeee Eee ee Oho 
 SWith’ér 2. Oy) a ee ee ene eco 
~ Indireet. Questions ©. ee sina nn ee 
. In Comparison! + 0): Se ee eee.) Cano 
tAdverbiale (iy ea co eee ee ts) eee: epee 55) 


(7) “Hi licosin 205, oe? % esas ee eee Ai A ee ee py 7s 
(7)*O-as Relative 4 o.)95. ee ee Se ee 


VIII; Interrogative: Pronounss) 4) eee Pe ire 1) 40: OO 

(Qe Ticw PERU Shr RO eee, OS Pee Is 
~ Substantival or Adjectivalesm- ae ene. nh 
. ‘The Absence‘of Gender’ fesse ee oe es 
Ths 8 1OLOS cis’, 6. Say ee ee OE en Oo 2 
. Indeclinable'ri < 37 A eee ee eG 
. Predieate Use of ri: with totro. 2. 2 2°. °. . » 208 726 
In: Alternative Questions eee. 6. 2) ee 
« Lhe. Double: Interrarativar-4:52) 2". . .. aera 


SOMNAMRHN 


ery 


OWNAARWHH 


SIOoPRWN FE 


EX: 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


8. As Relative 
9. Adverbial Use 
10. With Prepositions 


Lieayituee articlesa = sae 


12. As Exclamation 
13. Indirect Questions 
14. Tis or ris 


(D)Ilotosano goss aaa 
1. Qualitative 
2. Non-qualitative 
3. In Indirect Questions . 
(GC) ILécosees mean ni ere Sh 
1. Less Frequent than zotos . 
2a Meaning eee Perr iin ee. 
3. In Indirect Questions . 
4, The Exclamatory Use . 
(d) IInXixos . 
1. Rare oF a 
2. Indirect Questions 


(e) Iloramds . 


(f) Ilérepos . 
Indefinite Pronouns 
(a) Tis . Bene 2 in 
1. The Accent 
. Relation to ris 
. Tis as Substantive 


. With Numerals =‘ About’ 


. With Adjectives 

. As Predicate . 

. The Position of ris 
9. As Antecedent . 
10. Alternative 7 
11. The Negative Forms . 
12. Indeclinable 7 ... . 


(Dye ise Listeph ee) ete vornre nn os 


2 
3 
4 
5. With Substantives 
6 
yf 
8 


(MLL cs eee ANS ONC omen ic? Werte. os 


(d) ‘O Actva . 


Alternative or Distributive Pronouns 


(a) ’Auddrepor . 

(b) “Exaoros . A ic ee 
1. Without Substantive 

. With Substantive . 

me Withietss: 

. With Genitive 

. Partitive Apposition 

. Rare in Plural 

. Repetition . 


SIO OP Ww Ww 


xlvil 
PAGE 
737 
738 
739 
739 
739 
739 
739 


740 
740 
740 
740 


740 
740 
740 
741 
741 


741 
741 
741 


741 
741 


741 
741 
741 
741 
742 
742 
742 
743 
743 
743 
743 
743 
743 
744 
744 
744 
744 
744 
744 
745 
745 
745 
746 
746 
746 
746 
746 


xlvili A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


PAGE 

(c); “ANAos is; Coe ee Be ae ee re ere 746 

1. Used absolutely =‘An-other,’ ‘One Other’ .... . 746 

2: Fors Two 6 ol once ke ee ee 746 

3... AS Adjectives. iG. nee een ee eke 1s 747 

4, With ‘the Article: ..)/42, 2 ten eee, es 747 

5. ‘Che: Use of GAAos-GA\0 ss ce ee ree 747 

€. In Contrast for ‘Some— Others’. ........ 747 

7° Ellipsis: Of :&A N08 si, atone aes am ee er) 747 

8. The Use of &\dos and érepos Together ....... 747 

0, ‘wm § Different? os 0) 2 8) ee a ee ee 747 

10... "ANAS ptos <0. ee ni Se eee Seen ett 748 

(d) SE repos <2 tes a a nee ite eee tn ee 748 

1, Absolutely. 3.52 se genes suede ies pee 2 748 

2. Waith‘Article-.. 2 2e%> 6 Sate ee 748 

3. second of Pair = ©. jeiodauas fc ae 748 

4. = * Different? | 252) ie tak te 748 

5. =‘ Another’ of Lhree ors Mores eee 749 

6. In Contrast: Vo a ee 749 

(e) Other Antithetic Pronouns; —s..4)-)4- eee 750 
AI. Negative Pronotinss 0.7% 22). 9. ese 750 
(a) -Obdels 5 Ye ee aaee ten a 750 

1. ‘History. 6405 2) Gen ae ee ee es 750 

2. OB ebs) a cB i whe vege eae ats a le et 750 
3..:Gender i555... as cll fo 6 ee riG! 

4. Ov6é eis 6k at a le ee Chav 

5. Els —.0b tia; so ee ae eee 751 

(6) Models) e087 i cay PAE ee 751 

(c). -Otristand (Myris 0%! Wo ee eee ee 751 

(d) With! ds \iity <0. e~ 6. 59 Poe see de ee (iP: 

Ly Odors oS OT Gal A es 752 

23 OU is oye ee ee ee SE 8) eee, er 752 

Oe Ma ws Fe Ao ee (hive 

4.- Ob ph ard se ot oe ee eee 753 

6. Tld's 00. sien ee te ae a 10a 

GO. °TGs a eh 8 eed ee ee re fia 

7. Tas = ob pe 98S See ee ee ee 753 

8.0.06 — wee rese pc et ce eee 753 

9.) Thévres 0b Son en. 5 OS A reer ete ne ee 753 
CHaprer-XVI.> The Articles... 2.0 arene 754-796 
T.., Other: Uses of/6,°4, 76" 25.) 10s 2h on eee ee 754 
II. Origin and Development of the Article. ......4... 754 
(a) ACGreek Contribution ys. =2 te . eer b4 

(b) Derived from the Demonstrative. .......... 755 
IIT: Significance.of:the Article 00, ee te, ee 755 


IV. The Method Employed by the Article .......... 756 


war 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


(a) Individuals from Individuals ....... Pe tera 
(OFS sSCeLTONTOLNCIE GASSES fare ery et Ce ek 
(emo a iies Tron Cuuer Wualticnope sot <6 lank sat. 


Ariel na vessOl TNO es ThiCle! Mer tavivecni she) yvlse! a: le? a! hai! 


CUMYV une SUS ball’ cs aemeeme Bret en OR lah te) ke 
DPBS ODLOX Uae Reet Aral Moet Ni iss) oy tet so. Moe ans 
PCR ONOCHOL UE TATHICLON aie RCA rk ERS ck. i+...” 4h! 
PeVV ILS PODeTN AINCSaer cn eee ar eta) cr oe OA. a ie 
4. Second Mention (Anaphoric) : .....%14..... 


(OV ILD IECULV Cais etch to Mee errs. as oo. 
Pew PG UINcaini i VorArucle wage me serra. <ioeatye ces) sh a's 
Zee iboetne A CIECIIVe ALONG sc ieiiie rig i depend Ack 2) 
3. The Article not Necessary with the Adjective... . 
2B ANTARCTIC ND RRS Oa ee SE: Sr to) ney eee 


PO MAVVICOLEALLICID esa eter wae Pacers nO SA. 
Ny MERA CU ARYESS Be ONaV(RS feos 4 dey Aa ea Mie oe a 
EA) Vp VA CNG REE OS Ml a! Ue Ries ee ee Salaam read i el ne 
(MEY EOS DT eDOSIUONAer DY ADCS Goss he Beis oa lea le! oa as 
(g) With Single Words or Whole Sentences ........ 
(h) With Genitive Alone . ..... A a ee 
(ome OUDS Title EYeciCulG. ce utee Fie a se woes es 
(Pm ISUIQUELV Cs. eu. 8 ene 3 eT a. 
(k) Nominative with the nena OOH V Grermmenna tomes sty 
(1) As the Equivalent of a Possessive Pronoun 

Or nYV LUBE Orceap Vest TONOUUS catterr fiw tel pe wigs 38 3 
Can VILLA Uf erred tien Been Pik oe Ke yl |. ee 
COlmeYY Its eInOns Taltvesscen: oy ey vee e ctor ec a es 
(p) With “Odos, Ids ("Avas) .... . mat: Ais’ i. : 

COMBA VGH ELloNits ant Me Me rent Rey Ale yk oeisy See 

(ee ARpOSmcLHLLODS, CSO VATOS, WLECOS ey) ys ee Wg kw ee ek 
SMe IUDteA NAGsya ie Mrepoe tat cei ass ss 
TA DURA RS Sh 2 at TOR) RA ee haa al Oe sh 
Pe OSIETOMMV ILO LEPIOUSIVES ei fitar gt-at tee) em we ee 


LGN ILD eCtiVodemmnen val, ck aa lee hy eto sh ees 
. Normal Position of the Adjective 
. The Other Construction (Repetition of he prac 
. Article Repeated Several Times ....... ee 
. One Article with Several Adjectives ........ 
SEYV iL Hea NATENTOUS OUDStADIIVES et to.k syst 2k als 
CUMS R ANE TEC hi a Fes) Cece as oye Lo 708 Rede ee | ae ee 
(b) With Genitives ' 
1. The Position poorer fe prricle eid the onberentive 
2. Genitive after the Substantive without Repetition of 
TCA LL COG ear ma! ce). Raper er 8 OAR Oar 
3. Repetition of Article aay CrenItl VG eh ew Spee 8. 


Orr wnd FE 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


PAGE 

4, The Article Only with,Genitive®? #25..8) 5 59. 4 780 

5, Article Absent: with Bothy sass eee ‘ 780 

6.) The-Correlation of thesArticles, eanee sae se 780 

(c) With Adjuncts sor Ad Verb sie see eee re 782 

1. Between the Article and the Noun. ........ 782 
2.vArticle/ Repeated) a >)... t a eee es ee 782 
3.°Only with Adjunctz sia ae eee ree a 782 

4. Only. with the. Noun 2) 3) yee een ene 782 

5: When Several Adjuncts Occuteas 9.9.) =. = 783 

6. (Phrases of} Verbal Origin’ = 92 eee ee 784 

7. ‘Exegetical Questions 3 23) ene 784 
8-.Anarthrous -Attribwiiy esse. wna nent ren 784 

(d) Several Attributives with Kai . . Ae 785 

1. Several Epithets Applied to the Seri Peron or Thing . 785 

2. When to be Distinguished Se 786 

3. Groups Treated as One . 787 

4. Point of View . ae cr 787 

5, Differencein Number) 92). eee 788 

6: Difference in Gender. ==.) . 0) ees he ane 788 

i. With Disjunctive Particle. 72a eee 789 

ViIT:: Position with, Predicates. 372s 1c suet 789 
VIII. The Absence:of the Article=<35 <4.) 0). ae 790 
(a). With. Proper Names = 2572 2) cae se : 791 

(b) With Genttives © 550.770 line, Soe et 791 

(c) Prepositional Phrases . 791 

(d) With Both Preposition and Genitis ; 792 

(e) 2Vitles’*of ‘Books7or:' Sections ann cn ee 793 

(Fa W OTds nab sit Se ee Sk ak ah eng ee es 793 

(9g) ‘OrdinalyNumerals- 0) ree oot eee oe oo 

(h) “In:the* Predicates «7:5 oiieesc ete 794 

@)° Abstract: Words: So 2.03 oro) tet 794 

(7), Qualitative Force.) 2% c.count ae er Dt hoe 

(k) Only Object?of. Kind Ge eo ee ee ce 794 
IX. The Indefinite Article, “<>. ©) =. ieee ee 796 
Cuaprern XVII: (Voice 5.4). oe » ave 797-826 
I. Point of Views... Gy shea). ne ee 797 
(a) Distinction between Voice and Transitiveness 797 

(b)) Meaning of VW oiceit. t.-02 ea ee 798 

(c) (Names. of thes Volced ean s sant te ene ee , 798 

(d) “History of thesVolcesi.) +. ane tae eee aes a 798 

(e) Help from the: Sanskrit eee ee eee : Cos 

(ff) Defective Verse © ie ie, ome ee enor, 799 

II. The Active Voice ... . eo ta Cea aN 799 
(a) Meaning of the Active Voice iis RA Oa oc) 799 


Te 


TV: 


CHAPTER 
if 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


(b) Either Transitive or Intransitive . ...... 


(c) Effect of Prepositions in Composition . . 


(AJM IOULCTEDGELEDSESRV Al yim cett oo. Sei he ke) com 
(e) *ThesActive'as Causative 9. . 24. 64 G.. 
(PMA CHIVOrwILO ReUeXIVeS int es es 
Lm persOualeAChlVemet my ae ett ie. ce the 


(ijalniinitives).... 722 : 
(7) Active Verbs as Pee i ees ene 


hemp ViaddlesVoicévmas) .b-te. 

(a) Origin of the Middle 

(b) Meaning of the Middle . 

(c) Often Difference from Active Notes 
(d) The Use of the Middle not Obligatory 
(e) Either Transitive or Intransitive . 

(f) Direct Middle . As: 

(g) Causative or Permissive Middle 

(h) Indirect Middle 

(t) Reciprocal Middle 

(7) Redundant Middle . 

(k) Dynamic (Deponent) Middle 

(l) Middle Future, though Active Present 
(m) The Middle Retreating in the N. T. 


The Passive Voice . 


(a 
(b) Significance of the Passive . 


Origin of the Passive . 


eZ 


(c) With Intransitive or Transitive Verbs 
(d) The Passive Usually Intransitive . 

(e) Aorist Passive . 

(f) Future Passive . 

(g) The Agent with the Paine Voice 

(h) Impersonal Construction 


XVIII. Tense 
Complexity of the Subject 


1. The Difficulty of Sue Greek Tenses with Germanic 


Tenses . 


. Absence of Hebrew Influence . 
. Gradual Growth of the Greek Tore 
“ Aktionsart”’ of the Verb-Stem . 


. Time Element in Tense : 
. Faulty Nomenclature of the Tenees 


ONAaAP wh 


. Bad Influence of Wie eases on RieE See ans 


. The Three Kinds of Action Expressed in Ravae of iene 


li 


PAGE 


5 ite ee WA! 


800 
800 
801 
802 
802 
802 
802 


803 
803 
803 
804 
804 
806 
806 
808 
809 
810 
811 
811 
813 
814 


814 
814 
815 
815 
816 
816 
818 
820 
820 


821-910 
821 


oO 
_ 


onowonwm eo oO oo 
wOodw Ww WW WD bb 
Hm H CO LO LO bo 


(oe) 
bo 
Or 


li 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


9. The Analytic Tendency (Periphrasis) ......... 
10. The Effect of Prepositions on the Verb ........ 
11. CAktionsart:) with Wachs Dense cre ee ens eee 
12-\Interchange of) lenses | (020-0 ee ee 

Il. Punctiltiar “Action © 2 7 s4). 00 ee AV ePS aS: 
Le "The A doristin e's i Fob o 7 fa ley iene 
(a) Aktionsart in the A oriat RP A oS ee ee 
(a) Constative AOrist) 2%.) cucu aus eee nn 
(8) Ingressive Aorist’) >.) <0: aeeeee eer 
(y) Effective Aorist)... 0... 0p 
(6) Aorist: Indicative :0. (7a t) se eee eee te 
(a) The Narrative or Historical Tenses. 
(8) sThe-Gnomic AOriets etiam 
(y) Relation! to. the Impertect =o 2-5) iano 
(6) .Relation/to the: Past: Perfect “2.0 v3 aa eee 
(c)\ Relation:to the:Presents a ay eae) eer 
(c) Relation. to Present Perfect: 7 Aine ee 
(n), Epistolaryaan oristie acs eed arcu 
(0): -Relationsto the: Pnture > 5 ee 
(.) Aorist in Wishes A rt aloes Ts ed 
(x) Variations in the Use of Tenses. ....... 
(\) Translation of the Aorist into English . ... . 
(c) The Aorist Subjunctive and Optative . : 
(a) No Time Element in Subjunctive and Opus : 
(8) Frequency of Aorist Subjunctive rp SS 
(y), Aktionsart. <2 6 velox seu ie en 
(6) Aorist SCRE in Pprahibiaone me tre ein 
(ec) Aorist Subjunctive with ob wp. . . . 2... .. 
(€) «Aorist? Optatives ie Sie oe ee 
(d) The Aorist: Imperative) iy ye 
(e) The Aorist Infinitive. 57.40) 1 ee 
(f) “The Aorist"Participle) <2 (20. eas ee 
(q) Aktionisart: 2.5%. 9 ae ee eee 
(8) ‘O and the Aorist Darcie Rae eee ee LC yn 
(v7). -AntecedenticA Chion (aris. i.e. nee ene 
(6) But Simultaneous Action is Gammon also 
(ec) Subsequent Action not Expressed by the Aorist 
Participle 
(¢) Aorist Participle in ibaaliaita eoneee) fonts 
mentary: Participle) ey Sai ae eee en, 

2. Punctiliar (Aoristic) Present: ec eee seen ee 

(a) “The Specific, Presen tii ie e ecee ren ne, 

(b) "The Gnomic) Presents) sea: ae eee eee ce 

(c) The) Historical ‘Presentie.-s 1) oe ee ee 

(qd) The Puturistic: Precer tae eee eee eee 
3, The. Punctiliar (Aoristic) Warren 


(a) Punctiliar or Durative 


PAGH 
826 
826 
828 
829 


830 
831 


831 
831 
834 
834 


835 
835 
836 
837 
840 
841 
843 
845 
846 
847 
847 
847 


848 
848 
848 
850 
851 
854 
854 


855 
856 


858 
858 
859 
860 
860 


861 


864 
864 
865 
866 
866 
869 
870 
870 


(b) The Modal Aspect of the Future 


(c) 


(d) The Periphrastic Substitutes ae the Pu uture 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 
(a) Merely Futuristic... .. 


The Future in the Moods 

(a) The Indicative : 

(8) The Subjunctive and Optatire: 
(vy) The Infinitive 

(6) The Participle 


III. Durative (Linear) Action 
1. Indicative . 


nO Pr WwW DY 


(a) The Present (6 é&vecrws) for Present Time . 


(0) 


(c) 


. Imperative SOS aa es 
Mininiiivesme o> hes ye nen 
. Participle . : cae 
(a) The Time of the Bpesent Pacey ts Helatiee ; 


(b) 
(c) 


(a) The Descriptive Present . 
(8) The Progressive Present . 


(y) The Iterative or Customary Present . 
(5) The Inchoative or Conative Present . 


(c) The Historical Present . 
(¢) The Deliberative Present . 
(n) The Periphrastic Present . 
(9) Presents as Perfects . . 
(.) Perfects as Presents . . . 
(x) Futuristic Presents 


The Imperfect for Past Time . 
(a) Doubtful Imperfects . 


(8) The Descriptive Tense in Neca : 
(y) The Iterative (Customary) Imperfect 


(5) The Progressive Imperfect. . 


(ec) The Inchoative or Conative Tefrertact : 


(¢) The “ Negative’ Imperfect . 
(n) The ‘ Potential”? Imperfect . 
(0) In Indirect Discourse ae 
(.) The Periphrastic Imperfect . 
(x) Past Perfects as Imperfects . 


The Future for Future Time . 


(a) The Three Kinds of Action in ie Witars ati 


istic, volitive, deliberative) . 
(8) The Periphrastic Future . 


. Subjunctive and Optative . 


Futuristic 


DJCACT tLe ameMee In aX ws us ah Saks 


(d) Conative 


(e) 


Antecedent Time . 


(f) Indirect Discourse 


OF 16 ge BO 2 Oe e: 


Cp Ce SoC Dera ee Bat 


(OMe LNG AVOULV ent UGITO seta mee (Gahstore sy bs lsh. 
Pr mchiberaglvornuLurere five les. Gm), 


or eee 6S eee 
. . . . 


. . . . 


lit 
PAGE 
872 
873 
874 
875 


876 
876 
876 
876 
877 


878 


879 
879 


879 
879 
879 
880 
880 
880 
880 
880 
881 
881 
881 


882 
882 
883 
884 
884 
885 
885 
885 
887 
887 
888 


888 


889 
889 


889 
890 
890 


891 
891 
891 
891 
892 
892 
892 


liv A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


PAGE 
(9) With thesArticles 2270-3 ae te 892 
th) Past Action Stil in’ Progress eae ee ee 892 
(@)* “Subsequent: 4A chigrigs a ae eee ner ee 892 
(Gy No Dirative: Huture Participles masses yen ne 892 
IV... Perfected State of the Action) y2. a. sane teen ene 892 
1. Theldea ‘of: the! Perfect.) a ee erm ee 892 
(a). The: Present: Perfécti-9 0 ee er 892 
(b) “The Intensive Perfect) iy ic saute eee 893 
(c) ‘TheEixtensive Pertect?) yarn) .=ae ae cence . 893 
(d) Idea<of Time in thes) ense 5 5 894 
2) The Indicatives, ..i¢hoa 24 ae ea ae ee 894 
(a) The: Present*Perfectit, c-.. ops ace ee 894 
(a) The Intensive Present Perfect ....... 894 
(8) The Extensive Present Perfect =a completed trie 895 
(vy) The Present Perfect of Broken Continuity . 896 
(5) The Dramatic Historical Present Perfect . 896 
(ec) The Gnomic Present Perfect 897 
(¢) The Perfect in Indirect Discourse . 897 
(n) Futuristic Present Perfect 898 
(0) The “ Aoristic’’ Present Perfect . Serue .. 7 9S 
(.) The Periphrastic Perfect>. - 5. | ae ae 902 
(x) Present as Perfect . 903 
(b) The Past Perfect . 903 
(a) The Double Idea 903 
(8) A Luxury in Greek pag 903 
(vy) The Intensive Past Perfect . 904 
(5) The Extensive Past Perfect . : 904 
(ec) The Past Perfect of Broken Gortinaiee 905 
(¢) Past Perfect in Conditional Sentences 906 
(n) The Periphrastic Past Perfect . fees. 906 
(6): Special Use of éxelunp” 2 29 0: 906 
(c) The Future Perfect . 906 
3. The Subjunctive and Optative . 907 
4. The Imperative 908 
5. The Infinitive . ac ae 908 
(a) Indirect Teenie ey 908 
(b) Perfect Infinitive not in Tadivecs Dicconres . . 909 
(a) Subject or Object Infinitive: aun eee 909 
(8) With, Prepositions,5 4). 9..ancaeeee 909 
6. The Participle . bod ER ee eee eters, 909 
(a) The Meaning .. Se Ne ama 909 
(b) The Time of the ences : 909 

(c) The Perfect Tense Occurs sath Werte rites of the 
. Participle Bice ty on ee ee ee 
(d) The Periphrastic Barticiples oF ST ane 910 
Guaprpr XIX. Mode a0) sce oo ee . . . 911-1049 
Introductory .. . hn re ee 911 
A. Independent or Peers Ronee Sree ree 914 


1 


III. 


IV. 


Ge NGica liver Vi OOGesaein dil Mi se sic eke Poy SS 
1. Meaning of the Indicative Mode. ....... 


2. 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Kinds of Sentences Using the Indicative 
(a) Either Declarative or Interrogative . 
(b) Positive and Negative . 


. Special Uses of the Indicative . 


(a) Past Tenses 
(a) For Courtesy . 


(8) Present Necessity, Obie eon Deeity. eye 


priety in Tenses of the Past 


(y) The Apodosis of Conditions of the Second Gis 


(5) Impossible Wishes . 


(b) The Present . 
(c) The Future 


ihe mubjunctive Mods is 555.845). 2 =. 


il 


Relations to Other Modes . 


(a) The Aorist Subjunctive and the Fufire Tenientive : 


(b) The Subjunctive and the Imperative 
(c) The Subjunctive and the Optative . 


. Original Significance of the Subjunctive . 
. Threefold Usage . 


(a) Futuristic . 
(b) Volitive . 
(c) Deliberative . 


The Optative Mode . 


ile 
2. 
3. 


History of the Optative . 
Significance . 

The Three Uses 

(a) Futuristic or Potential 
(b) Volitive . 

(c) Deliberative . 


The Imperative. 


As 


Origin of the Imperative 


2. Meaning of the Imperative 
a 
4, Alternatives for the Imperative 


Disappearance of the Imperative Forms 


(a) The Future Indicative 
(b) The Subjunctive 

(c) The Optative 

(d) The Infinitive 

(e) The Participle 


. Uses of the Imperative . 


(a2) Command or Exhortation . 
(b) Prohibiton . . 

(c) Entreaty 

(d) Permission . 


OO eae: ele test @ Re: ~ Gas 


lvi 


B. Dependent or Hypotactic Sentences 


Introductory 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(e),. Concession or Condition was ene ereeeeee” oa 
(f) "In Asyndeton ie sa7 cues we ee amet tee 
(9). In Subordinate. Clauses sien eee en 
(h)* The "Tenses <j. coo 8 © ane ene orn eee. tg 
(7) IniIndiréct Discourse pane we eee oo 


.tRelativeSentences iit) 2) oe) ans eee irr eee ee tar 
(a) Relative Sentences Originally Paratactic. .... 
(b) Most Subordinate Clauses Relative in Origin. .. . 
(c) Relative Clauses Usually Adjectival. ...... 
(d): Modes in’ Relative Sentences2) ee eee 
(e) Definite and Indefinite Relative Sentences . . . . 
(f) The Use of &y in Relative Clauses. ....... 
(g) Special Uses of Relative Clauses ........ 
(h) Negatives in Relative Clauses ......... 


: Causal:Sentences” eae eee eae, 
(a) Paratactic Causal Sentences .....2.2.... 
(b) With Subordinating Conjunctions ....... 
(c)” Relative Clauses 377.) 4 ci 7 
(d) Aid 7é-and the: lnfinitive 2 3a 
(e), The. Participle. > 92.) 0 .: 5 eee 


. Comparative Clatises.) > fg) onan 
(a) The. Relative 6qos2 1: sa eee ae ear ee 
(b) Relativeids with Kara"). 2 4. ches ee eee 
(c) Kaéérc in a Comparative Semse ......... 
(d) -Qs and its. Gompounds => #0:.0-)) ee 


:, Local: Clauses: 2-000 Se 


> Lemporal Glauses ) a8, 6.-0ce eee 
(a) Kin to Relative Clauses in Origin and Idiom. . . . 
(b) Conjunctions Meaning ‘When’......... 
(c) The Group Meaning ‘Until’ (‘While’) .... . 
(2) Some Nominal and Prepositional Phrases ... . 
(e) The Temporal Use of the Infinitive ....... 
(f) Temporal Use of the Participle. ........ 


. Final and Consecutive Claiiscs saat. panera ann 
(a) Kamship 2°50) > eee mere anc 
(b)e Origin in’ Parataxisi ee ee eee oe 
(c)) Pure Final Clauses soe eee em 
(a) “Toa: nc op lee eels a eR ia 3 
(8) 2 Onrws - Sd ee ne 
(y) As '* 54, a emer e 
(6) “Mh, nh wore, eh tose ee eee 
(ce) Relative Clausesc me eee eee te ee 
(*). The Infinitive: sve eee ee oo ake 
(y) “The Participle nis armas mpeg te). 


eo” 8, fe Benes 6 fa) See ee ee Seer ee Cees os ve | « 


(a) Use of Modes in Subordinate Sentences .... . 
(b) The Use of Conjunctions in Subordinate Clauses’ . 
(c) Logical Varieties of Subordinate Clauses. . .. . 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Cippu bet it awe laliscs Mien ear eerie Se ONS 
OWE EDs ek SE 6 SRO TS en 
Ge MORASS a 7 De, ae 
(vy) Mn, uh wws, uh more SNES LOU id aed 
(Stee LNceelativesWlatise aah lo he laned  & Pentel teeta 
(ei eGstOriL Vc eapziie pease ns os. cae gle 
aN ACO Wad GE te, SEC" eee UR Ot aia ge 


(e) Consecutive Clauses ...... Laer ee Ran 
SCM po Ger I et he Or Et 
[Dimes Te eee Ee eT Bre tee se cae yg 
AR RU ee le ee pao “plc ee ne (SEA ka ag 
(6) ar Once a 7 Te heat Set Ae Sal eas SP 
(e) The Relative “i as WA ak tal Diag dr lak as Aa a oe 
[Cie OCALTUI Gly Ohm oe meee Met eee NS gy, 


PP AWA TEES RS 9 EEE a A ee ae 


8. Conditional Sentences . 


(a) Two Types . 
(b) Four Classes 
(a) Determined as Buiter e 
(8) Determined as Unfulfilled . 
(y) Undetermined, but with Prospect ‘fl aeheatire 
tion ; 
(5) Remote ecoepece a fiyAvadeatnas ea , 


(c) Special Points . ' 
(a) Mixed Conditions 
(8) Implied Conditions . 
(y) Elliptical Conditions 
(5) Concessive Clauses . ’ . 
(ec) Other Particles with e and éay . 


. Indirect Discourse 
(a) Recitative “Orc in Grand Reacts 
(b) Change of Person in Indirect Discourse . 
(c) Change of Tense in Indirect Discourse . 
(d) Change of Mode in Indirect Discourse . 
(e) The Limits of Indirect Discourse atte a tiiey¢ 
Milmeriarative:Clalised aie @ 5 tm cAilewiawell a: NIG. 
(a\m@cOrnandithe.  ndieativer Se. c o 2) sc. 
Cole LNG niin yon yo sis.) As ig RT Ss eee aN 
oa) AM SRS) VEriy Aer ol ster pee pA) gghtk FN ek: Mae en eee 
(lee Oey Vere Seat kee a co ein) = cs 
(AeA UIToC I MOIGALIONS at Mehr RN etc Te Noirs. ce 
(a) Tense . ete 
(8) Mode. : 
(y) Interrogative Pronoins sang Gomecone ites 
(h) Indirect Command 
(a) Deliberative Question . 


(8) The Conjunctions iva and érws . 
(y) The Infinitive 


lvil 
PAGE 
991 
991 
994 
995 
996 
996 
997 


OO, 
997 
999 


. 1000 


1001 
1001 
1001 


1003 


1004 
1004 
1007 
1007 
1012 


1016 
1020 


1022 
1022 
1022 
1023 
1026 
1027 


1027 
1027 
1028 
1029 
1030 
1031 
1032 
1032 
1036 
1040 
1042 


1043 
1043 
1043 
1044 


1046 
1046 
1046 
1046 


lvili 


CHAPTER XX. Verbal Nouns. . 
Isa Kanshipe: 
II. The Infinitive 
1. Origin ~ 


(2). Mixture 42.6.2) Getz. ee eee 
(7) The Subordinate Giauee ie ht lee mee onl 


10. Series of Subordinate Clauses 


2..Development: > .22 0 ee ses ee 


(a) The Prehistoric Beriod ; 


(6) The: Marliest: HistoriczPeriod tre. ee 


(c) The Classic Period from Pindar on . 


(d) ‘The: Koiy7 Periods 2 ere ee 
(é) “The:latersPeriod ® seems esate. ae ee 


Significance’ 2) 5 a aan 
. Substantival Aspects of the Infinitive BaP Neb apd: 


(a) Case (Subject or Object Infinitive) . . 
(b) The Articular Infinitive 


(¢)\. Prepositions @ ae. aan ee ee ee, 


(d) The Infinitive with Bcpeeanhives® 
(e) The Infinitive with Adjectives . 


(f). The Infinitive with-Verbs 222). coca 
(g) The Appositional Intinitive) «9.06 eee 


. Verbal Aspects of the Infinitive . 


(a) Voice 

(b) Tense 

(c) Cases with the Tanmitve 

(d) The Infinitive in Indirect Discos 


(e) Personal Construction with the Infinitive . 


(f) Epexegetical Infinitive . 
(g) Purpose ; : 

(h) Result . 

(7) Cause 

(7) Time. oy: 

(k) The Absolute THAniaeee ee. 
(1)? Negatives: o.) fis.t Gs ee 
(m) "Av with the Thence 4 ae 


QI. The-Participle 2-3 23.5) 2 ee 
1. The Verbals in —ros and -réss . . . . 
2. History of the Participle . 


(a) The Sanskrit’ Participle; =. 4.0 
(b) Homer’s Time . ape as Pe 

(c) The Attic Period 

(d) The Kown 

(e) Modern Greek 


. Significance of the Participle . 


(a) Originally an Adjective . . 
(b) The Addition of the Verbal ont cons 


Ce ed eee ee ee we ty re Oe we 9 e3 


oe oe eS te ether ee en we 8 


ek See ee ee ee ee he I a DEC a 


ou a" Oe ete Tes “OSes Si Ou) 6 Geen © ee © 2 es 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1050-1141 
1050 


sy Meum epniecs bs)! 
mies - LOOT 


1052 
1052 


eet L052 


1054 


... 1054 
eee 221056 


1056 


1058 
1058 
1062 
1068 
1075 
1076 


ee ee LUG 
ee LO ess 


1079 
1079 
1080 
1082 
1082 
1085 
1086 
1087 
1089 
1091 
1091 
1092 
1093 
1095 


1095 
1095 


1098 
1098 
1098 
1098 
1099 
1099 
1100 
1100 
1101 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS 


(c) The Double Aspect of the Participle . 
(d) Relation between Participle and Infinitive 
(e) Method of Treating the Participle . 


4. Adjectival Aspects of the Par eae : 
(a) Declension : ot ; 
(b) Attributive parece 

(a) Anarthrous 
(8) Articular 


(c) Predicate Participle : 
(d) The Participle as a Raper tiye 
(e) The Participle as an Adverb 
5. Verbal Aspects of the Participle 
(a) Voice SES ape 
(b) Tense 
(a) iinelerenecs Bi ie Berercinls 
(8) The Aorist 
(vy) The Present . 
(5) The Perfect . 
(ec) The Future 


(c) Cases 
(d) The shigdentiapies pation 
(a) The Periphrastic Construction . 


(8) A Diminution of the Complementary Pasiiae 


(y) Verbs of Emotion. 
(5) Indirect Discourse 


(e) The Circumstantial Participle . 
(a) The General Theory 


(8) Varieties of the Cees! Parc pls 


(y) The Absolute Participle in Subordinate Clauses 


(f) The Independent Participle in a Sentence . 
(g) Co-ordination between Participles . 
(h) Od and uA with the Participle 
(i) Other Particles with the Participle . 


CHAPTER XXI. Particles 


I. Scope . ee es 
II. Intensive or Emphatic Particles 
1. Limitations 
Je hese Testor: 
(a) Té . 
(Dy Ante are» : 
(c) Et pny, vn and val . 
(d) Mev 
(e) Ilép 
(f) Tot 
III. Negative Particles : 
1. The Objective Ov and its Gomtonnds 
(a) Origin ae ete Sa aes 


. 1142- 


lix 
PAGE 
1101 
1101 
1103 


1104 
1104 
1105 
1105 
1106 


1108 
1108 
1109 


1110 
1110 
RM ea 
1111 
1112 
1115 
1116 
1118 


1119 
1119 
1119 
1120 
1121 
1122 
1124 
1124 
1125 
1150 
1132 
1135 
1136 
1139 


1193 


1142 
1144 


1144 
1147 
1147 
1149 
1150 
1150 
1153. 
1154 


1155 


1155 
1155 


Ix A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


PAGE 

(6)-\ History.ic) ied ease pee ak te eae ae a et, ae 1156 
(c). Meaning \4- 02 eee Geeican tan eee cre ees 1156 
(dd); Uses 1.25.05 5 ae eee <M ee oe ee ets. 1156 
(oe he, Indicktivescaenn wee aes eee ee mes 1157 

(a) Independent Sentenens BR eA “aete eoee oe a 1157 

(8) Subordinate) Glatises ssn es te ee crn 1158 

(n) = “Che Subjunctiv¢ 7-2 eee een en 1160 

(iii) ~The Optative.7 9. oye 1161 

(iv) “The Imperatives = so. cee ee eee ee 1161 

(v) y-Che Infinitivewo 9) 5. ae ee, o Oe 

(vi) * The-Participles 2 3-2 a ee iy ee SP LGe 

(vil) With zN ouns) aps, eee eT 1163 

(6) Kat Ob) Src ee 1164 
(f) Redundant or Pleaser 08 Ma sibs Ss: ae 1164 
(9) Repetition: of 0&7 ie) 20 2 a eee wits be 
(h) The Intensifying Compotnd Nevative eet! *) 1 Oe 
(7) The Disjunctive Negative .. . we cL kGe 
2. The Subjective Negative M7 and Its Connorne: fe. SLOG 
(a) The History of Ma. 2 24a a) eee . 1166 
(6) Significance of My rs se. ee - erie LIOg 
(c)’ Uses of Myc) 6 eon he ss ee, eee Loess 
(i) )) The Indicative: 24° 7 22 oe LLOS 

(i) *Dhe Subjunctives=. os 3312 ge eee er 1169 

(ii); The Optative: 429) 4) 49.0 se eel RAO 

(iv) “[he Imperativess). 2) alate ee 1170 

(v) ee TheInfinitive 7s 0.) ene eh eo LAU 

(vi) The Participle 0. ne tage ae 

(3711) SN OUNS a eee Meret. “Eng 

(d) The Intensifying etd with Mh Rees xO: 1172 
(ce) Kaban Ge 5 Ee ae ee Pa: tV73 
(f) Disjunctive se ae MA REPRE ee sl, da, fe TE 
3. Combination of the Two Negatives ......... 1173 
CANE Cas tein Pee Se oS es ee LEGS 
(D)) Ob Ue ties. ce Se ee 1174 
LV. Interrogative Particles.) 9.5. ee Tis 
1. Single Questions Ay...) 2 ee 1175 
(a): Direct’ Questions: /<) 5) ae ya Wye 
(i), «No Particle-at, Allsss eee <e Lite 

(ii) The Use of Negative Particles ....... 1175 

(i): “Other. Particles 7 a ae eee eee les 

Gv) Interrogatives Pronouns 9)an eee 1176 

(vw). Interrogative.Conjinctionsaanmeeen 1176 

(b) Indirect: Questions.. 325 ane ean = 1176 
(1).«: Pronouns, c:e.nr keeper eee gre 1176 

()) sConjunctions ieee eee enn ee ce 1177 

2., Double Questions #02" esse ee oe ee LEME 
(i). Direct: 44555 Fie eae ee eee rt ee CURT 


(ii) -Indirecti¢/ cy ape ee. fe eee 1177 


FULL TABLE OF CONTENTS Ixi 

PAGE 

VW, CORTINA E60) SEE A Or in Pe eg ee 1177 
IPEPArStactiGMsOniUNCUONS # ike sre.) Sst sey 1177 

ayy Ee ET Ss ea EE ee ge Go ee ge 1177 

A OMNES oo ear ee ile a 1178 

HOY TCT Sn A igh ee a at i 1179 

CULT cme ree eR Me re eg ge ee 1183 

VME NG MOR mentale, foe SS ke 1185 

RONG VelcallV orient nmome Mya heme tg 1186 

CEA MN REM Erem a reg cg ON ee cles 2, 1186 

(LUMA A NAG Meera Reon ake.) ot) ed eh 1186 

UE) BES "0? Ls Salk ORO ON ee rae ce 1187 

CLYE MEE er OF ME PEI PER me sett os fat yy to he 1188 

gd) SURFED oa eek ke Oph A 1188 

Si RL Mere, ie Pe a ae eee, 1188 
POUMELISIIIUICLL VCS O TT ems gn ass, 1188 

PR 4s IGM po oa oa EE ote Bg oreo a eas 1188 

(ii) Etre — etre (tavre — édvre) ». . 2. 2 2. we 1189 

(ill) Otre —otre (unre— pyre)... 1... ew ee 1189 
(QeinterentialGonimnchons g. . < «26 + «ss 1189 

Diy RNs Oe cis io ee ane 1189 

cn) TR one ine ls ae a 1190 

WWD) OSES coe OR SI ee a a 1191 

Sees DOLACALGE CON IIINCUODS Hear ee ee! dh see ala 1192 

AWhs USS OPEL TENTIS Cp, SE | le ST ety I a 1193 
GmarTMne ew lee tiptites Or ppeech) (si. 6.6 5 a ek we hes 1194-1208 
NMS eLOLICA enObrTAINMaAtiCal) 095 eek lene +s ks alee 1194 
(HL, Sheil Cyan (UNS IN Re a" on 0 ire 1194 
Ise ben tO a OCACOP AL MOURN Gta. 0 ois. ce cas wheel eet a oe 1198 
Tea Higtives: of oxXpression =. 2 5 6. 6 ss SLR ORCI Ae Pak eae 1199 
Ca mearallesr nos ontraste © oo fe hee ke 1199 

UME OIGTOSLCHIVAVVOTUN EGP 10) fo foan te. 02. nea k eo ieee uie lo vet 1200 

PP OlcrachOns and. texXPaAnSiON joo Ves ps fale fy ete oe de 1201 

fa jeMictapnors and imilary ropes... <<. 6 i, 8 ere 1206 
SSENERNCODS PW, IW TE. ee ee 1209-1221 
BE COR OL otOU KUED Cm IeRS Fo Ploy ous ee fetal eeler athe. ase Us 1209 
OCUCHICAVOWEISIIITDGENGE Es f6S Geir. se cay we ake en ee 1209 
ee i i Ca eae eee fale PED wl) ein as) eo Medis 1210 
Lio Came cee eg ea iehlig Uispis dal wile 1210 
eI LOUCOLLED EGG ete ces) tcl Sk ce: 0) veins 14) ay shel s 1210 
6. Rules for Assimilation of Consonants . .........-. 1210 
7. Metathesis . . Sg Be es Pana ie ran I mae Pe a 1210 
Per Dt MER TORE TOCHTICN an eis niente Vela! «a, bari cs Wee eden 1211 
9. Bovorpodnidv . . og Se Bee See ae 
ROOT eC ROM ODG OMe tea te te tle ed cle ekg feb eens 1211 
Pieadenienwimeine: Pastirertect, 20 +, + +) sree + 5 Te S aPabl 
12. List of Important Verbs ..... a en ere Ses Sera . 1212-1220 
UES SWAERTEE oy,” a py gE OR aS a 1220 


Lxii A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


PAGE 
INDEX (OF, SUBJECTS: S00 [s)G. saci euee ee, see . . 1223-1248 
INDEX: OF GREEK. WORDS) <0.) i) 0.0) seen eee eet . . . . 1249-1290 
INDEX OF, QUOTATIONS (2 a) ho sos tes ee 1291-1376 

(a) -New Testament? 0). See ad eee 

(b) Old ‘Testanitent 2) 225 rai ten ee ee 1361 

(¢) “lnscripwonus see oN, to Ns al Pen Pes Soar OS 

(d) Papyri and Ostraca), Wo 2 ho yc 0 eee er ee 1367 

(e) Greek Literattite: ) > 2.45 one ee anne 1372 

(i) Classical 28 ol a 2 . 1372 

(il). Rolph ety ae 2, bo eee Pe i ne re oe 1373 

(f) SLating. ~zcctteg lesa cede eae ce Gh ae at eC, 1376 
ADDENDA’ TO THE SECOND EDITION | 2 = 2 a ene ee 1377 
ADDENDA TO°THE ‘CHIRD VHDITION-< 920202) )4) 225 ae i). 11385 


INDEX TO ADDENDA TO SECOND AND THIRD EDITIONS ... . 1433-1454 


LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO 


I HAD prepared an exhaustive analytic bibliography of the per- 
tinent literature, but it was so long that, on the advice of several 
friends, I have substituted an alphabetical list of the main works 
mentioned in the book. The editions of Greek authors, the pa- 
pyri and the inscriptions will be found in the Index of Quota- 
tions. Look there for them. For full histories of grammatical 
discussion one may turn to Sandys, A History of Classical Scholar- 
ship, vols. I-III (1906-1908); Gudemann, Grundrif der Geschichte 
der klassischen Philologie (2. Aufl., 1909); and Hiibner, Grund- 
rib zu Vorlesungen wiber die griechische Syntax (1883). By no 
means all the works consulted and referred to in the Grammar 
are given below. Only the most important can: be mentioned. 
Hundreds that were consulted are not alluded to in the Gram- 
mar. But the following list represents fairly well the works that 
have contributed most to the making of my book. The chief 
journals quoted are also mentioned here. 


AspotTt, KE. A., Clue. A Guide through Greek to Hebrew (1904). 

, Johannine Grammar (1906). 

—, Johannine Vocabulary (1905). 

Am. J. Ph., The American Journal of Philology (Baltimore). 

ALEXANDER, W. J., Participial Periphrases in Attic Orators (Am. 
J. Ph., IV, pp. 291-309). 

Auten, H. F., The Infinitive in Polybius compared with the In- 
finitive in Biblical Greek (1907). 

Am. J. of Sem. L. and Lit., The American Journal of Semitic 
Languages and Literature (Chicago). 

Am. J. of Theol., The American Journal of Theology (Chicago). 

Angus, S., Modern Methods in New Testament Philology (Har- 
vard Theol. Rev., Oct., 1909). 

—, The Kovwn, Pe Tarieanes of the New Testament Seales 
Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910). 

Anz, H., stieaete oak cognoscendum Graecorum sermonem vul- 
garem e Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina repetita (Diss. 
phil. Hal., XII, 1894, pp. 259-387). 


xiii 





lxiv A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


AposrotipEs, Essai sur l’Hellénisme Egyptien et ses rapports 
avec l’Hellénisme classique et l’Hellénisme moderne (1898). 

——, Du grec alexandrin et des rapports avec le grec ancien et le 

_ grec moderne (1892). 

Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete (Leipzig). 

ARNAUD, Essai sur le caractére de la langue grec du N. T. (1899). 

ARNOLD and Conway, The Restored Pronunciation of Greek and 
Latin (1885). 

Avupotin, E., De la déclinaison dans les langues indo-européennes 
(1898). 

Baspitt, The Use of My in Questions (Harvard Studies in Class. 
Phil., 1901). 

Bacon, Roger, Oxford Greek Grammar. Edited by Nolan and 
Hirsch (1902). 

BAMBERG, Hauptregeln der griechischen Syntax (1890). 

Baron, Le Pronom Relatif et la Conjonctive en Grec (1892). 

Barry, W., The Holy Latin Tongue (Dublin Rev., April, 1906); 
Our Latin Bible (2b., July). 

BAuMLEIN, Untersuchungen tiber die griech. Modi und die Par- 
tikeln xevy und ay (1846). . 

—, Untersuch. iiber griech. Partikeln (1861). 

Bekker, Anecdota Graeca. 3 Bde. (1814-1821). 

BgéNnaRD, Formes verbales en grec d’aprés le texte d’Hérodote 
(1890). 

Berpout, Der Konsekutivsatz in der altern griech. Lit. (1896). 

BERNHARDY, G., Wissenschaftliche Syntax der griechischen 
Sprache (1829). 

Bibl. Ec., Bibliothéque de l’école des hautes Etudes (Paris). 

Bibl. Gr. V., Bibliothéque grecque vulgaire (Paris). 

Bibl. S., The Bibliotheca Sacra (Oberlin). 

Bibl. W., The Biblical World (Chicago). 

BrrKE, De Particularum yA et ob Usu Polybiano Dionysiaeo Dio- 
doreo Straboniano (1897). 

Birk EIN, F., Entwickelungsgeschichte des substantivierten In- 
finitivs (1882). 

Buass, F., Acta Apostolorum (1895). 

——.,, Die griech. Beredsamkeit von Alex. bis auf August. (1865). 

——, Die Rhythmen der asianischen und rémischen Kunstprosa 
(1905). 

——, Die rhythm. Kompos. d. Hebr.-Briefes (Theol. Stud. und 
Krit., 1902, pp. 420-461). 

——., Evangelium sec. Lukam (1897). 


LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO Ixv 


Buass, F., Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 2. Aufl. (1902). 

—, Hermeneutik und Kritik (1892). 

—, Philology of the Gospels (1898). 

——., Pronunciation of Ancient Greek (translation by Purton in 
1890 of 3. Aufl. of Uber die Aussprache des Griech. 1888). 

Buiass-DEBRUNNER, Grammatik d. neut. Griech. 4. Aufl. (1913). 

Buass-THACKERAY, Grammar of New Testament Greek. 2d ed. 
(1905). 

BLOoMFIELD, Study of Greek Accent (A. J. Ph., 1883). 

BoumeER, J., Das biblische “im Namen” (1898). 

Borsaca, Les dialectes doriens (1891). 

, Dictionnaire étymol. de la langue grecque (1907 ff.). 

Bouurne, The Participle in Hesiod (Cath. Univ. Bulletin, 1897). 

Bonuorrer, A., Epiktet und das N. T. (1911). 

Bopp, Vergleichende Grammatik (1857). 

Br. W., The British Weekly (London). 

Broapvus, Joun A., Comm. on Matt. (1886). 

BROCKELMANN, C., Grundrif} der vergleichenden Grammatik der 
semitischen Sprachen (1907). 

BruGMANN, K., Elements of Comparative Grammar of the Indo- 
Germanic Languages (translation by Wright, 1895). 

—, Griechische Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1900), the ed. quoted. 
Vierte vermehrte Aufl. of A. Thumb (1913). 

—, Grundrif der vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 2. Aufl., Bde. 
I, II (1897-1913). 

—, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen 
Sprachen (1904). 

Buck, C. D., Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects 
(1910). 

BuLTMANN, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch- 
stoische Diatribe (1910). 

BurescuH, Téyovay und anderes Vulgirgriechisch (Rhein. Mus. 
f. Phil., 1891, pp. 193-232). 

Burkitt, F. C., Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper Names (1912). 

Burrows, R. M., Discoveries in Crete (1907). 

Burton, E. D., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. 
Gk. 3d ed. (1909). 

Burton-ZwaAan, Syntax d. Wijzen etijden in h. Gr. N. T. (1906). 

ButcueEr, 8. H., Some Aspects of the Greek Genius (1893). 

, Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects (1904). 

Burrmann, A., Grammatik d. neut. Sprachgebrauchs (1859). 

Burrmann-Tuayer, A Grammar of the N. T. Greek (1880). 








lxvi “A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Bywater, J., The Erasmian Pronunciation of Greek and its Pre- 
cursors (1908). 

Byz. Z., Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Leipzig). 

Cambr. Ph. J., Cambridge Philological Journal. 

Cath. Univ. Bull., Catholic University Bulletin. 

CauEer, Grammatica Militans. 38d ed. (1912). 

Cuanpuer, H., A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation. 
2d ed. (1881). 

Cuase, F. H., The Credibility of the Acts (1902). 

Curist, W., Geschichte der griech. Literatur bis auf die Zeit Jus- 
tinians. 4. Aufl. (1905). 5. Aufl. (1913). 

Cuurton, The Influence of the Septuagint upon the Progress of 
Christianity (1861). 

CuaFuin, Epirn, Syntax of Boeotian Dialect Inscriptions (1905). 

CuassEn, J., De Grammaticae Graecae Primordiis (1829). 

Cl. Ph., Classical Philology (Chicago). 

Cl. Q., Classical Quarterly (London). 

Cl. Rev., Classical Review (London). 

Cl. W., Classical Weekly (New York). 

Crypb8, J., Greek Syntax (1876). 

GoupERae De Sermone Gr. Volg. Pisidiae Phrygiaeque meri- 
dionalis (1895). : 

CoNYBEARE and Srock, Selections from the LXX. A Grate 
matical Introduction (1905). 

Courtoz, Les Préfixes en Grec, en Latin et en Frangais (1894). 

Cremer, H., Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N. T. Greek (1892). 
Urwick’s translation. 

-——., Bibl.-theol. Woérterbuch d. neut. Gracitaét. 9. Aufl. (1902). 
Cremer-Kogel, neue Aufl. (1912). 

CrRONERT, W., Memoria Graeca Herculanensis (1903). 

—, Questiones Herculanenses (1898). 

Crum, W. E., Coptic Ostraca from the Collections of the Egypt 
Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum and others (1902). 

Curtius, G., Greek Etymology. 2 vols. (1886). . 

——, Studien zur griech. und lat. Grammatik (1868-1878). 

peer. G., Grammatik des jiidisch- De ea acc iet Aramiiisch 
(1894). 

——, Worte Jesu (1902). 

——, The Words of Jesus (1902). Translation by D. M. Kay. 

Dawes, EH. §., Pronunciation of the Gk. Aspirates (1894). 

D. B., Dictionary of the Bible (Hastings, 1898-1904). 

D.C. G., Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (Hastings, 1906). 


LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO lxvii 


DetssmMann, A., Bible Studies (1901). Tr. by A. Grieve; cf. Bibel- 
studien (1895) and Neue Bibelstudien (1897). 

——, Biblische Gracitit etc. (Theol. Rundschau, Okt. 1912). 

——, Die Hellenisierung des semitischen Monotheismus (N. 
Jahrb, f. d. kl. Alt., 1903). 

———, Die neut. Formel ‘in Christo” (1892). 

——, Die Sprache d. griech. Bibel (Theol. Rundschau, 1906, 
No. 116). 

———, Die Urgeschichte des Christentums im Lichte der Sprach- 
forschung (Intern. Woch., 30. Okt. 1909). 

——., Hellenistisches Griechisch (Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyc., VII, 
1899). 

—, Licht vom Osten (1908). 

——., Light from the Ancient East (1910). Tr. by Strachan. 

——, New Light on the N. T. (1907). Tr. by Strachan. 

——, Papyri (Encyc. Bibl., III, 1902). 

, ot. Paul in the Light of Social and Religious History (1912). 

De.sricr, B., Ablativ Localis Instrumentalis (1867). 

, Grundrifi der vergl. Gramm. d. indog. Sprachen. Syntax. 

Bde. III-—V (1893, 1897, 1900). 

——., Introduction to the Study of Language (1882). Ejinleitung 

in das Sprachstudium. 4. Aufl. (1904). 5. Aufl. (1913). 

, syntaktische Forschungen. 5 Bde. (1871-1888). 

Dick, Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus (1900). 

Dickey, 8., New Points of View for the Study of the Greek of the 
N. T. (Princeton Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903). 

‘ Dret, De enuntiatis finalibus apud graecarum rerum scriptores 
posterioris aetatis (1894). 

Drierericu, K., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Sprache von 

| der hellen. Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. n. Chr. (1898). 

Dona.pson, J. W., The New Cratylus (1859). 

DraxzceER, Hist. Syntax d. lat. Sprache (1878-1881). 

Dubl. Rev., The Dublin Review (Dublin). 

Dire, Sprachliche Untersuchungen (1899). 

Dyrorr, A., Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum (1892, 1893). 

EareE, M. L., Classical Papers (1912). 

EBELING, H., Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zum N. T. (1913). 

EckinGEer, Die Orthographie lateinischer Worter in griech. In- 
schriften (1893). 

E.G. T., Expositor’s Greek Testament. 

Encyc. Bibl., Encyclopaedia Biblica. 

Encyc. Brit., Encyclopaedia Britannica. 11th ed. (1910). 











Ixvlili A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ENGEL, E., Die Aussprache des Griechischen (1887). 

ERNAULT, Du Parfait en Grec et en Latin (1886). 

Evans, A. J., Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Phoenician Script 
(1895). 

—, Further Researches (1898). 

Exp., The Expositor (London). 

Expos. T., The Expository Times (Edinburgh). 

FarnELL, L. R., Greek Conditional and Relative Sentences (1892). 

Farrar, F. W., Greek Syntax (1876). 

Fick-BECHTEL, Die griechischen Personennamen. 2. Aufl. (1894). 

Fie.p, F., Otium Norvicense. Pars Tertia (1881). 

FLENSBERG, Uber Ursprung und Bildung des Pron. airés (1893). 

Fow er, The Negatives of the Indo-European Languages (1896). 

Foy, K., Lautsystem der griech. Vulgarsprache (1879). 

FRANKEL, Griechische Denominativa (1906). 

FRENZEL, Die Entwick. des relativen Satzbaues im Griech. (1889). 

, Die Entwick. der Sitze mit rpiv (1896). 

Fucus, A., Die Temporalsiitze mit den Konjunktionen “bis”? und 
“so lang als” (1902). 

Fiturer, De Particulae ws cum Participiis et Praepos. punctae 
Usu Thucydideo (1889). 

GaLLoway, W. F., On the Use of M7 with the Participle in Clas- 
sical Greek (1897). 

GeEppES, A Compendious Greek Grammar (1888). 

GELDART, The Modern Greek Language in Its Relation to An- 
cient Greek (1870). i. 

GersporF, C. G., Beitrage zur Sprachcharakteristik der Schrift- 
steller des N. T. (1816). 

GESENIUS-KautTzscH, Hebrew Grammar. 

GryeER, M., Observationes epigraphicae de praepositionum graec. 
forma et usu (1880). 

GILDERSLEEVE, B. L., Editions of Pindar and Justin Martyr. 

, Latin Grammar. Many editions since 1867. 

—, Notes on Stahl’s Syntax of the Greek Verb (1910). 

, Numerous articles in the American Journal of Philology. 

GILDERSLEEVE and MILuEr, Syntax of Classical Greek. Part I 
(1900), Part II (1911). 

Gildersleeve Studies. Volume in honour of Prof. Gildersleeve of 
Johns Hopkins (1902). 

Gites, P., A Short Manual of Comparative Philology. 2d ed. 
(1901). 

—, The Greek Language (Encyc. Britannica, 1910). 











LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO Ixix 


Giutes-HeErTEL, Vergl. Grammatik (1896). Tr. of Giles’ Manual. 

GoETZELER, L., De Polybii elocutione (1887). 

, Hinflu8 d. Dion. Hal. auf d. Sprachgebrauch (1891). 

GoopsPEED, E. J., Did Alexandria Influence the Nautical Lan- 
guage of St. Luke? (The Expositor, VIII, 1908, pp. 180-141). 

Goopwin, W. W., Greek Grammar. Various editions. 

——, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. Rev. 
Ed. (1890). 

GranitT, De Inf. et Part. in Inscr. Dial. Graec. Questiones Synt. 
(1892). : 

GREEN, M7 for od before Lucian (Studies in Honour of B. Gil- 
dersleeve, 1902). 

Green, B., Notes on Greek and Latin Syntax (1897). 

GREEN, 8S. G., Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek N. T. 
Rev. Ed. (1904). 

Grecory, C. R., Canon and Text of the N. T. (1907). 

, Die griech. Handschriften d. N. T. (1908). 

—, Nov. Test. Graece, ed. Tischendorf. Bd. III, Prolegomena 

(1884-1894). 

, lextkritik d. N. T. 3 Bde. (1900-1909). 

GrimM-THArYER, A Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. (1887). 

GRUNEWALD, L., Der freie formelhafte Inf. d. Limitation im 
Griech. (1888). 

GuDEMANN, A., Grundrifi der Geschichte d. klass. Philologie. 
2. Aufl. (1909). 

GUILLEMARD, W. H., Hebraisms in the Greek Testament (1879). 

GUNTHER, R., Die Pripos. in d. griech. Dialektinschriften (Indog. 
Forsch., 1906). 3 

Hanbury and ALLEN; Greek Grammar (1895). 

Haney, JAMES, Essays Philological and Critical (1873). 

, Language of the N. T. (vol. II, Hackett and Abbott’s ed. of 

Smith’s B. D., 1898). 

Hanne, Zur sprachlichen Asthetik d. Griechischen (1896). 

Hatz, W. G., The Anticipatory Subj. in Gk. and Lat. (Stud. Cl. 
Phil., 1895). 

——, The Cum Constructions (Studies in Class. Phil., 1887). 

—, The Origin of Subj. and Opt. Conditions in Gk. and Lat. 
(Harvard Studies in Class. Philol., 1901). 

Hamitton, The Negative Compounds in Greek (1899). 

Hammer, De ze Particulae Usu Herodoteo Thucydideo Xeno- 
phonteo (1904). 

Hammerscumipt, Uber die Grundb. von Konjunktiv und Optativ. 

















Ixx A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Harnack, A., Luke the Physician (1907). 

——, The Acts of the Apostles (1909). 

Harris, J. RENDEL, Side-Lights on N. T. Research (1908). 

Harrison, Gessnir, A Treatise on the Philology of Greek Prepo- 
sitions (1858). 

Harrison, Miss JANE, Prol. to the Study of Greek Religion (1903). 

Harsinec, C., De Optativi in Chartis Aegyptis Usu. Diss. Bonn 
(1910). : 

Hartez, Abrif der Gr. d. hom. und herod. Dial. (1888). 

Hartoune, J. A., Lehre von den Partikeln der griech. Spr., I, I 
(1832-1833). 

Hatcu, E., Essays in Bibl. Greek (1892). 

Hatcu, W. H. P., Some Illustrations of N. T. Usage from Greek 
Inscriptions of Asia Minor (Journ. of Bibl. Lit., 1908, pp. 


134-146). 
Hatzmakis, G. N., Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik 
(1892). : 
Havers, W., Untersuch. zur Kasussyntax der indog. Sprachen 
(1911). 


Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae. 2d ed. (1909). 

Heine, G., Synonymik des neutest. Griechisch (1898). 

Hernrict, K. F., Der literarische Charakter der neutest. Schriften 
(1908). 

HeEItmMtLurer, W., Im Namen Jesu (1902). 

Heipine, R., Die Priipos. bei Herodot und andern Historikern 
(1904). 

—, Grammatik der Septuaginta. Laut- und Wortlehre (1907). 

—, Uber den Gebrauch des echten und soziativen Dativs bei 
Herodot. 

Henry, Précis de grammaire du grec et du latin. 5th ed. (1894). 
Elliott’s tr. of Ist ed. (1890). 

Hermes, Zeitschrift fiir klassische Philologie. 

Hurssetina, D. C., De Koine en de oude dialekten van Griechen- 
land (1906). 

Hicks, E. L., St. Paul and Hellenism (Studia Biblica et Eecl., 
1896). 

——, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the N. T. 
(1896). 

——., Use of Political Terms in the N. T. (Ciass. Rev., March 
and April, 1887). 

Hicks, E. L., and Hiuu, G. F., A Manual of Greek Histerical In- 
scriptions (1901). 


LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO xxi 


Hirt, H., Handbuch der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre (1902). 
ZeAuietl O12): 

Horart, W. K., The Medical Language of Luke (1882). 

HorrMann, F., Neutestamentliche Bibelstudien. 5 Bde. (1903). 

, Uber die Entwick. des Begriffs der Grammatik bei den 
Alten (1891). 

HorrMmann, O., Das Priisens der indog. Grundsprache (1889). 

—., Die griechischen Dialekte, I-III (1891-1898). 

—, Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum (1906). 

—, Geschichte d. griech. Sprache (1911). 

Hogartu, D. G., Philip and Alexander (1897). 

Hou, K., Das Fortleben der Volkssprachen in nachchristlicher 
Zeit (Hermes, 1908, 48, pp. 243 ff.). 

Hoots, C. H., The Classical Element in the N. T. (1888). 

Hort, F. J. A., Notes on Orthography (pp. 141-173, vol. II of the 
N. T. in the Original Greek, 1882). 

Howes, The Use of My with the Participle (Harv. St. in Cl. Ph., 
1901). | 

Hatcu and Reppatu, Concordance to the LX X (1897). 

Hipner, E., Grundrifi zu Vorlesungen tiber die griech. Syntax 
(1883). 

HijpscumMann, Zur Kasuslehre (1875). 

Humeureys, M. W., The Problems of Greek (Congress of Arts 
and Sciences, 1904, vol. III, pp. 171 ff.). 

Indog. Forsch., Indogermanische Forschungen (Strafburg). 

Immer, J., Hermeneutics of the N. T. Tr. by A. H. Newman 
(1877 )iy 

Intern. Woch., Internationale Wochenschrift. 

JacopsTHaL, H. K., Der Gebrauch der Tempora und Modi in 
den kretischen Dialektinschriften (1906). | 

JacquimR, E., Histoire des Livres du N. T. Tomes I-IV. Ch. ii, 
Tome I, Langue du N. T. 

J. kl. Ph., Jahrbuch fiir klass. Philologie (Leipzig). 

JANNARIS, A. N., A Historical Greek Grammar (1897). 

—, On the True Meaning of the Kown (Class. Rev., 1903, pp. 
O3sity) 

JeBB, R. C., Attic Orators. 2d ed. (1893). 

, Introduction to the Iliad and the Odyssey (1892). 

—, On the Relation of Classical to Modern Greek (Appendix 
to Vincent and Dickson’s Handbook to Mod. Gk., 1887). 
JELF, W. E., A Grammar of the Greek Language. 2 vols. 

(1866). 








Ixxll A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


JOHANNESSOHN, M., Der Gebrauch der Kasus und der Priposi- 
tionen in der Septuaginta. Teil I (1910). 

Jotuy, Ein Kapitel d. vergl. Syntax. Der Konjunktiv und Op- 
tativ. 

——, Geschichte des Infinitivs im Indog. (18738). 

Joy, On the Syntax of Some Prepositions in the Greek Dialects 
(1905). 

J. of Phil., The Journal of Philology (London). 

J. B. L., The Journal of Biblical Literature (Boston). 

J. H. S., The Journal of Hellenic Studies (London). 

J. T. S., The Journal of Theological Studies (London). 

JiiticHer, A., Introduction to the N. T. Tr. by Ward (1904). 

Kaerrst, J., Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters (1901). 

KAIBEL, Stil und Text der ’A@nvaiwy Iodureia. 

KALKER, F., Questiones de elocutione Polybiana (1880). 

KALLENBERG, Stud. itiber den griech. Artikel (1891). 

Kaurzscu, E., Grammatik d. bibl. Aram. (1884). 

Kennepy, H. A. A., Recent Research in the Language of the 
N. T. (The Expos. T., xu, 1901). 

——., Sources of N. T. Greek (1895). 

—, St Paul and the Mystery Religions (1913). 

Kenyon, F. G., Evidence of the Papyri for Textual Criticism of 
the N. T. (1905). 

——, Handbook to the Textual Crit. of the N. T. 2d ed. (1912). 

—, Paleography of the Greek Papyri (1899). 

——, Papyri (Hastings’ D. B., extra vol., 1904). 

ane and Cookson, The Doane of Sonn and efiesion as 
Illustrated in the Greek and Latin Languages (1888). 

Krauss, 8., Griechische und lateinische Lehnworter in Talmud, 
Midrasch und Targum. I (1898), II (1899). 

Kress, F., Die Prapositionen bei Polybius (1882. Schanz’ Bei- 
triige). 

——, Die Pripositionsadverbien in der spiteren hist. Gricitit. 
Tl. I (1889). 

——, Zur Rektion der Kasus in der spiiteren hist. Gricit. (1887— 
1890). 

KRENKEL, Josephus und Lukas (1894). 

KretscHMeEr, P., Die Einl. in die Geschichte der griech. Sprache 
(1906). 

——, Die Entstehung der Kow7 (Sitz. ber. d. Wien. Akad., 1900). 

——, Die griech. Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht 
(1894). 


LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO _Lxxili 


KRUMBACHER, K., Beitrige zu einer Geschichte der griech. 
Sprache (Kuhn’s Zeitschr., 1885, pp. 481-545). 

—, Das Problem d. neugriech. Schriftsprache (1902). 

—, Das Programm des neuen Thesaurus d. griech. Spr. (1909). 

—., Die griech. Lit. des Mittelalters (Kultur d. Gegenwart, 
plated bteavill,) L905). 

Ktuner-Buass, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik d. griech. Sprache. 
3. Aufl. of Kiihner. Teil I, Bde. I, II (1890, 1892). 

KUHNER-GERTH, Ausf. Gramm. d. griech. Spr. 3. Aufl. of Kiihner. 
Tl. II, Bde. I, II (1898, 1904). 

Kuurina, G., De praepositionum Graecarum in chartis Aegyp- 
tiacis (1906). 

Kurerr, Der Gebr. d. Opt. bei Diod. Sic. (1903). 

K. Z., Kuhn’s Zeitschrift fiir vergl. Sprachforschung (Berlin). 

LaroscapbE, Infl. du Lat. sur le Gree (Bibl. de l’Hcole des hautes 
fit., 1892, pp. 83-158). 

LAGARDE, P. pn, Septuagintastudien. I (1891). 

Lake, K., The Text of the N. T. 4th ed. (1908). 

LAMBERT, Etude sur le dialecte éolien (1903). 

Lana, A., Homer and His Age (1906). 

LAQUEUR, R., Questiones epigraphicae et papyrologicae selectae 
(1904). 

La Rocus, Beitraige zur griech. Gr. (1883). 

—, Das Augment des griech. Verbums (1882). 

LAauGuHLuIN, T. C., The Solecisms of the Apocalypse (1902). 

LAUTENSACH, Verbalflexion der attischen Inschriften (1887). 

LEFEVRE, Race and Language (1909). 

Leu, Der Absolut-Akk. im Griech. bis zu Aristoteles (1892). 

LEuTNER, W. G., The Article in Theocritus (1907). 

LippELL and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon. 8th ed. (1882). 

LinTzMANN, H., Die klass. Philologie und das N. T. (N. Jahrb. 
PekleAit, 1908" Bd221), 

——, Griechische Papyri ausgewahlt und erklart. 2. Aufl. (1910). 

LicuTrooT, TRENCH, Exuicott, The Revision of the N. T. (1873). 

Liestus, K. H. A., Grammatische Untersuchungen iiber die bibl. 
Gricitait (1863). 

Livineston, The Greek Genius and Its Meaning to Us (1912). 

Loseck, C. A., Phrynichi ecloga nominum et verborum Atticorum 
(1820). 

Lock, W., The Bible and Christian Life (1905). 

Loisy, A., Histoire critique du texte et des versions de la Bible 
(1892). 


Ixxiv A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Lotticu, B., De sermone vulgari Atticorum (1881). 

Lutz, Die Kasus-Adverbien bei att. Rednern (1891). 

Mapvic, Bemerk. iiber einige Punkte des Griech. (1848). 

——., Syntax of the Greek Language (1880). 

Viana J. P., A Survey of Greek Civilization (1897). 

—., Greek ite and Thought (1896). 

——, Progress of Hellenism in Alexander’s Empire (1905). 

——, The Greek World under Roman Sway (1890). 

—, What Have the Greeks Done for Civilization? (1909). 

Marcouioutn, D.§8., Language of the O. T. (Hastings’ D. B.). 

Mareouts, The Particle 7 in O. T. Gk. (Am. J. of Sem. Lang. and 
Lit July 1909): 

Marsuauu, J. T., The Aramaic Gospel (The Expositor, ser. IV, 
li, lll, iv, vi, vill; The Expos. Times, iv, 260). 

Mart, K., Kurzgef. Gr. d. bibl. aram. Spr. (1911). 

Maysemr, E., Grammatik der griech. Papyri aus der Ptolemiéerzeit. 
Laut- und-Wortlehre (1906). 

Meruuet, A., Introduction 4 l’étude comparative des langues male 
européennes (1908). 4th ed. (1915). 

—, L’aoriste en lat. (Revue de Phil., 1897, p. 81 f.). 

——., Notes d’Etymologie Grecque (1896). 

Metstsr, R., Beitrige zur Lautlehre d. LXX (1909). 

, Der syntakt. Gebrauch d. Genitivs in den kret. Dialekt- 

inschriften (Indog. Forsch., X VIII, pp. 1383-204). 

—, Die griech. Dialekte. 2 Bde. (1882-1889). 

, Prol. zu einer Gramm. d. LXX (1907). 

MBISTERHANS-SCHWYZER, Gramm. d. attischen Inschriften. 3. 
Aufl. (1900) of Meisterhans. 

Merriam, A. C., Temporal Coincidence of the Aor. Part. with the 
Principal Verb (Proc. Am. Phil. Assoc., 1877). 

Meyer, A., Jesu Muttersprache (1896). 

Meyer, G., Griech. Grammatik. 3. Aufl. (1896). 

Mryemr, L., Griech. Aoriste (1879). 

, Vergl. Gr. d. griech. und lat. Spr. 2 Bde. 2. Aufl. (1882- 
1884). 

Meyer-Litsxe, Gramm. d. roman. Spr. 3 Bde. (1890-1899). 

‘MIDDLETON, Ae in Syntax (1892). 

——., The Doctrine of the Greek Article (1855). 

Mitpen, The Limitations of the Predicate Position in Greek. 

Mriuuer, C. W. E., The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic 
Orators (Am. J. Ph., 1892, pp. 399-436). 

Miuuican, G., Selections from the Greek Papyri (1910). 











LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO Ixxv 


Miuican, G., The Greek Papyri with Special Reference to their 
Value for N. T. Study (1912). 

——, The N. T. Documents (1913). 

Mirsorakis, Praktische Gr. d. neugriech. Schrift- und Umgangs- 
sprache (1891). 

Mirrets und WILcKEN, Grundziige und Chrestomathie der Papy- 
ruskunde. 2 Bde. (1912). 

Morratt, J., The New Testament. A New Translation (1913). 

Mommsen, T., Beitrige zur Lehre der griech. Pripositionen 
(1886-1895). 

——., Die Prap. otv und wera bei den nachhom. Epikern (1879). 

Monro, D. B., Homeric Grammar (1882). 2d ed. (1891). First 
ed. used. 

Mouwutton, J. H., A Grammar of N. T. Greek. Vol. I, Prolego- 
mena (1906). 3d ed. (1908). 

——., Characteristics of N. T. Greek (The Expositor, 1904). 

——, Einleitung in die Sprache des N. T. (1911). 

—, Grammatical Notes from the Papyri (The Expositor, 1901, 
pp. 271-282; 1903, pp. 104-121, 423-4389. ‘The Classical Re- 
view, 1901, pp. 31-387, 484-441; 1904, pp. 106-112, 151-155). 

——., Introduction to N. T. Greek (1895). 2d ed. (1904). 

—., Language of Christ (Hastings’ One-vol. D. B., 1909). 

——, N. T. Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery (Cambr. 

Bibl. Essays, 1909, pp. 461-505). 

, The Science of Language (1903). 

Movutton, W. F., and Grprn, A. 8., A Concordance to the Greek 
Testament (1897). 

Mov.uton and Miuuiaan, Lexical Notes from the Papyri (The 
Expos., 1908—). 

——, The Vocabulary of the N. T. Illustrated from the Papyri 
‘and other Non-Literary Sources. Part I (1914), II, III. 
Moztey, F. W., Notes on the Bibl. Use of the Present and Aorist 

Imperative (Journ. of Theol. Stud., 1903, iv, pp. 279-282). 

Mutuacu, F., Grammatik d. griech. Vulgarsprache (1856). 

Miuuer, H. C., Hist. Gramm. d. hellen. Sprache (1891). 

Miter, I., Handbuch d. klass. Altertumswissenschaft (1885—). 

Miuurr, Max, Three Lectures on the Science of Language (1891). 

Murray, G., A History of Ancient Greek Lit. (1897). 

Mutzsauer, C., Die Grundbedeutung des Konjunktivs und Op- 
tativs und ihre Entwick. im Griech. (1908). 

—, Die Grundlagen der griech. Tempuslehre und des hom. 
Tempusgebrauchs. I (1893), II (1909). 





Ixxvl A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


NACHMANSON, E.., Beitrage zur Kenntnis der altgriech. Volks- 
sprache (1910). 

——, Epigraphisch-grammatische Bemerkungen (Eranos 11, 

1912). 

, Laute und Formen der magnetischen Inschriften (1903). 

Nace, T., Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus. a—e (1905). 

NavaRRE, Etude sur les particules grecques (R. E. A., vii, pp. 
116-130). 

Neste, E., Einfiihrung in das griech. N. T. 2. Aufl. (1899). 
Introd. to the Textual Crit. of the N. T. (Tr. 1901). 

——, Novum Testamentum Graece. 8th ed. (1910). 

——, Septuagint (Hastings’ D. B., 1902). 

——, Septuaginta-Studien. I-V (1886-1907). 

——, Zum neutest. Griechisch (Z. N. W., vii, 1906). 

NEUBAUER, Studia Biblica (1885). 

N. k. Z., Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift (Leipzig). 

N. Jahrb. kl. Alt., Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das klass. Altertum 
(Leipzig). 

Niusson, Kausalsitze im Griech. bis Aristoteles. I., Die Poesie. 

NorvEn, E., Die antike Kunstprosa. 2. Aufl. (1909). 

OERTEL, H., Lectures on the Study of Language (1902). 

OgpEN, De infinitivi finalis vel consecutivi constr. apud priscos 
poetas Graecos (1913). 

Pautey, Greek Particles and their Combinations (1881). 

Pauuis, A., A Few Notes on the Gospel (1903). 

——, ‘H Néa Acabyxn (1902). The N. T. (Gospels) in modern 
Greek vernacular. 

Pater, W., The Renaissance (1904). 

Pau, H., Principles of the History of Language (1888). Tr. 

PrTeRsen, W., Greek Diminutives in —.oy (1910). 

Pre1raur, Der Artikel vor Personen- und Gétternamen bei Thuk. 
und Herod. (1908). 

PristeR, Die parataktische Darstellungsform in der volkstiim- 
lichen Erzihlung (Woch. f. klass. Phil., 1911, pp. 809-813). 

Ph. W., Philologische Wochenschrift. 

Ph. Z., Philologus: Zeitschrift f. d. kl. Alt. (G6ttingen). 

PosteaTE, J. P., Contrasts of Ob and My (Cambr. Phil. Jour., 1886). 

PrELLWitTz, Etym. Worterbuch d. griech. Sprache (1893). 2d ed. 
(1905). 

PrevuscHen, E., Vollstaindiges griechisch-deutsches Handworter- 
buch zu den Schriften d. N. T. und d. iibrigen urchristlichen 
Literatur (1908). 





LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO Ixxvil 


Pr. Rev., The Princeton Review (Princeton). 

PsicHari, J., Essai sur le grec de la Septante (Rev. des études 
juives, April, 1908). 

, Essais de grammaire historique néo-grecque (1886-1889). 

RADERMACHER, L., Neut. Grammatik. Das Griechisch des N. T. 
im Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache (1911). 

Ramsay, W. M., Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. 2 vols. (1895, 
1897). : 

—, St. Paul the Traveller (1896). 

R. E., Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyclopidie. 

R. E. Gr., Revue des études grecques (Paris). 

Rerret, Uber den Sprachgebr. d. Agathias. 

Retk, Der Opt. bei Polyb. und Philo (1907). 

ReEINAcH, 8., Pap. grecs et démotiques (1905). 

REINHOLD, H., De graecitate Patrum (1898). 

Rersart, Zur Attraktion der Relativsitze in der griech. Prosa. 

REITZENSTEIN, Geschichte d. griech. Etym. (1897). 

ReEnavpD, The Distributed Emphasis of the Pers. Pronoun (1884). 

Rev. and Exp., The Review and Expositor (Louisville). 

Rev. d. Ling., Revue de Linguistique de la Phil. comparée (Paris). 

Rev. d. Ph., Revue de Philologie (Paris). 

Rev. of Th. & Ph., Review of Theology and Philosophy (Edin- 
burgh). 

Rh. M., Rheinisches Museum (Bonn). 

RincEway, W., The Early Age of Greece. Vol. I (1901). 

RImMANN and GOELZER, Grammaire Comparée du Gree et du 
Latin. I (1897), II (1901). 

Riss, Was ist Syntax? (1894). 

Roperts, A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Jesus 
(1893). 

RoBERTS-GARDNER, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy (1883). 

Ropertson, A. T. A Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908). 

3d ed. (1912). 

, syllabus on N. T. Greek Syntax (1900). 

RoBERTSON-BonaAccorsI, Breve grammatica del Nuovo Testa- 
mento greco (1910). | 

ROBERTSON-GROSHEIDE, Beknopte Grammatica op het Grieksche 
Nieuwe Testament (1912). 

RoBeERTSON-Montet, Grammaire du grec du N. T. (1911). 

ROBERTSON-STOCKS, Kurzgefaite Grammatik des neut. Griechisch 
(1911). 

Ross, A., Christian Greece and Living Greek (1898). 








Ixxvill A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Rosssere, C., De pripos. graecarum in chartis aegyptiis ptolem. 
aetatis usu (1909). 

Rourrtac, J., Recherches sur les caractéres du grec dans le N. T. 
d’aprés les inscriptions de Priéne (1911). 

RUTHERFORD, W. G., A Chapter in the History of Annotation 

(1905). 

, The New Phrynichus (1881). 

Riaur, Priip. bei Joh. Antiochenus (1896). 

, Prip. bei Pausanias (1889). 

Sanpay, W., The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905). 

Sanpys, J. E., A History of Classical Scholarship. I-III (1906- 
1908). 

Sayce, A. H., Introduction to the Science of Language (1880). 

, Language (Encyc. Brit., 11th ed., 1910). 

——., Principles of Comparative Philology (1875). 

ScHAEFER, Das Partizip des Aor. bei d. Tragikern (1894). 

ScuaFF, P., A Companion to the Greek N. T. and Engl. Vers. 
3d ed. (1889). 

Scuanz, M., Beitrige zur histor. Syntax d. griech. Sprache 
(1882—). | 

ScHILLING, D., Comm. exeg.-philol. in Hebraism. d. N. T. (1886). 

Scurruitz, 8. C., Anleitung zur Kenntnis d. neut. Grundsprache 
(1863). 

ScHLACHTER, Statist. Unters. tiber den Gebr. der Temp. und 
Modi bei einzelnen griech. Schriftst. (1908). : 

SCHLAGETER, J., Der Wortschatz d. auSerhalb Attikas gefunde- 

nen Inschriften (1912). 

,Zur Laut- und Formenlehre d. au8. Att. gef. attischen Inschr. 

(1908). 

ScHLEICHER, A., Compendium d. vergl. Gr. d. indog. Sprachen. 
4, Aufl. (1876). 

Scumip, J., Uber den gnomischen Aor. des Griech. (1894). 

Scumip, W., Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern. 4 Bde. 
(1887-1897). 

Scumipt, De Articulo in nominibus propiis apud Att. scriptores 
(1890). 

Scumipt, W., De Flavii Josephi elocutione (1894). 

Scumirr, P., Uber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Rela- 
tivpartikeln im Griech. (1889). 

ScHOEMANN, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten (1862). 

Scuroreper, Uber die form. Untersch. d. Redet. im Griech. und 
Lat. (1874). 














LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO’ [xxix 


ScuugmrReER, A., A History of the Jew. P. in the Time of Jesus 
Christ. 5 vols. (1898). Tr. by Macpherson. 

ScHuuzeE, Der schriftsteller. Charakter und Wert des Petrus, Judas 
und Jakobus (1802). 

ScHuuzE, W., Graeca Latina (1901). 

ScHwaB, O., Hist. Syntax der griech. Komparative in d. klass. 
Lit. Heft I (1893), II (1894), III (1895). 

ScuoweEizerR, E., Bericht tiber die Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der 
eriech. Sprachw. mit Ausschlu8 der Koiné und der Dialekte 
in den Jahren 1890-1903 (Bursian’s Jahresbericht, exx, 1904, 
pp: 1-152). 

—, Die griech. Sprache in Zeit d. Hellen. (N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt., 
1901, vii, viii). 

—, Grammatik der pergamen. Inschriften (1898). 

—., Neugriech. Syntax und altgriech. (N. Jahrb. f. kl. Alt., 1908, 
pp. 498-507). 

ScHWYZER (SCHWEIZER), E., Die Weltsprachen des Altertums 
(1902). 

Scomp, H. A., The Case Absolute in the N. T. (Bibl. Sacra, April, 
1902). 

Srrmour, T. D., Homeric Language and Verse (1902). 

, Life in the Homeric Age (1907). 

—, The Use of the Gk. Aor. Part. (Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc., XII, 
1881, pp. 88 ff.). 

S. H., Sanday and Headlam on Romans. 

Suarp, G., Remarks on the Definitive Article in the Greek of the 
Nee (L808): 

SHEFFIELD, A. D., Grammar and Thinking (1912). 

Simcox, W. H., The Language of the N. T. (1890). 

——, The Writers of the N. T. 

Stmonson, A., A Greek Grammar. 2 vols. (1903, 1908). 

SmitH, R. H., The Theory of Conditional Sentences in Greek and 
Latin (1894). | 

SmytTH, H. W., The Sounds and Inflexions of Greek Dialects. I, 
Tonic (1894). : 

SopEN, H. von, Die Schriften des N. T. in ihrer dltesten erreich- 
baren Textgestalt. Teil I, Untersuch. (1902-1910); Teil II, 
Text und Apparat (1913). 

—, Griechisches N. T. Text mit kurzem Apparat (1913). 

SoutmsEn, I’., Beitriige zur griech. Wortforschung (1909). 

——, Inscriptiones graecae selectae (1905). 

—, Untersuch. zur griech. Laut- und Verslehre (1901). 





Ixxx A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Sopnocies, KE. A., Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine 
Period (1888). ~ 

Souter, A., Novum Testamentum Graece (1910). The Revisers’ 
Text with a New Apparatus Criticus. 

SPIEKER, The Gen. Abs. in the Attic Orators (Am. J. of Ph., VI, 
pp. 310-343). 

St. B., Standard Bible Dictionary (Ed. by M. W. Jacobus, 1909). 

Srauu, J. M., Kritisch-historische Syntax des griech. Verbums 
der klass. Zeit. (1907). 

Sraurac, Uber den Gebr. d. Gen. bei Herodot. 

STEINTHAL, H., Geschichte der Sprachwiss. bei den Griech. und 
Roémern. 2. Aufl. (1890-1891). 

——., Introduction to the Psychology and Science of Language 
(1900). 

STERENBOURG, The Use of the Cond. Sentence in the Alex. Ver- 
sion of the Pentateuch (1908). 

STERRETT, J. R. 8., Homer’s Iliad with Grammar (1907). 

Stocks, H., Das neutestamentliche Griechisch im Lichte der mo- 
dernen Sprachforschung (Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, XXIV. 
Jahrgang, 633-700). 

Strack, H. L., Grammatik des bibl. Aram. 4. Aufl. (1905). 

Strona, LogeMAN and WHEELER, Introduction to the Study of 
the History of Lang. (1891). 

Sturm, J., Geschichtl. Entwick. der Konstrukt. mit Hpiv (1882). 

STURTEVANT, Studies in Greek Noun Formation (Labial Termi- 
nations, I, 1910; IL, 1911; II and IV, 1913). 

SusEMIHL, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinerzeit. I (1891), 
II (1892). 

SUTTERLIN, Gesch. der Verba denom. in Altgriech. (1891). 

SWEET, History of Language (1900). 

Swets, H. B., Introduction to the O. T.in Greek (1900). 2 Ed.,’14. 

, The Apocalypse of St. John (1906). 

——, The O. T. in Greek according to the Septuagint (1887). 
3 vols. 

SzuczuRAT, De Inf. Hom. Usu (1902). 

Téury, Chron. und Topogr. der griech. Ausspr. nach d. Zeugnisse 
der Inschr. (1893). 

THACKERAY, H. St., A Grammar of the O. T. in Greek. Vol. I, 
Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (1909). 

—, Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Thought (1900). 

TuHayer, J. H., Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T. (1887). 

——., Language of the N. T. (Hastings’ D. B., 1900). 





LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO  I[xxxi 


Tuemmer, A., Beitrige zur Kenntnis des Sprachgebr. im N. T. 
(1896). 

Th. L.-Z., Theologische Literaturzeitung (Leipzig). 

Th. R., Theologische Rundschau (Tiibingen). 

Th. St. u. Kr., Theol. Studien und Kritiken (Gotha). 

TurieME, G., Die Inschr. von Magnesia am Maander und das 
N. T. (1906). 

Tuouuck, Beitrage zur Spracherklarung des N. T. 

THompson, E. M., Handbook of Greek and Latin Palzography 
(1893). New ed. (1913). 

Tuomeson, F. E., A Syntax of Attic Greek. New ed. (1907). 

Tuomson, J. E. H., The Language of Palestine during the Time 
of Our Lord (Temple Bible Dict.). 

Tuomson, P., The Greek Tenses in the N. T. (1895). 

THOUVENIN, P., Les Négations dans le N. T. (Revue de Philologie, 
1894). 

Tuums, A., Die Forsch. iiber die hellen. Spr. in den Jahren 
1902-1904 (Arch. f. Pap. 3, pp. 443-473). 

—, Die griech. Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus (1901). 

—, Diesprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech. (Theol. Rund., 1902). 

—, Handbuch der griech. Dial. (1909). 

—, Handbuch d. neugriech. Volkssprache. 2. Aufl. (1910). 

—, Handbuch des Sanskrits. I, Grammatik (1905). 

——, Unters. iiber d. Sp. Asper im Griech. (1889). 

TuumB-Anaus, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular 
(1912). 

Tiscu., Novum Testamentum Graece, by C. Tischendorf. Edi- 
tio octava critica major. 2 vols. (1869-1872). 

Trencu, R. C., Synonyms of the N. T. 11th ed. (1890). Deutsche 
Ausgabe von Werner (1907). 

TsountTas and Manatt, The Mycenzan Age (1897). 

Tucker, T. G., Introduction to the Natural History of Language 
(1908). 

VANDACLE, L’Optatif Grec (1897). 

Veitcu, W., Greek Verbs, Irregular and Defective.. 2d ed. (1871). 

Virreck, P., Die griech. Papyruskunde (1899-1905). 34. Jahr- 
gang 1906. III. Abt. (1907). 

—, Die Papyrusliteratur in den 70 Jahren bis 1898 (1900). 

27. Jahrgang 1899. III. Abt. 

, Sermo Graecus quo senatus populusque Romanus (1888). 

VieRKE, De wn Particulae cum Indicativo Conjunctae Usu An- 
tiquiore (1876). 





Ixxxil A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


VINCENT and Dickson, A Handbook to Modern Greek (1887). 

VITEAU, J., Essai sur la syntaxe des voix dans le grec du N. T. 
(Rev. de Phil., 1894). 

——., Etude sur le grec du N. T. I, Le Verbe (1893) ; II, Le Sujet 
(1896). 

VoceEL, H., Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil 
(1899). 

Voacrinz, Grammatik d. hom. Dial. (1889). 

V6uLKER, F., Papyrorum graecorum syntaxis specimen (1900). 

, syntax d. griech. Papyri. I, Der Artikel (1903). 

Voraw, C. W., The Use of the Infinitive in Bibl. Greek (1896). 

WACKERNAGEL, J., Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech. Komposita 
(1889). 

—, Die hellenistische Gemeinsprache. (Die Kult. d. Gegenwart, 
Tl. I, Abt. viii, 1905, pp. 98-305). 

, Die Sprache des Plut. etc. Teile I, II (1895-1896). 

WaGner, R., Questiones de epigrammatis graecis ex lapidibus 
collectis grammaticae (1883). 

Watucu, Observationes in Matt. ex graecis inscriptionibus (1779). : 

WaLker, D., Elementary Greek Syntax (1897). 

WarFIELD, B. B., An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of 
the N. T. New ed. (1914). 

WARREN, WINIFRED, A Study of Conjunctional Temporal Clauses 
in Thucyd. (1897). 

Weber, P., Entwick. der Absichtssitze. Heft I (1884), Heft IT 
(1885). 

WECKLEIN, Curae epigraphicae ad grammaticam graecam et ad 
poetas scenicos pertinentes (1869). 

Werss, B., Der Gebr. des Artikels bei den Gottesnamen (Th. 

Stu. u. Krit., 1911, pp. 319-392). 

, Textkritik (1894 ff.). 

Wetss, J., Beitriige zur paulinischen Rhetorik (1897). 

WELLHAUSEN, J., Hinl. in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905). 
2. Ausg. (1911). 

WENDLAND, P., Christentum und Hellenismus (1907). 

, Hellen.-rém. Kultur. 3. Aufl. (1912). 

WessELEY, C., Die lat. Elemente in d. Gracitaét d. igypt. Pap. 
(Wien. Stud., xxiv, 1902). 

—, Lit. der Papyruskunde (Stud. zur Paldogr. und Pap. I, 
1901, pp. 17-20; II, 1902, pp. 43-52). 

—., Proleg. ad papyrorum graecorum novam collectionem eden- 
dam (1883). 














LIST OF WORKS MOST OFTEN REFERRED TO Ixxxiil 


Westcott, B. F., Language of the N. T. (Smith’s B. D.). 

W.H., Westcott and Hort’s Edition of the N. T. in the Original 
Greek. Numerous eds. 

—., The N. T. in the Original Greek. Introduction and Appen- 
dix (1882). 

WeymoutH, On the Rendering into English of the Greek Aorist 
and Perfect (1894). 

WHEELER, B. I., The Whence and the Whither of the Modern 
Science of Language (1905). 

Wuistey, L., Companion to Greek Studies (1905). 2d ed. (1906). 

Wuitney, 8. W., The Revisers’ Greek Text. 2 vols. (1892). 

Wuitney, W. D., A Sanskrit Grammar (1891). 4th ed. (1913). 

, Language and the Study of Language (1867). 

, Life and Growth of Language (1875). 

WILAMowITz-MO6LLENDORFF, U. von, Die griech. Literatur des 
Altertums (Die Kult. d. Gegenw., 1907, Tl. I, Abt. viii, pp. 
3-238. 3. Aufl. 1912). 

—, Uber die Entstehung der griech. Schriftsprachen (Verf. 
deutscher Phil. und Schulm., 1879, pp. 36-41). 

Wiucken, U., Die Forschungen tiber die hellen. Spr. in den 
Jahren 1902-1904 (Archiv f. Pap., 1906, pp. 443-473). 

WILHELM, A., Beitrige zur griech. Inschriftenkunde (1909). 

WitHetmus, De Modo Irreali qui Vocatur (1881). 

WILKE, Neutestamentliche Rhetorik (1843). 

Wituiams, C. B., The Participle in the Book of Acts (1908). 

Wison, A. J., Emphasis in the N. T. (Jour. of Th. Stud., VIII, 
DDeai ost)? 

Winer, G. B., De verborum cum praep. compos. in N. T. Usu 
(1834-1843). 

—, Gramm. d. neut. Sprachidioms (1822). 7. Aufl. von Liine- 
mann (1867). 

Winer-Masson, A Grammar of the N. T. Gk. (1859). 

Winer-Moutton, A Treatise of the Grammar of N. T. Gk. 3d 
ed. (1882). Various eds. 

WINER-SCHMIEDEL, Winer’s Grammatik des neutest. Sprach- 
idioms. 8. Aufl. (1894—).° 

Wriner-lTuayver, A Grammar of the Idiom of the N. T. (1869). 
Various eds. 

WItTkowskI, St., Bericht tiber die Lit. zur Koiné aus den Jahren 
1898-1902 (Bursian’s Jahrb. CXX, 1904, pp. 153-256). 
—, Bericht iiber die Lit. zur Koiné aus den Jahren 1903-1906 

(Jahresber. f. Alt., 1912, III. Bd., 159). 








lxxxiv A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


WITKowskI, St., Epistulae privatae graecae (1906). 

, Prodromus grammaticae papyrorum graecarum aetatis 

Lagidarum (1897). 

Woch. f. kl. Ph., Wochenschrift fiir klassische Philologie. 

Wriacut, J., A Comparative Grammar of the Greek Language 
(1912): 

Wunpt, Volkerpsychologie. 2. Aufl. (1904). 3. Aufl. (1911 f.). 

Youna, Language of Christ (Hastings’ D. C. G.). 

ZAHN, Tu., Einl. in das N. T. Bd. I (1906), II (1907). 

—, On the Language of Palestine. Vol. I, pp. 1-72. Introduc- 
tion to the N. T. Tr. by Jacobus (1909). 

ZARNCKE, E., Die Entstehung der griech. Literatursprachen 
(1890). 

ZEITLIN, The Acc. with Inf. and Some Kindred Constrs. in Eng- 
lish (1908). 

ZEZSCHWITZ, Profangriic. und bibl. Sprachg. (1859). 

ZIEMER, Vergl. Syntax der indog. Kompar. (1884). 

Z. N.-T. W., Zeitschrift fiir neut. Wissenschaft (GieBen). 





ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR 
THIRD EDITION 


Baty, Le Langage et la Vie (1913). 

BiomrieLtp, An Introduction to the Study of Language (1914). 

BruGMANN, Lehre von den Wortformen und ihren Gebrauch. 
III. Teil. 2. Lieferung (1917). 

Buck, Studies in Greek Noun-formation (Classical Philology, 1917 
and 1918). 

Coprrn, The New Archeological Discoveries in their Bearing on 
the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. 2d ed. 
(1918). | 

Dawkins, Modern Greek in Asia Minor (1916). 

DEFERRARI, Lucian’s Atticism. The Morphology of the Verb 
(1916). 

DuruaM, The Vocabulary of Menander in Relation to the Koine 
(1915). 

Dutton, Studies in Greek Prepositional Phrases: 61a, azo, éx, eis, 
év (1916). 

Eakin, The Greek Article in First and Second Century Papyri 
(Am. J. of Phil., No. 147, 1916, pp. 333-340). 

Hemet, Early Cyprian Greek (Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc., 1916, 
pp. 229-248). 

HERWERDEN, VAN, Lexicon Graecum Suppletorium et Dialecti- 
cum. 2d ed. (1910). 

HovuGuton, Saving Greek in the College (The Cl. Weekly, Dec. 11, 
1916). 

Kaerrst, Geschichte des Hellenismus. 2d ed. (1917). 

Livinestong, A Defense of Classical Education (1916). 

Maipuor, Zur Begriffbestimmung der Koine besonders auf Grund 
des Attizisten Moiris (1912). 

MaIGniENn, Le Futur Grec (1912). 

Meriuet, De Quelques Faits Grammaticaux (Revue des Etudes 
Grecques, July, 1916). 

Miter, C. W. E., Note on the Use of the Article before the Geni- 
tive of the Father’s Name in Greek Papyri (Am. J. of Phil., 
July, 1916, pp. 341-348). 

Miiuiean, Greek Papyri (The Expositor, March, 1918). 


Ixxxv 


Ixxxvl A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Moutron, J. H., From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps (1916). 

——, The Christian Religion in the Study and the Street (1918). 

Prererson, W., Origin of the Indo-Eur. Nominal Stem-suflixes 
(Am. J. of Phil., April and July, 1916). 

—, Syncretism in the Indo-Eur. Dative (Am. J. of Phil., Jan., 
1918). 

Rosinson, Some Inverted Commas (The Expositor, March, 1916). 

Sanpys, A Short History of Classical Scholarship (1915). 

SLATEN, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their 

_ Translation in the Revised Version (1918). 

Smitu, General Relative Clauses in Greek (The Cl. Review, May— 
June, 1917). 

Smytu, A Greek Grammar for Schools and Colleges (1916). 

SONNENSCHEIN, The Ind. in Rel. Clauses (The Cl. Review, May- 
June, 1918). 

STURTEVANT, Linguistic Change (1918). 

Tuomson, The Greek Tradition (1915). 

Top, Progress in Greek Epigraphy for 1914-1915 (The Journal of 
Hellenic Studies, Jan., 1916). 

WACKERNAGEL, Ueber die Geschichte der Griechischen Sprache 

(1913). 

, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Glotta, 7. 161- 

319). | 

West, Value of the Classics (1917). 





lege ars va! 


INTRODUCTION 





CHAPTER I 
NEW MATERIAL 


The Ideal Grammar? Perhaps the ideal grammar of the New 
Testament Greek may never be written. It is a supremely diffi- 
cult task to interpret accurately the forms of human speech, for 
they have life and change with the years. But few themes have 
possessed greater charm for the best furnished scholars of the 
world than the study of language.! 

The language of the N. T. has a special interest by reason of 
the message that it bears. Every word and phrase calls for 
minute investigation where so much is at stake. It is the task 
and the duty of the N. T. student to apply the results.of linguistic 
research to the Greek of the N. T. But, strange to say, this has 
not been adequately done.? 

New Testament study has made remarkable progress in the 
sphere of criticism, history and interpretation, but has lagged 
behind in this department. A brief survey of the literary history 
of the subject shows it. 

I. The Pre-Winer Period. It was Winer who in 1822 made a 
new epoch in N. T. grammatical study by his Neutestamentliches 
Sprachidiom. It is hardly possible for the student of the present 
day to enter into sympathy with the inanities and sinuosities 
that characterized the previous treatises on the N. T. idiom. 
Not alone in the controversy between the Purists and Hebraists 
was this true, but writers like Storr, by a secret system of quid 
pro. quo, cut the Gordian knot of grammatical difficulty by ex- 
plaining one term as used for another, one preposition for an- 
other, one case for another, etc. As a university tutor Winer 


1 See J. Classen, De Gr. Graecae Primordiis, 1829, p. 1, who says: ‘‘Inter 
humani ingenii inventa, quae diuturna consuetudine quasi naturae iura adepta 
sunt, nullum fere magis invaluit et pervulgatum est, quam grammaticae ratio 
et usus.” 

2 “And despite the enormous advance since the days of Winer toward a 
rational and unitary conception of the N. T. language, we still labour to-day 
under the remains of the old conceptions.”” Samuel Dickey, Prince. Theol. 
Rev., Oct., 1903, ‘‘New Points of View.” 

3 


4. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


combated ‘‘this absurd system of interpretation,’ and not 
without success in spite of receiving some sneers. He had the 
temerity to insist on this order of interpretation: grammatical, 
historical, theological. He adhered to his task and lived to see 
‘an enlightened philology, as deduced and taught by Herrmann 
and his school,’”’ triumph over the previous “‘unbridled license.’’! 

II. The Service of Winer. | 

(a) WINER’S INCONSISTENCIES. It must be said, however, that 
great as was the service of Winer to this science, he did not at all 
points carry out consistently his own principles, for he often ex- 
plained one tense as used for another. He was not able to rise 
entirely above the point of view of his time nor to make persist- 
ent application of the philosophical grammar. It is to be borne 
in mind also that the great science of comparative philology had’ 
not revolutionized linguistic study when Winer first wrote. In a 
true sense he was a pathfinder. 

(b) WinER EpocH-Maxkina.— WINER IN ENGLISH. But none the 
less his work has been the epoch-making one for N. T. study. 
After his death Dr. Gottlieb Liinemann revised and improved the 
Neutestamentliches Sprachidiom. ‘Translations of Winer’s Gram- 
matik into English were first made by Prof. Masson of Edin- 
burgh, then by Prof. Thayer of Harvard (revision of Masson), 
and finally by Prof. W. F. Moulton of Cambridge, who added 
excellent footnotes, especially concerning points in modern Greek. 
The various editions of Winer-Thayer and Winer-Moulton have 
served nearly two generations of English and American scholars. 

(c) SCHMIEDEL. But now at last Prof. Schmiedel of Ziirich is 
thoroughly revising Winer’s Grammatik, but it is proceeding 
slowly and does not radically change Winer’s method, though 
use is made of much of the modern knowledge.? Deissmann,? 
indeed, expresses disappointment in this regard concerning 
Schmiedel’s work as being far ‘‘too much Winer and too little 
Schmiedel.”’ But Deissmann concedes that Schmiedel’s work 
‘“‘marks a characteristic and decisive turning-point in N. T. 
philology.’’ 

1 See Pref. to the sixth and last ed. by Winer himself as translated by Dr. 
J. H. Thayer in the seventh and enlarged ed. of 1869. 

2 Winer’s Gr. des neutest. Sprachid. 8. Aufl. neu bearbeitet von Dr. Paul 
Wilhelm Schmiedel, 1894—. 

3 Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 20. He adds, ‘‘ Der 
alte Winer war seiner Zeit ein Protest des philologischen Gewissens gegen 


die Willkiir eines anmafenden Empiricismus.”’ Cf. also Exp., Jan., 1908, 
p. 63. 


NEW MATERIAL 5 


(d) BuTtmMANN. Buttmann’s Grammatik des neutestamentlichen 
Sprachgebrauchs had appeared in 1859 and was translated by 
Thayer as Buttmann’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (1873), an able work. 

(e) Buass. It is not till the Grammatik des neutestamentlichen 
Griechisch by Prof. Blass in 1896 that any other adequate gram- 
mar appears in this field. And Blass departs a little from tradi- 
tional methods and points of view. He represents a transition 
towards a new era. The translation by H. St. John Thackeray 
has been of good service in the English-speaking world.! 

III. The Modern Period. It is just in the last decade that 
it has become possible to make a real advance in New Testa- 
ment grammatical study. The discovery and investigation that 
have characterized every department of knowledge have borne 
rich fruit here also. 

(a) DrISSMANN. Deissmann? sees rightly the immensity of the 
task imposed upon the N. T. grammarian by the very richness of 
the new discoveries. He likewise properly condemns the too fre- 
quent isolation of the N. T. Greek from the so-called “profane 
Greek.” Deissmann has justly pointed out that the terms ‘‘pro- 
fane” and “biblical” do not stand in linguistic contrast, but 
rather ‘‘classical’? and ‘‘biblical.”” Even here he insists on the 
practical identity of. biblical with the contemporary later Greek 
of the popular style.‘ 

It was in 1895 that Deissmann published his Bibelstudien, and 
his Neue Bibelstudien followed in 1897. The new era has now 
fairly begun. In 1901 the English translation of both volumes 
by Grieve appeared as Bible Studies. In 1907 came the Philol- 


1 First ed. 1898, second ed. 1905, as Blass’ Gr. of N. T. Gk. A revision 
of the work of Blass (the 4th German edition) by Dr. A. Debrunner has ap- 
peared as these pages are going through the press. 

2 Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 5: ‘Durch neue Erkennt- 
nisse befruchtet steht die griechische Philologie gegenwirtig im Zeichen einer 
vielverheifenden Renaissance, die fordert von der sprachlichen Erforschung 
der griechischen Bibel, daf§ sie in engste Fiihlung trete mit der historischen 
Erforschung der griechischen Sprache.” 

3 Ib., p. 7. Like, for instance, Zezschwitz, Profangriic. und bibl. Sprachg., 
1859. 

4 Die Spr. der griech. Bibel, Theol. Runds., 1898, pp. 463-472. He aptly 
says: ‘“‘Nicht die Profangricitiét ist der sprachgeschichtliche Gegensatz zur 
‘biblischen,’ sondern das classische Griechisch. Die neueren Funde zur Ge- 
schichte der griechischen Sprache zeigen, dafi die Eigentiimlichkeiten des 
‘biblischen’ Formen- und Wortschatzes (bei den original-griechischen Schrif- 
ten auch der Syntax) im grofen und ganzen Higentiimlichkeiten des spiiteren 
und zwar zumeist des unliterarischen Griechisch iiberhaupt sind.” 


i 


6 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ogy of the Bible. His Licht vom Osten (1908) was his next most 
important work (Light from the Ancient East, 1910, translated 
by Strachan). See Bibliography for full list of his books. The 
contribution of Deissmann is largely in the field of lexicography. 

(b) THums. It was in 1901 that A. Thumb published his great 
book on the xow7, Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hel- 
lentsmus, which has done so much to give the true picture of the 
xown. He had already in 1895 produced his Handbuch der neu- 
griechischen Volkssprache. In 1912 the second enlarged edition 
was issued in English by 8. Angus, as Handbook of Modern 
Greek Vernacular. This book at once took front place for the 
study of the modern Greek by English students. It is the only 
book in English that confines itself to the vernacular. 

(c) Moutton. In 1895, J. H. Moulton, son of W. F. Moulton, 
the translator of Winer, produced his Introduction to N. T. 
Greek, in a noble linguistic succession. In 1901 he began to pub- 
lish in The Classical Review and in The Expositor, ‘Grammatical 
Notes from the Papyri,’’ which attracted instant attention by 
their freshness and pertinency. In 1906 appeared his now famous 
Prolegomena, vol. I, of A Grammar of N. T. Greek, which 
reached the third edition by 1908. With great ability Moulton 
took the cue from Deissmann and used the papyri for grammatical 
purposes. He demonstrated that the Greek of the N. T. is in 
the main just the vernacular xowy of the papyri. In 1911 the 
Prolegomena appeared in German as Hinleitung in die Sprache des 
Neuen Testaments. 

(d) OTHER ContTRIBUTIONS. It is not possible to mention here . 
all the names of the workers in the field of N. T. grammar (see 
Bibliography). The old standpoint is still found in the books of 
Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (1889); Hoole, The Classical Ele- 
ment in the N. T. (1888); Simcox, The Language of the N. T. 
(1890); Schaff, A Companion to the Greek Testament and English 
Version (1889); Viteau, Fiude sur le grec du N. T.— Le Verbe 
(1893); Le Sujet (1896). The same thing is true of Abbott’s Jo- 
hannine Vocabulary (1905) and Johannine Grammar (1906); Bur- 
ton’s Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the N. T. Greek (1888, 
third ed. 1909) is yet a genuine contribution. In Kennedy’s 
Sources of N. T. Greek (1895) we see a distinct transition toward 
the new era of N. T. grammar. In 1911 Radermacher’s Neu- 
testamentliche Grammatik is in fact more a grammar of the xow? 
than of the N. T., as it is designed to be an Hinleitung. The au- 
thor’s Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (1908) gives the new 


NEW MATERIAL ia 


knowledge in a succinct form. The Italian translation (1910) by 
Bonaccorsi has additional notes by the translator. Stocks (1911) 
made numerous additions to the Lauwt- und Formenlehre of the 
German edition. Grosheide in the Dutch translation (1912) has 
made a revision of the whole book. The French edition (1911) 
by Montet is mainly just a translation. The fourth enlarged edi- 
tion in English appeared in 1916. Many special treatises of 
great value have appeared (see Bibliography), by men like Angus, 
Buttmann, Heinrici, Thieme, Vogel, Votaw, J. Weiss, Wellhausen. 

(e) RicoNEss oF Marteriau. Now indeed it is the extent of 
the material demanding examination that causes embarrassment. 
And only thirty years ago K. Krumbacher! lamented that it was 
not possible to give ‘a comprehensive presentation of the Greek 
language’? because of the many points on which work must be 
done beforehand. But we have come far in the meantime. The 
task is now possible, though gigantic and well-nigh insurmount- 
able. But it is not for us moderns to boast because of the material 
that has come to our hand. We need first to use it. Dieterich? 
has well said that the general truth that progress is from error to 
truth “finds its confirmation also in the history of the develop- 
ment that the Greek language has received in the last two thou- 
sand years.’’ By the induction of a wider range of facts we can 
eliminate errors arising from false generalizations. But this is a 
slow process that calls for patience. Dionysius Thrax,’ one of the 
Alexandrian fathers of the old Greek grammar (circa 100 B.c.), 
sald: Tpapyparixn éorw éurepia Tav Tapa Tointats TE Kal ovyypa- 
edo ws érl TO TOAD Neyouerwy. Andrew Lang?‘ indeed is a dis- 
ciple of Dionysius Thrax in one respect, for he contends that 
students are taught too much grammar and too little language. 
They know the grammars and not the tongue. A bare outline 
can be given of the sources of the new material for such gram- 
matical study. 


1 Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeits. fiir vergl. Sprach- 
forsch., 1882, p. 484: ‘‘Eine zusammenhingende Darstellung des Entwick- 
lungsganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwirtig nicht méglich. Auf 
allzu vielen Punkten eines langen und viel verschlungenen Weges gebricht 
es an den Vorarbeiten, welche fiir ein soleches Unternehmen unerlaiflich sind.” 

2 Unters. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr. von der hell. Zeit bis zum 10. Jahrh. 
n. Chr., 1898, p. x. 

3 As quoted in Bekker, Anec. Graeca (1816), vol. II, p. 629. Dionysius 
Thrax mentions six vépn In grammar: avayrwors, eEfynots, yYAwooSv re kal isro- 
piav mpdoxetpos vrddoots, Ervpodoyilas evpnots, dvadoylas éxANoyitopos, Kplots Trot 
nuatwy. A generous allowance truly! 4 Morning Post, Lond., May 5, 1905. 


8 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


IV. The New Grammatical Equipment for N. T. Study. 

(a) COMPARATIVE PuHiLoLoGy. We must consider the great ad- 
vance in comparative philology. The next chapter will deal 
somewhat at length with various phases of the historical method 
of linguistic study. 

1. The Linguistic Revolution. A revolution has been wrought 
in the study of language. It must be confessed that grammatical 
investigation has not always been conducted on the inductive 
principle nor according to the historical method. Too often the 
rule has been drawn from a limited range of facts. What is 
afterwards found to conflict with a rule is called an ‘‘exception.” 
Soon the exceptions equal or surpass the rule. Unfortunately the 
ancients did not have the benefit of our distinctions of “regular” 
and “irregular.” Metaphysical speculation with lofty superi- 
ority to the facts is sometimes charged upon grammarians.! 
“Grammar and logic do not coincide.’’? Comparative grammar 
is merely the historical method applied to several languages to- 
gether instead of only one.* 

2. A Sketch of Greek Grammatical History. The Greek has 
had its own history, but it is related to the history of kindred 
tongues. ‘‘From the days of Plato’s Kratylus downward ... the 
Greek disputed as to whether language originated by convention 
(vouw) or by nature (dtce).’’4 Indeed formal Greek grammar 
was the comparison with the Latin and began “with Dionysius 
Thrax, who utilized the philological lucubrations of Aristotle and 
the Alexandrian critics for the sake of teaching Greek to the sons 
of the aristocratic contemporaries of Pompey at Rome.’’> His 
Greek grammar is still in existence in Bekker’s Anecdota,® and is 
the cause of much grotesque etymology since.” 

This period of grammatical activity came after the great crea- 
tive period of Greek literature was over, and in Alexandria, not 


1 So Dr. John H. Kerr, sometime Prof. of N. T. in the Pac. Theol. Sem., 
in conversation with me. ? Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. 18. 

3 Ib., pp. 1ff. So Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, p. 42, 
‘“‘Comparative grammar in Schleicher’s sense is in its essence nothing but 
historical grammar by the comparative method.’’ ) 

4 Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. 259 f. 

oRLb.f).620 6 Op. cit., pp. 629-643. 

7 See Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., 1880, vol. I, p. 19 f.; Dionysius 
Thrax’s réxvy yeauuarixy was developed into a system by Apollonius Dysco- 
lus (ii/A.D.) and his son Herodian. Dionysius Thrax was born B.c. 166. Dys- 
colus wrote a systematic Gk. Syntax of accentuation in 20 books (known to 
us only in epitome) about 200 a.p, 


NEW MATERIAL | al 


in Athens.! Rhetoric was scientifically developed by Aristotle 
long before there was a scientific syntax. Aristotle perfected log- 
ical analysis of style before there was historical grammar.” With 
Aristotle 6 ypayuparixos was one that busied himself with the let- 
ters (ypaupara). He was not aypaupmartos; 7 ypaumatexyn then had 
to do with the letters and was exegetical. Plato does not treat 
grammar, though the substantive and the adjective are distin- 
guished, but only dialeetics, metaphysics, logic.4’ The Stoic gram- 
marians, who succeeded Plato and Aristotle, treated language from 
the logical standpoint and accented its psychological side.6 So 
‘the Alexandrian grammarians made ypayupartixn more like xpurixy. 
They got hold of the right idea, though they did not attain the 
true historical method.°® 

Comparative grammar was not wholly unknown indeed to the 
ancients, for the Roman grammarians since Varro made a com- 
parison between Greek and Latin words.’? The Roman writers 
on grammar defined it as the “scientia recte loquendi et scri- 
bendi,’’® and hence came nearer to the truth than did the Alex- 
andrian writers with their Stoic philosophy and exegesis. It has 
indeed been a hard struggle to reach the light in grammar.® But 
Roger Bacon in this ‘‘blooming time” saw that it was necessary 
for the knowledge of both Greek and Latin to compare them.” 
And Bernhardy in 1829 saw that there was needed a grammatico- 
historical discussion of syntax because of the “distrust of the 
union of philosophy with grammar.’”’!! We needed ‘‘the view- 

1 See Jebb in Whibley’s Comp. to Gk. Stud., 1905, p. 147 f. 

2 See Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. bei den Griech. und Rém., 2. TL, 
1891, p. 179. 


3 ¥. Hoffmann, Uber die Entwickelung des Begriffs der Gr. bei den Alten, 
1891, p. 1. 

4 Ib., p. 144. The early Gk. grammarians were “ohne richtiges historisches 
Bewufitsein”’ (Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. ete., 1. Tl., 1863, p. 39). Even 
in Plato’s Kratylus we do not see ‘‘das Ganze in seiner Ganzheit’’ (p. 40). 

5 Ib., p. 277f. For a good discussion of Dion. Thr. see Jannaris, Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 34f. 

6 See Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 1. 

7 See Kretschmer, op. cit., p. 4. 

8 F. Blass, Hermen. und Krit., 1892, p. 157 f. 

® Steinthal, Gesch. etc., 2. Tl., 1891, p. 1, calls this time of struggle ‘‘ihre 
Bliitezeit.” 

10 Roger Bacon, Oxford Gk. Gr., edited by Nolan and Hirsch, 1902, p. 27: 
‘‘Et in hac comparatione Grammaticae Graecae ad Latinam non solum est 
necessitas propter intelligendam Grammaticam Graecam, sed omnino neces- 
sariuin est ad intelligentiam Latinae Grammaticae.”’ 

1 Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829, pp. 7, 12. 


10 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


point of the historical Syntax.”” Humboldt is quoted by Oertel! 
as saying: ‘Linguistic science, as I understand it, must be based 
upon facts alone, and this collection must be neither one-sided 
nor incomplete.’”? So Bopp conceived also: ‘‘A grammar in the 
‘higher scientific sense of the word must be both history and 
natural science.” This is not an unreasonable demand, for it is 
made of every other department of science.” 

3. The Discovery of Sanskrit. It is a transcendent fact which 
_ has revolutionized grammatical research. The discovery of San- 
skrit by Sir William Jones is what did it. In 1786 he wrote thus?: 
“The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of 
wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious 
than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet 
bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of 
verbs and the forms of grammar, than could have been produced 
by accident; so strong that no philologer could examine all the 
three without believing them to have sprung from some common 
source which no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though 
not so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, 
though blended with a different idiom, had the same origin with 
the Sanskrit.”” He saw then the significance of his own discovery, 
though not all of it, for the Teutonic tongues, the Lithuanian 
and Slav group of languages, the Iranian, Italic, Armenian and 
Albanian belong to the same Aryan, Indo-Germanic or Indo- 
European family as it is variously called. 

4. From Bopp to Brugmann. But Bopp? is the real founder of 
comparative philology. Before Bopp’s day ‘‘in all grammars the 
mass of ‘irregular’ words was at least as great as that of the 
‘regular’ ones, and a rule without exception actually excited 
suspicion.”® Pott’s great work laid the foundation of scientific 
phonetics.6 Other great names in this new science are W. von 


1 Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901, p. 47. 

2 See C. Herrmann, Philos. Gr., 1858, p. 422: “‘Die Natur der philoso-. 
phischen Grammatik war von Anfang an bestimmt worden als die eine 
Grenzwissenschaft zwischen Philosophie und Philologie.”’ But it is a more 
objective task now. 

’ Cf. Benfey, Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 348. “This brilliant discovery, de- 
clared in 1786, practically lies at the root of all linguistic science.” J. H. 
Moulton, Sci. of Lang., 1903, p. 4. 

4 See his Vergl. Gr., 1857. He began publication on the subject in 
1816. 

5 Delbriick, Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882, p. 25. 
8 Ktym. Forsch. auf dem Gebiet der indoger. Spr., 1833-1836. 


NEW MATERIAL ih 


Humboldt,! Jacob Grimm,” Schlegel,’ Schleicher,t Max Miiller,® 
Curtius,® Verner,’ Whitney,? L. Meyer.? 

But in recent years two men, K. Brugmann and B. Delbriick, 
have organized the previous knowledge into a great monumental 
work, Grundrifi der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogerma- 
nischen Sprachen.° This achievement is as yet the high-water- 
mark in comparative grammar. Brugmann has issued a briefer 
and cheaper edition giving the main results."! Delbriick has also a 
brief treatise on Greek syntax in the light of comparative gram- 
mar,” while Brugmann has applied comparative philology to the 
Laut- und Formenlehre of Greek grammar.* In the Grundrif’ 
Brugmann has Bde. I, II, while Delbriick treats syntax in Bde. 
III-V. In the new edition Brugmann has also that part of the 
syntax which is treated in Vol. III and IV of the first edi- 
tion. The best discussion of comparative grammar for begin- 
ners is the second edition of P. Giles’s Manual.“ Hatzidakis 
successfully undertakes to apply comparative grammar to the 
modern Greek.“ Riemann and Goelzer have made an exhaustive 
comparison of the Greek and Latin languages.!® There are, in- 
deed, many interesting discussions of the history and principles 
growing out of all this linguistic development, such as the works 


1 Always mentioned by Bopp with reverence. 

2 Deutsche Gr., 1822. Author of Grimm’s law of the interchange of let- 
ters. Next to Bopp in influence. 

3 Indische Bibl. 

4 Vergl. Gr. der indoger. Spr., 1876, marks the next great advance. 

5 Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1866. He did much to popularize this study. 

6 His most enduring work is his Prin. of Gk. Etym., vols. I, I, fifth ed., 
1886. 

7 The discovery of Verner’s law, a variation from Grimm’s law, according 
to which p=, ¢ and k, pass into b, d and g, instead of f, th and h when not im- 
mediately followed by the word-accent. 

8 Life and Growth of Lang., 1875; Sans. Gr., 1892, etc. 

9 Verg]. Gr., 1865. 

10 Bd. I-V, Ist ed. 1886-1900; 2d ed. 1897—-; cf. also Giles-Hertel, Vergl. 
Gr., 1896. 

1 Kurze vergl. Gr., 1902-1904. 

2 Die Grundl. der griech. Synt., 1879. 

13 Griech. Gr., 1900, 3. Aufl.; 4. Aufl., 19138, by Thumb. See also G. Meyer, 
Griech. Gr., 3. verm. Aufl., 1896. 

14 A Short Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901. 

16 Hinl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892. 

16 Gr. comparée du Gree et du Lat.: Syntaxe, 1897; Phonétique et Etude 
de Formes, 1901. Cf. also King and Cookson’s Prin. of Sound and Inflexion 
as illustrated in the Gk. and Lat. Lang., 1888. 


12 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of Jolly,! Delbriick,? Sweet,? Paul,* Oertel,> Moulton,® Whit- 
ney,’ Max Miiller,’ Sayce.* It is impossible to write a grammar 
of the Greek N. T. without taking into consideration this new 
conception of language. No language lives to itself, and least of 
all the Greek of the N. T. in the heart of the world-empire.”? It 
is not necessary to say that until recently use of this science had 
not been made by N. T. grammars." 

(6) ADVANCE IN GENERAL GREEK GRAMMAR. There has been 
great advance in the study of general Greek grammar. ‘The 
foundations laid by Crosby and Kihner, Kriiger, Curtius, Butt- 
mann, Madvig, Jelf and others have been well built upon by 
Hadley, Goodwin, Gildersleeve, Gerth, Blass, Brugmann, G. 
Meyer, Schanz, Hirt, Jannaris, etc. To the classical student this 
catalogue of names” is full of significance. The work of Kiihner 
has been thoroughly revised and improved in four massive vol- 
umes by Blass" and Gerth,'* furnishing a magnificent apparatus 
for the advanced student. Hirt’s handbook” gives the modern 
knowledge in briefer form, a compendium of comparative gram- 
mar, while G. Meyer’ and Brugmann” are professedly on the 


1 Schulgr. und Sprachw., 1874. 

2 Intr. to the Study of Lang., 1882; 5th Germ. ed. 1908. Uber die 
Resultate der vergl. Synt., 1872. Cf. Wheeler, The Whence and Whither of 
the Mod. Sci. of Lang., 1905; Henry, Précis de gr. du grec et du latin, 5th 


ed., 1894. 3 The Hist. of Lang., 1899. 
4 Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888; 4th Germ. ed. 1909. 
5 Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1901. 6 The Sci. of Lang., 1903. 


7 Lang. and the Study of Lang., 1867. 

8 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891. % Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875. 

10 By “die historische Sprachforschung” the Gk. tongue is shown to be a 
member of the Indo-Germanic family; thus is gained ‘‘der sprachgeschicht- 
liche Gesichtspunkt,” and then is gained “ein wesentlich richtiges Verstind- 
nis... fir den Entwicklungsgang der Sprache.” Brugmann, Griech. Gre 
1885, p. 4. Cf. p. 3 in third ed., 1901. 

11 See J. H. Moulton’s Prol. to the N. T. Gk. Gr., 1906, and A. T. Robert- 
son’s N. T. Syll., 1900, and Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., 1908. | 

2 The late G. N. Hatzidakis contemplated a thesaurus of the Gk. language, 
but his death cut it short. 

8 Ausfiihrl. Gr. der griech. Spr. von Dr. Raphael Kiihner, 1. Tl.: Elemen- 
tar- und Formenlehre, Bd. I, IJ. Besorgt von Dr. Friedrich Blass, 1890, 1892. 

14 Ib., 2. Tl.: Satzlehre, Bd. I, II. Besorgt von Dr. Bernhard Gerth, 1898, 
1904, 

6 Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre, 1902, 1. Aufl.; 2. Aufl., 1912. 

16 Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., 1896. 

7 Tb., 1900; 4. Aufl., 1913, by Thumb; 3d ed. quoted in this book. And 
now (1912) Wright has given in English a Comp. Gr. of the Gk. Lang. 


NEW MATERIAL 13 


basis of comparative philology. Jannaris! is the first fairly suc- 
cessful attempt to.present in one volume the survey of the prog- 
ress of the language as a whole. Schanz? makes a much more 
ambitious undertaking and endeavours in a large number of mono- 
graphs to furnish material for a future historical grammar. Gil- 
dersleeve® has issued only two volumes of his work, while the 
grammars of Hadley-Allen and Goodwin are too well known to 
call for remark. New grammars, like F. E. Thompson’s (1907, 
new ed.) and Simonson’s (2 vols., 1903, 1908), continue to appear. 

(c) CriticAL EpITIONS OF GREEK AuTHORS. The Greek authors 
in general have received minute and exhaustive investigation. The 
modern editions of Greek writers are well-nigh ideal. Careful 
and critical historical notes give the student all needed, sometimes 
too much, aid for the illumination of the text. The thing most 
lacking is the reading of the authors and, one may add, the study 
of the modern Greek. Butcher* well says “Greek literature is 
the one entirely original literature of Europe.’ Homer, Aris- 
totle, Plato, not to say A%schylus, Sophocles and Euripides are 
still the modern masters of the intellect. Translations are better 
than nothing, but can never equal the original. The Greek lan- 
guage remains the most perfect organ of human speech and 
largely because “‘they were talkers, whereas we are readers.’’® 
They studied diligently how to talk.® 

(d) Works on INDIVIDUAL Writers. In nothing has the ten- 
dency to specialize been carried further than in Greek grammatical 
research. The language of Homer, Thucydides, Herodotus, the. 
tragic poets, the comic writers, have all called for minute investi- 


1 An Hist. Gk. Gr., chiefly of the Att. Dial., 1897. Cf. also Wackernagel, 
Die griech. Spr. (pp. 291-318), Tl. I, Abt. VIII, Kultur der Gegenw. 

2 Beitr. zur histor. Synt. der griech. Spr., Tl. I. Cf. also Hiibner, Grundr. 
zur -Vorlesung tiber die griech. Synt., 1883. A good bibliography. Krum- 
bacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeitschr. etc., 1885, 
pp. 481-545. 

3 Synt. of Class. Gk.,.1900, 1911. 

4 Harv. Lect. on Gk. Subj., 1904, p. 129. See also Butcher, Some Aspects 
of the Gk. Genius, 1893, p. 2: “Greece, first smitten with the passion for 
truth, had the courage to put faith in reason, and, in following its guidance, 
to take no account of consequences.’”’ So p. 1: “To see things as they really 
are, to discern their meanings and adjust their relations was with them an 
instinct and a passion.” 5 Ib. p. 208. 

6 See Bernhardy, Griech. Lit., Tl. I, II, 1856; Christ, Gesch. der griech. 
Lit. bis auf die Zeit Justinians, 4. revid. Aufl., 1905; 5. Aufl., 1908 ff. Far- 
nell, Gk. Lyric Poetry, 1891, etc. A. Croiset and M. Croiset, An Abr. Hist. 
of Gk. Lit., transl. by Heffelbower, 1904. 


14 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


gation,! and those of interest to N. T. students are the mono- 
graphs on Polybius, Josephus, Plutarch, etc.. The concordances 
of Plato, Aristotle, etc., are valuable. The Apostolic Fathers, 
Greek Christian Apologists and the Apocryphal writings illus- 
trate the tendencies of N. T. speech. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. 
Patr. Apost. (1898). The universities of America and Europe 
which give the Ph.D. degree have produced a great number of 
monographs on minute points like the use of the preposition in 
Herodotus, etc. These all supply data of value and many of 
them have been used in this grammar. Dr. Mahaffy,? indeed, is 
impatient of too much specialism, and sometimes in linguistic 
study the specialist has missed the larger and true conception of 
the whole. 

(e) THe GREEK INscrIPTIONS. The Greek inscriptions speak 
with the voice of authority concerning various epochs of the lan- 
guage. Once we had to depend entirely on books for our knowl- 
edge of the Greek tongue. There is still much obscurity, but it 
is no longer possible to think of Homer as the father of Greek 
nor to consider 1000 B.c. as the beginning of Greek culture. The 
two chief names in epigraphical studies are those of August 
Boeckh (Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum) and Theodor Momm- 
sen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum). For a careful review of 
“the Nature of the New Texts” now at our service in the in- 
scriptions see Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 10-20. See W. H. P. 
Hatch’s article (Jour. of Bibl. Int., 1908, pp. 134-146, Part 2) 
on “Some Illustrations of N. T. Usage from Greek Inscriptions 
of Asia Minor.” Cf. also Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia 
am Mdander und das Neue Test. (1906), and Rouffiac, Recherches 
sur les Caractéres du Grec dans le N. T. @apreés les Inscriptions 
de Priéne (1911). Deissmann, op. cit., p. 18, thinks that aya[rn]p 
is rightly restored in a pagan inscription in Pisidia of the imperial 
period. For the Christian inscriptions see Deissmann, op. cit., 
p. 19. Schliemann? has not only restored the story of Troy to 
the reader of the historic past, but he has revealed a great civi- 


1 Cf., for instance, Die Spr. des Plut. etc., TI. I, II, 1895, 1896; Krebs, Die 
Prapositionen bei Polybius, 1881; Goetzeler, Einfl. des Dion. Hal. auf die 
Sprachgesch. etc., 1891; Schmidt, De Flavii Josephi eloc. observ. crit., 1894; 
Kaelker, Quest. de Eloc. Polyb. ete. 

2 “A herd of specialists is rising up, each master of his own subject, but 
absolutely ignorant and careless of all that is going on around him in kindred 
studies.”” Survey of Gk. Civilization, 1897, p. 3. 

3 Mycene and Tiryns, 1878. 


NEW MATERIAL 15 


lization at Mycenz.! Homer stands at the close of a long ante- 
cedent history of linguistic progress, and once again scholars are 
admitting the date 850 or even 1000 B.c. for his poems as well as 
their essential unity, thus abandoning Wolff’s hypothesis.2 They 
have been driven to this by the abundant linguistic testimony 
from the inscriptions from many parts of Greece. So vast is this 
material that numerous grammatical discussions have been made 
concerning the inscriptions, as those by Roehl,’ Kretschmer,‘ 
Lautensach,’ Rang,* Meisterhans,’ Schweizer,’ Viteau,? Wagner,?° 
Nachmanson," etc. 

These inscriptions are not sporadic nor local, but are found in 
Egypt, in Crete, in Asia Minor, the various isles of the sea,” in 
Italy, in Greece, in Macedonia, etc. Indeed Apostolides*® seems 
to show that the Greeks were in Egypt long before Alexander 
the Great founded Alexandria. The discoveries of Dr. A. J. 


1 See also Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenzan Age, 1897. 

2 Ridgeway (Early Age of Greece, vol. I, 1901, p. 635) says that the methods 
applied to dissection of the Iliad and the Odyssey would pick to pieces the 
Paradise Lost and The Antiquary. ‘‘The linguistic attack upon their age 
may be said to have at last definitely failed.’’ (T. W. Allen, Cl. Rev., May, 
1906, p. 193.) Lang, Homer and His Age, (1906), advocates strongly the 


unity of the Homeric poems. 3 Inscr. Graecae Antiq., 1882. 
4 Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894. 
5 Verbalfl. der att. Inschr., 1887. 6 Antiquités hellén., 1842. 


7 Gr. der att. Inschr., 3. Aufl. von E. Schwyzer, 1900. 

8 Gr. der perg. Inschr., 1898. 

® La decl. dans les inscr. att. de 1’Empire, 1895. 

10 Quest. de epigram. Graecis, 1883. 

11 Taute und Formen der magn. Inschr., 1903; cf. also Solmsen, Inscr. 
Graecae ad illustr. Dial. sel.; Audollent, Defix. Tabellae, 1904; Michel, Rec. 
d’inscr. Graec., 1883; Dittenberger, Or. Graeci Inscr. Sel., 1903-1905; Roberts- 
Gardner, Intr. to Gk. Epigr., 1888. See Bibliography. Cf. especially the 
various volumes of the Corpus Inscr. Graecarum. 

12 As, for example, Paton and Hicks, The Inscr. of Cos, 1891; Kern, Die 
Inschr. von Magn., 1900; Giartingen, Inschr. von Priene, 1906; Giirtingen 
and Paton, Inscr. Maris Aegaei, 1903; Letronne, Rec. des inscr. lat. et grec. 
de l’Egypte, 1842. As early as 1779 Walch made use of the inscriptions for 
the N. T. Gk. in his Observationes in Matt. ex graecis inscriptionibus. Cf. 
also the works of E. L. Hicks, Lightfoot, Ramsay. 

13 Hssai sur l’Hellénisme Egypt., 1908, p. vi. He says: ‘‘Les découvertes 
récentes des archéologues ont dissipé ces illusions. Des ruines de Naucratis, 
de Daphné, de Gurob, et de |’Ilahoun (pour ne citer que les localités dans 
lesquelles les recherches ont donné le plus de résultats) est sortie toute une 
nouvelle Gréce; une Gréce antérieure aux Ramsés . . .; et, si les recherches se 
continuent, on ne tardera pas, nous en sommes convaincus, 4 acquérir la 
‘certitude que les Grecs sont aussi anciens en Egypte qu’en Grace méme.” 


16 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Evans in Crete have pushed back the known examples of Greek 
a thousand years or more. The linear script of Knossos, Crete, 
may be some primitive form of Greek 500 years before the first 
dated example of Phoenician writing. The civilization of the 
Hellenic race was very old when Homer wrote, — how old no 
one dares say.!. For specimens of the use of the inscriptions see 
Buck’s Introduction to the Study of the Greek Dialects (Gram- 
mar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary), 1910. 
(f) FuLLER KNOWLEDGE OF THE DiaLects. The new knowledge 
—~ of the other dialects makes it possible to form a juster judgment 
of the relative position of the Attic. There has been much confu- 
sion on this subject and concerning the relation of the various 
Greek races. It now seems clear that the Pelasgians, Achzans, 
Dorians were successively dominant in Greece.” Pelasgian ap- 
pears to be the name for the various pre-Achzan tribes, and it 
was the Pelasgian tribe that made Mycene glorious.? Homer 
sings the glories of the Achzwans who displaced the Pelasgians, 
while ‘‘the people who play a great part in later times — Dorians, 
AKolians, Ionians—are to Homer little more than names.’’4 
The Pelasgian belonged to the bronze age, the Achzan to the 
iron age.» The Pelasgians may have been Slavs and kin to the 
-Etruscans of Italy. The Achzans were possibly Celts from 
‘northern Europe.’ The old Ionic was the base of the old Attic.’ 
tiie old Ionic-Attic was the archaic Greek tongue, and the 
choruses in the Attic poets partly represent artificial literary 
Doric. There was not a sharp division® between the early dia- 
lects owing to the successive waves of population sweeping over 
the country. There were numerous minor subdivisions in the 
dialects (as the Arcadian, Boeotian, Northwest, Thessalian, etc.) 
due to the mountain ranges, the peninsulas, the islands, etc., 
and other causes into which we cannot enter. For a skilful at- 
tempt at grouping and relating the dialects to each other see 
Thumb’s Handbuch, p. 54f. The matter cannot be elaborated 
here (see ch. III). But the point needs to be emphasized that 


A. J. Evans, Ann. Rep. of the Smiths. Inst., p. 436. 

See Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece, vol. I, p. 84. 

Ib., p. 298. For the contribution of the dialects to the cow see ch. III. 
Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 526. 5 Ib., p. 406. 
Ridgeway, op. cit., vol. I, p. 337. 7 Ib., pp. 666-670. 

8 Hoffmann, Die griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 7. A more recent treatment of the 
dialects is Thumb’s Handb. der griech. Dial. (1909), which makes use of all 
the recent discoveries from the inscriptions. On the mixing of the dialects 
see Thumb, p. 61 f. 


qo »-» S&S NS = 


NEW MATERIAL ibys 


the literary dialects by no means represent the linguistic history 
of Greece itself and still less that of the islands and other colonies 
(cf. Buck’s Greek Dialects, p. 1). The blending of these dialects 5 
into the xow7 was not complete as we shall see.! “Of dialects the 
purest Hellenic is Dorian, preserved in religious odes, — pure be- 
cause they kept aloof from their subjects. The next is the AXolic, 
preserved in lyric odes of the Lesbian school. The earliest to be 
embodiéd in literature was Ionic, preserved in epic poems. The 
most perfect is Attic, the language of drama, philosophy and 
oratory. This arose out of the Ionic by introducing some of 
the strength of Doric-AXolic forms without sacrificing the sweet 
smoothness of Ionic.’’? In general concerning the Greek dialects 
one may consult the works of Meister,’ Ridgeway, Hoffmann,° 
Thumb,*® Buck,’ Boisacq,® Pezzi,® ete. 

(g) THe Papyri AND Ostraca. Thiersch in 1841 had pointed 
out the value of the papyri for the study of the LXX in his De 
Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina, but nobody thought it worth 
while to study the masses of papyri in London, Paris and Ber- 
lin for the N. T. language. Farrar (Messages of the Books, 1884, 
p. 151) noted the similarity of phrase between Paul’s correspon- 
dence and the papyri in the Brit. Mus. “N. T. philology is at 
present undergoing thorough reconstruction; and probably all the 
workers concerned, both on the continent and in English-speaking 
countries, are by this time agreed that the starting-point for the 
philological investigations must be the language of the non-literary 
papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions” (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 55). 
The xow7 is now rich in material for the study of the vernacular 
or popular speech as opposed to the book language. This distinc- 
tion belongs to all languages which have a literature and to all 
periods of the language. It is particularly true of the modern 


1 See Dieterich, Die Kow7 und die heut. kleinasiat. Mundarten-Unters. zur 
Gesch. ete., pp. 271-310. Cf. Chabert, Hist. sommaire des ¢t. d’épigr. grecque, 
1906. 

2 MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. by H. H. Harris, late Prof. of Gk. at Richmond 


College. 
8 Griech. Dial., Bd. I, 1882, Bd. II, 1889; cf. Hicks, Man. of Gk. Hist. 
Inscr., 1888. So CnCie 


5 Op. cit. and Bd. II, 1893, Bd. III, 1898. See also various volumes of the 
Samml. der griech. Dial.-Inschr. 

6 Handb. der griech. Dial., 1909. 7 Gk. Dialects. 

8 Les dialectes Doriens, 1891; cf. also H. W. Smyth, The Gk. Dial. (Ionic 
only), 1894. 

9 Lingua Greca Antica, 1888. Cf. Lambert, Et. sur le dial. éolien, 1903. 


18 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Greek to-day as it was true in the early period. The Athenian 
newspapers as a rule affect the xa@apevovoa. Occasionally a 
writer like Aristophanes would on purpose write in the language 
of the street. It is not therefore a peculiarity of the cow that 
the vernacular Greek prevailed then. It always prevails. But 
the xafapebovoa has secured a more disastrous supremacy over 
the dnuorun than in any other language. And we are now 
.able to estimate the vernacular xowy, since the great papyri 
discoveries of Flinders-Petrie, Grenfell and Hunt and others. 
We had already the excellent discussions of Mullach,! Niebuhr,? 
Blass,? Foy* and Lottich.6 But in the last fifteen years or so a 
decided impetus has been given to this phase of Greek grammatical 
research. It is in truth a new study, the attention now paid to 
the vernacular, as Moulton points out in his Prolegomena (p. 22). 
“T will go further and say that if we could only recover letters 
that ordinary people wrote to each other without being literary, 
we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding 
of the language of the N. T. generally” (Bishop Lightfoot, 1863, 
as quoted in Moulton’s Prol., 2d and 3d ed., p. 242). If Lightfoot 
only lived now! Cf. Masson’s Preface to Winer (1859). 

The most abundant source of new light for the vernacular xow7 
is found in the papyri collections, many volumes of which have 
already been published (see Index of Quots. for fuller list), while 
more are yet to be issued. Indeed, Prof. W. N. Stearns® com- 
plains: “‘There would seem to be a plethora of such material 
already as evidenced by such collections as the Berlinische Ur- 
kunde and the Rainier Papyri.’’ But the earnest student of the 
Greek tongue can only rejoice at the “extraordinary and in part 
unexpected wealth of material from the contemporary and the 
later languages.”’? See the publications of Drs. Grenfell and Hunt, 


1 Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1856. 

2 Uber das Agyp.-Griech., K1. Schr., II, p. 197 f. 

3 Die griech. Beredsamkeit von Alex. bis auf Aug., 1865. 

4 Lauts. der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879. 

5 De Serm. vulg. Att., 1881. 

6 Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 134. 

7 Samuel Dickey, New Points of View for the Study of the Gk. of the N.T. 
(Prince. Theol. Rev., Oct., 1903). 

8 Oxyrhyn. Pap., vols. I-XII, 1898-1916; Fayim Pap., 1900; Tebtunis 
Pap., 1902 (Univ. of Cal. Publ., pts. I, II, 1907); Hibeh Pap., pt. I, 1906; vol. 
IV, Oxyrhyn. Pap., pp. 265-271, 1904; Grenfell and Hunt,:’The Hibeh Pap., 
1906, pt. I. In general, for the bibliography of the papyri see Hohlwein, 
La papyrol. grec., bibliog. raisonnée, 1905. 


NEW MATERIAL 19 


Mahaffy,! Goodspeed,? the Berlinische Urkunde,? Papyri in the 
British Museum,’ the Turin Papyri,® the Leyden Papyri,® the 
Geneva Papyri,’ Lord Amherst’s collection (Paris, 1865), etc. For 
general discussions of the papyri see the writings of Wilcken,° 
Kenyon,? Hartel,!° Haberlin,!! Viereck,” Deissmann, de Ricci,“ 
Wessely.& <A great and increasing literature is thus coming into 
existence on this subject. Excellent handbooks of convenient 
size are those by H. Lietzmann, Greek Papyri (1905), and by 
G. Milligan, Greek Papyri (1910). For a good discussion of the 
papyri and the literature on the subject see Deissmann, Light, 
etc., pp. 20-41. The grammatical material in the papyri has not 
been exhausted. There are a number of excellent workers in the 
field such as Mayser,’ St. Witkowski,!” Deissmann,'* Moulton," 
H. A. A. Kennedy,?? Jannaris,7 Kenyon,” Voelker, Thumb.” 


1 Flinders-Petrie Pap., 1891, 1892, 1893. 

2 Gk. Pap. from the Cairo Mus., 1902, 1903. 

3 Griech. Urk., 1895, 1898, 1903, 1907, etc. 

4 F. G. Kenyon, Cat. of Gk. Pap. in the B. M., 1893; Evid. of the Pap. for 
Text. Crit. of the N. T., 1905; B. M. Pap., vol. I, 1893, vol. II, 1898. 

5 Peyron, 1826, 1827. 

6 Zauber Pap., 1885; Leeman’s Pap. Graeci, 1848. 

7 J. Nicole, 1896, 1900; cf. Wessely’s Corpus Pap., 1895. 

8 Griech. Papyrusurk., 1897; Archiv fiir Papyrusforsch. und verw. Gebiete, 
1900—. 

9 Palzog. of Gk. Pap., 1899; art. Papyri in Hast. D. B. (ext. vol.). 

10 Uber die griech. Pap. 

1 Griech. Pap., Centralbl. fiir Bibliothekswesen, 14. 1 f. 

12 Ber. iiber die altere Pap.-Lit., Jahresb. iiber d. Fortschr. etc., 1898, 1899. 

13 Art. Papyri in Encye. Bibl. 

4 Bul. papyrologique in Rev. des Et. grecques since 1901. 

1 Papyrus-Samml. since 1883. Cf. also Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., 
1903; Reinach, Pap. grecs et démot. ete., 1905. 

16 Gr. der griech. Pap., Tl. I, Laut- und Wortl., 1906. 

17 Prodromus Gr. Pap. Graec. aetatis Lagidarum, 26. Bd. der Abhandl. 
der Phil. class. der Acad. zu Krakau, 1897, pp. 196-260. 

18 B. §., 1901; Light, etc.; art. Hell. Griech. in Hauck’s Realencyc.; art. 
Papyrus in Encye. Bibl., ete. 

19 Gr. Notes from the Pap., Cl. Rev., 1901; Notes on the Pap., Exp., 
April, 1901, Feb., 1903; Characteristics of N. T. Gk., Exp., March to Dec., 
1904; Prol. to Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1908, 3d ed., ete. 

20 Sources of N. T. Gk., 1895; Recent Res. in the Lang. of the N. T., Exp. 
Times, May, July, Sept., 1901. : 

41 Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897; The Term Kow7, Cl. Rev., March, 1903. 

2 Art.:Papyriin Hast. D. B. 

23 Syntax der griech. Pap., Tl. I, 1903. 

4 Die Forsch. iiber die hell. Spr. in d. Jahr. 1896-1901, Archiv fiir Papyrus- 
forsch., 1903, pp. 396-426; Die Forsch. iiber die hell. Spr. in d. Jahr. 1902-4, 


20 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


These are all helpful, but Crénert! is right in urging that we 
“\ need a comprehensive discussion of the syntax of the Ptolemaic 
papyri in order to set forth properly the relation of the papyri 
both to the N. T. Greek and to the older Attic. This will require 
time, for the mass of material is very great and is constantly 
growing. But enough already is clear for us to see the general 
bearing of the whole on the problem of the N. T. It is just here 
that the papyri have special interest and value. They give the 
“language of business and life. The N. T. writers were partly 
aypappato, but what they wrote has become the chief Book of 
Mankind. Hear Deissmann‘ again, for he it is who has done 
most to blaze the way here: “The papyrus-leaf is alive; one sees 
autographs, individual peculiarities of penmanship — in a word, 
men; manifold glimpses are given into inmost nooks and crannies 
of personal life in which history has no eyes and historians no 
glasses... It may seem a paradox, but it can safely be affirmed 
that the unliterary papyri are more important in these respects 
than the literary.’”’ Some of the papyri contain literary works, 
fragments of Greek classics, portions of the LXX or of the N. T., 
though the great mass of them are non-literary documents, let- 
ters and business papers. Cf. also Deissmann, Light, ete., p. 29. 
Unusual interest attaches to the fragments containing the Logia 
of Jesus, some of which are new, dating from the second or third 
centuries A.D. and showing a Gnostic tinge.’ It is no longer pos- 
. sible to say, what even Friedrich Blass® did in 1894, that the N. T. 
\ Greek ‘‘is to be regarded something by itself and following laws 
of its own.” That view is doomed in the presence of the papyri. 
Hatch’ in particular laboured under this error. The N. T. Greek 


Archiv fiir Pap., 111. 4; also Jahresb. iiber die Fortschr. des Class., 1906; 
Die griech. Papyrusurk., 1899-1905, pp. 36-40; Die griech. Spr. etc., 1901. 

1 Archiv fiir Pap.-Forsch., 1900, p. 215. 

2 “Zum ersten Mal gewinnen wir reale Vorstellungen von dem Zustand 
und der Entwickelung der handschriftlichen Lebenslieferung im Altertum 
selbst. Neue wichtige Probleme sind damit der Philologie gestellt.’’ N. 
Wilcken, Die griech. Papyrusurk., 1897, p. 7. Mayser’s Tl. II will supply 
this need when it appears. 

§ See Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898, p. 27. 

4 Art. Papyri in Encyc. Bibl. 

5 See Adyia "Incod, Sayings of Jesus, by Grenfell and Hunt, 1897. New 
Sayings of Jesus, by Grenfell and Hunt, 1904. See also two books by Dr. C. 
Taylor, The Oxyrhyn. Logia, 1899; The Oxyrhyn. Sayings of Jesus, 1905; 
Lock and Sanday, Two Lect. on the Sayings of Jesus, 1897. 

6’ Theol. Literaturzeit., 1894, p. 338. . 

7 Essays in Bibl. Gk., 1892, p. 11 f. The earliest dated papyrus is now 


NEW MATERIAL vA 


will no longer be despised as inferior or unclassical. It will be 
seen to be a vital part of the great current of the Greek language. 
For the formal discussion of the bearing of the papyri on the N. T. 
Greek see chapter IV. A word should be said concerning the 
reason why the papyri are nearly all found in Egypt.! It is due 
to the dryness of the climate there. Elsewhere the brittle material 
soon perished, though it has on the whole a natural toughness. 
The earliest known use of the papyri in Egypt is about 3400 B.c. 
More exactly, the reign of Assa in the fifth dynasty is put at 
3360 B.c. This piece of writing is an account-sheet belonging 
to this reign (Deissmann, Light from A. E., p. 22). The oldest 
specimen of the Greek papyri goes back to “the regnal year of 
Alexander A‘gus, the son of Alexander the Great. That would 
make it the oldest Greek papyrus document yet discovered”’ 
(Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 29). The discoveries go on as far as 
the seventh century A.p., well into the Byzantine period. The 
plant still grows in Egypt and it was once the well-nigh universal 
writing material. As waste paper it was used to wrap the mum- 
mies. ‘Thus it has come to be preserved. The rubbish-heaps at 
Faytm and Oxyrhynchus are full of these papyri scraps. 

Mention should be made also of the ostraca, or pieces of pot- 
tery, which contain numerous examples of the vernacular xow7. 
For a very interesting sketch of the ostraca see Deissmann, Light, 
etc. (pp. 41-53). Crum and Wilcken have done the chief work on 
the ostraca. They are all non-literary and occur in old Egyptian, 
Arabic, Aramaic, Coptic, Greek and Latin. ‘Prof. Wilcken, in 
his Griechische Ostraka,? has printed the texts of over sixteen 
hundred of the inscribed potsherds on which the commonest re- 
ceipts and orders of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt were written.’’® 
It was the material used by the poorer classes. 

(h) THE BYZANTINE AND THE MopmRN GREEK. The Byzantine 
and modern Greek has at last received adequate recognition. 


P. Eleph. 1 (311 B.c.), not P. Hibeh, as Thackeray has it in his Gr. of the O. T. 
in Gk., p. 56. This was true in 1907; cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., March, 1910, p. 53. 

1 The practical limitation of the papyri to Egypt (and Herculaneum) has 
its disadvantages; cf. Angus, The Kow7, The Lang. of the N. T. (Prince. 
Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 80). 

2 Griech. Ostraka aus Agypten und Nubien, Bd. I, II, 1899; cf. also Crum, 
Coptic Ostraca, 2 vols. (1899); cf. Hilprecht, S. S. Times, 1902, p. 560. ‘‘In 
many Coptic letters that are written on potsherds the writers beg their cor- 
respondents to excuse their having to use an ostrakon for want of papyrus”’ 
(Deissmann, Exp. Times, 1906, Oct., p. 15). 

3 E. J. Goodspeed, Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 102. 


ao A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The student of the N. T. idiom has much to learn from the new 
books on this subject. The scorn bestowed on the xown by the 
intense classicists was intensified by the modern Greek, which 
was long regarded as a nondescript jumble of Greek, Albanian, 
Turkish, Italian, etc. Indeed the modern Greeks themselves 
have not always shown proper appreciation of the dignity of the 
modern vernacular, as is shown, for instance, in the recent up- 
heaval at Athens by the University students over the translation 
of the Gospels into the Greek vernacular (énuorixn) of to-day, 
though the N. T. was manifestly written in the vernacular of its 
day. ‘While the later Greeks, however, could no longer write 
classically, they retained a keen sense for the beauties of the 
classical language.”! Just as the “popular Latin finally sup- 
pressed the Latin of elegant literature,”’? so the vernacular xow7 
lived on through the Roman and Byzantine periods and survives 
to-day as the modern Greek. ‘There is unity in the present-day 
Greek and historical continuity with the past. Dr. Rose is pos- 
sibly extreme in saying: “‘There is more difference between the 
Greek of Herodotus and the Greek of Xenophon than there is 
between the Greek of the latter and the Greek of to-day.’ And 
certainly Prof. Dickey‘ is right in affirming “that the Greek of 
N. T. stands in the centre of the development of which classical 
and modern Greek may be called extremes, and that of the two 
it is nearer to the second in character than the first. The inter- 
pretation of the N. T. has almost entirely been in the sole light 
of the ancient, i.e. the Attic Greek, and, therefore, to that ex- 
tent has been unscientific and often inaccurate.” Hatzidakis® 
indeed complained that the whole subject had been treated with 


1 Dr. Achilles Rose, Chris. Greece and Living Gk., 1898, p. 7. 

2 R. C. Jebb, On the Rela. of Mod. to Class. Gk., in V. and D.’s Handb. 
to Mod. Gk., 1887, p. 287. ‘In other words, the Bible was cast into spoken 
Latin, familiar to every rank of society though not countenanced in the 
schoolroom; and thus it foreshadowed the revolution of ages whereby the 
Roman tongue expanded into what we may label as Romance.”’ W. Barry, 
“Our Latin Bible,” in Dublin Rev., July, 1906, p. 4; cf. also art. on The 
Holy Latin Tongue, in April number. 

3 Chris. Greece and Living Greek, p. 253. 

4 New Points of View for the Study of N. T. Gk. (Prince. Theol. Rev., 
Oct., 1903). See also S. Angus, Mod. Methods in N. T. Philol. (Harv. Theol. 
Rev., Oct., 1911, p. 499): ‘‘That the progress of philology has thus broken 
down the wall of partition of the N. T. and removed its erstwhile isolation is 
a great service to the right understanding of the book’s contents.”’ 

5 Hinl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. ix; cf. also H. C. Miiller, Hist. Gr. der 
hell. Spr., 1891. 


NEW MATERIAL 23 


unworthy “dilettanteism’* and not without ground for the com- 
plaint. He himself did much by his great work to put the study 
of modern Greek on a scientific basis,! but he has not worked 
alone in this important field. Another native Greek, Prof. Sopho- 
cles, has produced a Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine 
Periods in which there is an excellent discussion for that time? of 
the xow7, the Byzantine and the modern Greek. Other scholars 
have developed special phases of the problem, as Krumbacher,? 
who has enriched our knowledge of the Byzantine* or Middle 
Ages Greek. Dieterich® also has done fine work in this period of 
Greek, as has Thumb. Worthy of mention also is the work of 
G. Meyer,’ Geldart® and Prestel,? though the latter have not 
produced books of great value. See also Meyer-Liibke’s gram- 
mar,’ Jannaris’ Historical Greek Grammar and the writings of 
Psichari." In general great progress has been made and it is now 
possible to view the development of the N. T. idiom in the 
light of the modern Greek. The apparent drift-in the vernacular 


1 “Und wenn es mir gelingt, die wissenschaftliche Welt von ihrer wohl- 
berechtigten Zuriickhaltung abzubringen und ihr nachzuweisen, daf das 
Mittel- und Neugriechische ein vielversprechendes unkultivirtes Gebiet der 
Wissenschaft ist, woraus man viel, sehr viel beziiglich der Sprachwissenschaft 
iiberhaupt wie des Altgriechischen speciell lernen kann, so ist mein Zweck 
vollkommen erreicht.”’ Ib., p. x. 

2 1870. One of the pressing needs is a lexicon of the papyri also. See 
Contopoulos, Lex. of Mod. Gk., 1868, and others. 

3 Das Problem der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903. ‘‘Heute bedarf das Studien- 
gebiet der byzantinischen und neugriechischen Philologie keine Apologie,”’ p. 3. 
In his hands the middle Gk. (Byzantine) is shown to be a rich field for the 
student both of philology and literature; cf. also Gesch. der byzant. Lit., 
p. 20. 

4 Gesch. der byzant. Lit. etc.; cf. also his Byz. Zeitschr. and his Beitr. 
zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeitschr., 1885. 

5 Unters. zur Gesch. d. griech. Spr. etc., 1898; Gesch. der byz. und neugr. 
Lit., 1902. 

6 Handb. d. neugr. Volkspr., 1895; Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Ver- 
nac., 1912; Die neugr. Sprachforsch. in d. Jahr. 1890 u. 1891 (Anz. fiir indoger. 
Spr., I, 1892; VI, 1896, and IX, 1898); Die griech. Spr. im Zeitalter des 
Hellen., 1901; Die sprachgesch. Stellung des bibl. Griechisch, Theol. Runds., 
March, 1902. 

7 Neugr. Stud., 1894. 

8 The Mod. Gk. Lang. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870. On the Orig. and 
Devel. of the Mod. Gk. Lang., Jour. of Philol., 1869. 

9 Zur Entwickelungsgesch. der griech. Spr. 

10 Gr. der romanischen Spr. 

11 Hssais de Gr. hist. Néogrecque, 1886; cf. also Boltz Die hell. Spr. der 
Gegenw., 1882. 


24 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


xown of the N. T., like ta in the non-final clause, is too common 
for remark in the modern Greek. Indeed the N. T. had a pre- 
dominant influence on the later Greek as the chief literature of 
the period, and especially as Christianity won the victory over 
heathenism. The Byzantine Greek is in subject-matter largely 
ecclesiastical. ‘The sermons and treatises of the Greek Christian 
Fathers constitute a large and valuable literature and amply il- 
lustrate the language of the time.1. The modern Greek is in all 
essential points the same as the Byzantine Greek of 1000 a.p. 
In forty years? we have seen a revolution in the study of the 
modern Greek. But as late as 1887 Vincent and Dickson* could 
say: ““By many it is believed that a corrupt patois of Turkish 
and Italian is now spoken in Greece; and few even among pro- 
fessed scholars are aware how small the difference is between the 
Greek of the N. T. and the Greek of a contemporary Athenian 
newspaper.’? The new Greek speech was developed not out of 
the Byzantine literary language, but out of the Hellenistic popular 
speech.4 

(i) THE Hesprew AND ARAMAIC. Less that is new has come 
from the Hebrew and Aramaic field of research. Still real ad- 
vance has been made here also. The most startling result is the 
decrease of emphasis upon ‘Hebraisms in the N. T. style. In 
chapter IV, 111 the Semitic influence on the N. T. language is dis- 
cussed. Here the literary history is sketched. 

1. The Old View. It was only in 1879 that Guillemard® issued 
his Hebraisms in the Greek Testament, in which he said in the 
Preface: ‘‘I earnestly disavow any claim to an exhaustive exhibi- 
tion of all the Hebraisms, or all the deviations from classical 
phraseology contained in the Greek Testament; of which I have 
gathered together and put forward only a few specimens, in the 
hope of stimulating others to fuller and more exact research.”’ 
Even in 1889, Dr. Edwin Hatch® says: ‘‘ Biblical Greek is thus a 


1 See the Migne Lib. and the new Ber. Royal Lib. ed. 

2 Dieterich, op. cié., p. 10. 

8 Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 3. See also Horae Hellenicae, by Stuart Blackie, 
1874, p. 115: ‘Byzantine Gk. was classical Gk. from beginning to end, with 
only such insignificant changes as the altered circumstances, combined with 
the law of its original genius, naturally produced.” Cf. Rangabé, Gr. Abré- 
gée du grec actuel; Tevvddcos, Tpauparex) ts ‘EXXNerkis TAwoons. 

4 Dieterich, op. cit., p. 5. 

’ See also A. Miller, Semit. Lehnw. in alteren Griech., Bezzenb. Beitr., 
1878, I, pp. 273 ff.; S. Krauss, Griech. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal., 1898, 1899, 

6 Essays in Bibl. Gk., p. 11. 


NEW MATERIAL 259 


language by itself. What we have to find out in studying it is 
what meaning certain Greek words conveyed to a Semitic mind.” 
Again he says!: “The great majority of N. T. words are words 
which, though for the most part common to biblical and to con- 
temporary secular Greek, express in their biblical use the concep- 
tions of a Semitic race, and which must consequently be examined 
by the light of the cognate documents which form the LXX.”’ 
And W. H. Simcox? says: ‘Thus it is that there came to exist a 
Hellenistic dialect, having real though variable differences from 
the Common or Hellenic.” 

2. A Change with Kennedy. But a turn comes when H. A. A. 
Kennedy? says: ‘But while the writer began with a complete, 
though provisional, acceptance of Hatch’s conclusions, the far- 
ther the inquiry was pushed, the more decidedly was he com- 
pelled to doubt those conclusions, and finally to seek to establish 
the connection between the language of the LXX and that of 
the N. T. on a totally different basis.’’ He finds that common 
bond in ‘‘the colloquial Greek of the time.’’4 

3. Deissmann’s Revolt. The full revolt against the theory of a 
Semitic or biblical Greek is seen in the writings of Deissmann,> 
who says®: ‘‘The theory indicated is a great power in exegesis, 
and that it possesses a certain plausibility is not to be denied. 
It is edifying, and what is more, is convenient. But it is absurd. 
It mechanizes the marvellous variety of the linguistic elements 
of the Greek Bible and cannot be established either by the psy- 
chology of language or by history.’”’ There is here some of the 
zeal of new discovery, but it is true. The old view of Hatch is 
dead and gone. The “‘clamant need of a lexicon to the LXX”’ 
is emphasized by Deissmann’ himself. Prof. H. B. Swete of 
Cambridge has laid all biblical students under lasting obligation 


1 Tb., p. 34. See also p. 9: ‘ Biblical Gk. belongs not only to a later period 
of the history of the language than classical Gk., but also to a different coun- 
try.’ On page 14 we read: “‘It is a true paradox that while, historically as 
well as philologically, the Gk. (LX X) is a translation of the Hebrew, philo- 
logically, though not historically, the Hebrew may be regarded as a trans- 
lation of the Gk.”’ 

2 The Lang. of the N. T., 1890, p. 15. Note the date, as late as 1890. 


§ Sources of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. v. 4 Ib., p. 146. 
5 Die sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, 1898; B.S., 1901; Hell. Griech., 
Hauck’s Realencye., New Light (1907), etc. SEB Dao. 


7 Ib., p. 73. Schleusner, 1821, is hopelessly inadequate and out of date. 
Hatch and Redpath have issued in six parts (two volumes) a splendid con- 
cordance to the LX X and other Gk. versions of the O. T., 1892-1896, 1900. 


26 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


to him by his contribution to the study of the Septuagint, con- 
sisting of an edition of the LX X! with brief critical apparatus 
and a general discussion? of the Septuagint. Brooke and McLean 
are publishing an edition of the Septuagint with exhaustive crit- 
ical apparatus.’ Students of the LXX now rejoice in Helbing’s Gr. 
der Septuaginta: Laut- u. Formenlehre (1907) and Thackeray’s 
Gr. of the O. T. in Greek, vol. I (1909). Conybeare and Stock’s 
Selections from the Septuagint (1905) has the old standpoint. 
Other modern workers in this department are Nestle, Lagarde,° 
Hartung,® Ralfs,?7 Susemihl,® Apostolides.® 

4, The Language of Jesus. Another point of special interest in 
this connection, which may be discussed as well now as later, is 
the new light concerning the Aramaic as the language habitually 
spoken by Jesus. This matter has been in much confusion and 
the scholars are not at one even now. Roberts! maintains that 
Greek, not Hebrew, was ‘‘the language of the common public 
intercourse in Palestine in the days of Christ and His apostles.’’ 
By Hebrew he means Aramaic. In The Expositor (1st series, vols. 
VI, VID) Roberts argued also that Christ usually spoke Greek. 
He was replied to (vol. VII) by Sanday. Lightfoot (on Gal. 4 : 6) 
holds that Jesus said ’ABBa 6 tatnp thus, Mark not having trans- 
lated it. Thomson, ‘‘The Language of Palestine” (Temple Bible 
Dict.), argues strongly that Christ spoke Greek, not Aramaic. 
Neubauer!!! contends that there was spoken besides at Jerusalem 
and in Judea a modernized Hebrew, and comments” on ‘“‘ how 


1 The O.T. in Gk. according to the LXX, vols. I-III, 1887-1894. He does 
not give an edited text, but follows one MS. at a time with critical apparatus 
in footnotes. 

2 An Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., 1900; 2d ed., 1914. 

8 The Larger Camb. LXX, 1906—. 

4 Kd. of the LXX with Crit. Apparatus, 1880-1887; Sept.-Stud., 1886— 
1896; Urtext und Ubersetz. der Bibel, 1897. Nestle died in 1913. 

5 Sept.-Stud., 1891-1892. 6 Ib., 1886. 7 Tb., 1904. 

8 Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrinzeit, Bd. I, II, 1891, 1892. 

9 Du grec Alexandrin et de ses rapports avec le grec ancien et le gree mo- 
derne, 1892. Cf. among the older discussions, Sturz, De dial. Maced. et 
Alexan., 1808; Lipsius, Gr. Unters. iiber die bibl. Griic., 1853; Churton, The 
Infl. of the LXX upon the Prog. of Chris., 1861. See also Anz, Subs. ad 
cognos. Graec. serm. vulg. e Pent. vers. Alexan., 1894. 

10 Disc. on the Gosp., pt. I, On the Lang. Employed by Our Lord and His 
Apost., 1864, p. 316; A Short Proof that Greek was the Language of Jesus 
(1898). 

™ On the Dial. of Palestine in the Time of Ch., Stud. Bibl., 1885. 

12 Stud. Bibl., p. 54. 


NEW MATERIAL pie 


little the Jews knew Greek.”’ A. Meyer! urges that the vernacular 
of Jesus was Aramaic and shows what bearing this fact has on 
the interpretation of the Gospels. A. Jiilicher? indeed says: ‘‘To 
suppose, however (as, e.g. G. B. Winer supposes, because of 
Mk. 7:34; Jo. 7:25; 12:20) that Jesus used the Greek language 
is quite out of the question.’ But Young, vol. II, Dictionary of 
Christ and the Gospels (Hastings), article ‘Language of Christ,’’ 
admits that Christ used both, though usually he spoke Aramaic. 
So Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 8. But Dalman* has done more 
than any one in showing the great importance of the Aramaic for » 
the interpretation of the words of Jesus. He denies the use of a 
modernized Hebrew in Jerusalem and urges that proper names 
like Byéecda, STI 1732, are Aramaic (but see J. Rendel Harris, 
Side Lights on the N. T., p. 71 f.). Dalman further urges that 
“Aramaic was the mother tongue of the Galileans.”4 J. T. 


Marshall’ makes out a plausible case for the idea of a primitive — 


Aramaic Gospel before our Mark, and this would make it more 
probable that Jesus spoke Aramaic. E. A. Abbott® also attempts 
to reproduce the original Aramaic of the words of Jesus from the 
Greek. But Prof. Mahaffy’ can still say: “And so from the very 
beginning, though we may believe that in Galilee and among His 
intimates our Lord spoke Aramaic, and though we know that 
some of His last words upon the cross were in that language, yet 
His public teaching, His discussions with the Pharisees, His talk 


1 Jesu Mutterspr.: das galiliische Aram. in seiner Bedeut. fiir die Erkl. der 
Reden Jesu und der Evang. iiberhaupt, 1896. So Deissmann (Light, etc., 
p. 57) says that Jesus “did not speak Gk. when He went about His public 
work,” and, p. 1, ‘‘Jesus preaches in his Aramaic mother-tongue.”’ 

2 Art. Hellenism in Encyc. Bibl. Canon Foakes-Jackson (Interp., July, 1907, 
p. 392) says: ‘‘The Jews of high birth or with areputation for sanctity are 
said to have refused to learn any language but their own, and thus we have 
the strange circumstance in Roman Palestine of the lower orders speaking 

. two languages and their leaders only one.’’ 

3 The Words of Jesus considered in the Light of the post-Bibl. Jewish 
Writings and the Aram. Lang., 1902. Cf. also Pfannkuche (Clark’s Bibl. 
Cab.). 

<P De LO: 

5 Exp., ser. IV, VI, VIII. See also Brockelmann, Syrische Gr., 1904; 
Schwally, Idioticon des christl.-palestinischen Aramiiisch, 1893; Riggs, Man. 
of the Chaldean Lang., 1866; Wilson, Intr. Syriac Meth. and Man., 1891; 
Strack, Gr. des bibl. Aramidischen. 

6 Clue, A Guide through Gk. to Heb., 1904. 

7 The Prog. of Hellen. in Alexan. Emp., 1905, p. 130 f. Hadley (Ess. Phil. 
and Crit., p. 413) reaches the conclusion that Jesus spoke both Gk. and Aram. 


28 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with Pontius Pilate, were certainly carried on mainly in the 
Greek.”’ Zahn (Intr. to the N. T.) labours needlessly to show 
that Hebrew was no longer the language of Palestine, but he does 
not prove that Aramaic was everywhere spoken, nor that Jesus 
always spoke Aramaic. Wellhausen (Hinl. in die drei erst. Evang.) 
is prejudiced in favour of the Aramaic theory. It may be admitted 
at once that Aramaic was known to the majority of the Jews in 
Palestine, particularly in Judea. Cf. Ac. 1:19: rH dtadextw abrav 
‘“AxeNdauax; 22:2, axovtoavres Ott TH “EBpatédc diadéxtw Tpoce- 
pwver alrots waddov Tapéeoxov novxiay. There is no doubt which 
language is the vernacular in Jerusalem. Cf. also 26:14. Jo- 
sephus confirms Luke on this point (War, V, 6. 3), for the people 
of Jerusalem cried out 7H Tarpiw yAwoon, and Josephus also acted 
intermediary for Titus, rH rarpiw yAwoon (War, VI, 2. 1). See 
also 2 Mace. 7:8, 21. Josephus wrote his War first in Aramaic 
and then in Greek. The testimony of Papias that Matthew 
wrote his \oyra in Aramaic bears on the question because of the 
tradition that Mark was the interpreter of Peter. The brogue 
that Peter revealed (Mt. 26:73) was probably due to his Gali- 
lean accent of Aramaic. Aramaic was one of the languages for 
the inscription on the cross (Jo. 19:20). It is clear therefore that 
the Hellenizing work of Jason and Menelaus and Antiochus 
Epiphanes received a set-back in Palestine. The reaction kept 
Greek from becoming the one language of the country. Even in 
Lycaonia the people kept their vernacular though they under- 
stood Greek (Ac. 14:11). On the other hand Peter clearly spoke 
‘in Greek on the Day of Pentecost, and no mention is made of 
Greek as one of the peculiar “tongues,” on that occasion. It 
is clear that Paul was understood in Jerusalem when he spoke 
Greek (Ac. 22:2). Jesus Himself laboured chiefly in Galilee 
where were many gentiles and much commerce and travel. He 
taught in Decapolis, a Greek region. He preached also in the 
regions of Tyre and Sidon (Pheenicia), where Greek was neces- 
sary, and he held converse with .a Greek (Syro-Phcenician) 
woman. Near Cesarea-Philippi (a Greek region), after the 
Transfiguration, Jesus spoke to the people at the foot of the 
mountain. At the time of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus ad- 
dressed people from Decapolis and Perea (largely Hellenized), be- 
sides the mixed multitudes from Galilee, Jerusalem and Judea 
(Mt. 4:25). Luke (6:17) adds that crowds came also from Tyre 
and Sidon, and Mark (8: 8) gives “from Idumea.”’ It is hardly pos- 
sible that these crowds understood Aramaic. The fact that Mark 


NEW MATERIAL 9 


twice (5:41; 7:34) uses Aramaic quotations from the words of 
Jesus does not prove that He always spoke in that tongue nor 
that He did so only on these occasions. In Mk. 14:36, ’ABBd 6 
matnp, it is possible that Jesus may have used both words as 
Paul did (Ro. 8:15). In the quotation from Ps. 22:1, spoken 
on the cross, Mt. 27:46 gives the Hebrew, while Mk. 15:34 
has an Aramaic adaptation. There is no reason to doubt that 
Jesus knew Hebrew also. But Thomson (Temple Bible, Lang. of 
Palestine) proves that Matthew gives the quotations made by 
Christ in the words of the LX X, while his own quotations are 
usually from the Hebrew. It is clear, therefore, that Jesus spoke 
both Aramaic and Greek according to the demands of the occa- 3 
sion and read the Hebrew as well as the Septuagint, if we may. 
argue from the O. T. quotations in the Gospels which are partly 
like the Hebrew text and partly like the LXX.!. In Lu. 4:17 it 
is not clear whether it was the Hebrew text or the LXX that was 
read in the synagogue at Nazareth.2 One surely needs no argu- 
ment to see the possibility that a people may be bilingual when 
he remembers the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, Bretons of the present 
day.* The people in Jerusalem understood either Greek or Ara- 
maic (Ac. 22: 2). 

(j) GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARIES. A word must be said con- 
cerning the new type of commentaries which accent the gram- 
matical side of exegesis. This is, to be sure, the result of the 
emphasis upon scientific grammar. The commentary must have 
other elements besides the grammatical. Even the historical 
element when added does not exhaust what is required. There 
still remains the apprehension of the soul of the author to which 
historical grammar is only an introduction. But distinct credit 
is to be given to those commentators who have lifted this kind 
of exegesis out of the merely homiletic vein. Among the older 
writers are to be mentioned Meyer, Ellicott, Godet, Broadus, 
Hackett, Lightfoot and Westcott, while among the more recent 
commentators stand out most of the writers in the International 


1 See C. Taylor, The Gospel in the Law, 1869; Boehl, Alttestamentl. Cit. 
im N. T., 1878; Toy, Quota. in the N. T., 1884; Huhn, Die alttestamentl. 
Cit. etc., 1900; Gregory, Canon and Text of the N. T., 1907, p. 394. 

2 On the Gk. in the Tal. see art. Greek in Jew. Encyc.; Krauss, Griech. 
und lat. Lehnw. im Tal.; Schiirer, Jew. Hist., div. II, vol. I, p. 29 f. 

3 See Zahn, Einl. in das N. T., ch. 11. On the bilingual character of many 
of the Palestinian Jews see Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in the Time of Ch., div. II, 
vol. I, p. 48 f.; Moulton, Prol., p. 7 f. 


30 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Critical Commentary, Holtzmann’s Hand Comm., The Expositor’s 
Greek Test., Swete, Mayor, G. Milligan, Lietzmann’s Handbuch, 
Zahn’s Kommentar, The Camb. Gk. Test., etc. In works like these, 
grammatical remarks of great value are found. There has been 
great advance in the N. T. commentaries since Winer’s day, when 
these comments ‘‘were rendered useless by that uncritical empi- 
ricism which controlled Greek philology.” } 

V. The New Point of View. It will hardly be denied, in view 
of the preceding necessarily condensed presentation of the new 
material now at hand that new light has been turned upon the 
problems of the N. T. Greek. The first effect upon many minds 
is to dazzle and to cause confusion. Some will not know how to 
assimilate the new facts and to co-ordinate them with old theories 
nor be willing to form or adopt new theories as a result of the 
fresh phenomena. But it is the inevitable duty of the student in 
this department to welcome the new discoveries and to attack 
the problems arising therefrom. The new horizon and wider out- 
look make possible real progress. It will not be possible to avoid 
some mistakes at first. A truer conception of the language is 
now offered to us and one that will be found to be richer and more 
inspiring.” Every line of biblical study must respond to the new 
discovery in language. ‘A new Cremer, a new Thayer-Grimm, 
a new Winer will give the twentieth century plenty of editing to 
keep its scholars busy. New Meyers and Alfords will have fresh 
matter from which to interpret the text, and new Spurgeons and 
Moodys will, we may hope, be ready to pass the new teaching’ 
on to the people.”? The N. T. Greek is now seen to be not an 
abnormal excrescence, but a natural development in the Greek 
language; to be, in fact, a not unworthy part of the great stream 
of the mighty tongue. It was not outside of the world-language, 
but in the very heart of it and influenced considerably the future 
of the Greek tongue. 


1 Winer, Gr. of the N. T. Idiom, Thayer’s transl., p. 7. 

2 “Nun hat man aber die Sprache der heiligen Biicher mit den Papyrus- 
denkmialern und den Inschriften der alexandrinischen und rémischen Zeit 
genau verglichen, und da hat sich die gar manchen Anhinger der alten Dok- 
trin verbliiffende, in Wahrheit ganz natiirliche Tatsache ergeben, daf die 
Sprache des N. T. nichts anderes ist als eine fiir den literarischen Zweck 
leicht temperierte Form des volkstiimlich Griechisch.”’ Krumbacher, Das 
Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903, p. 27. 

§ J. H. Moulton, New Lights on Bibl. Gk., Bibl. World, March, 1902. 


GHAPTEHR. If 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 


I. Language as History. The scientific grammar is at bottom 
a grammatical history, and not a linguistic law-book. The seat of 
authority in language is therefore not the books about language, 
but the people who use the language. The majority of well-edu- 
cated people determine correct usage (the mos loquendi as Horace 
says). Even modern dictionaries merely record from time to 
time the changing phenomena of language. Wolff was right 
when he conceived of philology as the “biography of a nation.’ 
The life of a people is expressed in the speech which they use.! 
We can well agree with Benfey? that “speech is the truest picture 
of the soul of a people, the content of all that which has brought a 
people to self-consciousness.”’ However, we must not think that 
we can necessarily argue race from language.? The historical 
conception of grammar has had to win its way against the purely 
theoretical and speculative notion. Etymology was the work 
of the philosophers. The study of the forms, the syntax, the 
dialects came later. The work of the Alexandrians was originally 
philology, not scientific grammar.‘ 

(a) COMBINING THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS. It is not indeed easy 
to combine properly the various elements in the study of language: 
Sayce considers Steinthal too psychological and Schleicher too 
physical.» The historical element must be added to both... Paul® 
objects to the phrase “philosophy of language” as suggesting 
“metaphysical speculations of which the historical investigation 


1 See Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 9 f. 

2 Kleinere Schr., 1892, 2. Bd., 4. Abt., p. 51. 

3 See Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. 175 f. 

4 See Kretschmer, Hinl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 2, 3. 

5 Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. xvi. 

6 Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. xxi. ‘‘The truth is that the science 
of which we are thinking is philosophy in the same way as physics or physi- 
ology is philosophy, neither more, nor less.” 

31 


32 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of language needs to take no count.” He prefers the term “sci- 
ence of principles.” The study of language is a true science, a 
real philosophy, with a psychical as well as a physical basis. It 
is properly related to the historical natural sciences which have 
been subject “to the misdirected attempt at excluding them 
from the circle of the sciences of culture.”! Language is capable 
of almost perfect scientific treatment. Kretschmer? outlines as 
modern advances over ancient grammar the psychological treat- 
ment of language, the physiology of sound, the use of the com- 
parative method, the historical development of the language, the 
recognition of speech as a product of human culture, and not to 
be separated from the history of culture, world-history and life 
of the peoples. He thinks that no language has yet received such 
treatment as this, for present-day handbooks are only “speech- 
pictures,’ not “speech-histories.”’ 

(b) PRAcTICAL GRAMMAR A CoMPROMISE. Historical practical 
grammars have to make a compromise. They can give the whole 
view only in outline and show development and interrelation in 
part. It is not possible then to write the final grammar of Greek 
either ancient or modern. The modern is constantly changing 
and we are ever learning more of the old. What was true of 
Mistriotes* and Jannaris* will be true of the attempts of all. 
But none the less the way to study Greek is to look at it as a 
history of the speech-development of one of the greatest of peo- 
ples. But it is at least possible now to have the right attitude, 
thanks to the books already mentioned and others by Bernhardy,® 


1 Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. xxvii. See Von Ulrich’s Grundl. und 
Gesch. der Philol., 1892, p. 22: ‘‘Zu der wissenschaftlichen Grammatik gesellt 
sich die historische Betrachtung. Sie unterscheidet die ‘Periodisierung der 
Satze von deren loser Verkniipfung, die wechselnde Bedeutung der Partikeln, 
den Gebrauch der Modi und Tempora, die erfahrungsmafig festgestellten 
Regeln der Syntax, den Sprachgebrauch der Schriftsteller.’’ On the scientific 
study of the Gk. language sketched historically see Wackernagel, Die Kult. 
der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, pp. 314-316. 

* Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., pp. 3-5. He himself here merely 
outlines the historical background of the Gk. language. 

3 “Kara tatra dourdyv 4 ypaupatodoyla dev elvar ore auryns ioropikn, OUTE apl- 
is aicOnrixy exroTnun GAG peTéexer Gupotépwr.”? ‘EAXAnviK Tpauparodoyia, 1894, 
Dru, : 

4 “As a matter of course, I do not presume to have said the last word on 
all or most of these points, seeing that, even in the case of modern CREEL 
cannot be expected to master, in all its details, the entire vocabulary and 
grammar of every single Neohellenic dialect.”” Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. x. 

5 Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 33 


Christ,! Wundt,? Johannsen,? Krumbacher,* Schanz,> G. Meyer,‘ 
I. Miller,’ Hirt, Thumb,’? Dieterich,! Steinthal.". The Latin 
syntax received historical treatment by Landgraf,” not to men- 
tion English and other modern languages. 

II. Language as a Living Organism. 

(a) THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE. Speech is indeed a character- 
istic of man and may be considered a divine gift, however slowly 
the gift was won and developed by him." Sayce is undoubtedly 
correct in saying that language is a social creation and the effort 
to communicate is the only true solution of the riddle of speech, 
whether there was ever a speechless man or not. “Grammar has 
grown out of gesture and gesticulation.”'* But speech has not 
created the capacities which mark the civilized man as higher 
than the savage.’ Max Miiller remarks that “language forms an 
impassable barrier between man and beast.’’ Growls and signs 
do not constitute “intellectual symbolism.’”’!® Paul indeed, in op- 
position to Lazarus and Steinthal, urges that “every linguistic 
creation is always the work of a single individual only.’”’!” The 
psychological organisms are in fact the true media of linguistic 


Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1893. 

Volkerpsychol., 1900, 3. Aufl., 1911 f. 

Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1890. 

Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1885. 

Beitr. zur hist. Synt. der griech. Spr., Bd. I-X VII. 

Ess. und Stud. zur Sprachgesch. und Volksk., Bd. J, II, 1885, 1893. 
Handb. der Altertumswiss. He edits the series (1890—). 

Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl. Eine Ejinfiihr. in das sprach- 
wiss. Stud. des Griech., 1902, 2. Aufl., 1912. 

9 Die griech. Spr. im Zeitalter des Hellen., 1901. 

10 Untersuch. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1898. 

1 Gesch. der Sprachwiss. bei den Griech. und Rém., Tl. I, II, 1891. 

12 Hist. Gr. der lat. Spr., 1908. Cf. Stolz und Schmalz, Lat. Gr., 4. Aufl., 
1910; Draeger, Hist. Synt. der lat. Spr., Bd. I, I, 1878, 1881; Lindsay, The 
Lat. Lang., 1894. In Bd. III of Landgraf’s Gr., Golling says (p. 2) that Latin 
Grammar as a study is due to the Stoics who did it ‘in der engsten Verbin- 
dung mit der Logik.” Cf. origin of Gk. Gr. 

18 See Whitney, Lang. and the Study of Lang., 1868, p. 399. 

14 Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., vol. II, p. 301. 

1 Whitney, Darwinism and Lang., Reprint from North Am. Rev., July, 
1874. 

16 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 9. See also The Silesian Horse- 
herd: ‘‘Language and thought go hand in hand; where there is as yet no 
word, there is as yet no idea.’”’ Many of the writers cn animals do not 
accept this doctrine. 

17 Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. xliil. 


on on fr ww Sy 


34 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


development. Self-observation and analogy help one to strike a 
general average and so make grammar practical as well as scien- 
tific. 

(b) EvoLution In LANGUAGE. Growth, then, is to be expected 
in a living tongue. Change is inseparable from life. No language 
is dead so long as it is undergoing change, and this must be true 
in spoken and written usage. It is not the function of the gram- 
marian to stop change in language, a thing impossible in itself. 
Such change is not usually cataclysmic, but gradual and varied. 
“A written language, to serve any practical purpose, must change 
with the times, just like a living dialect.”! In general, change 
in usage may be compared to change in organic structure in 
“oreater or lesser fitness.”? The changes by analogy in the 
speech of children are very suggestive on this point. The vocab- 
ulary of the Greek tongue must therefore continually develop, 
for new ideas demand new words and new meanings come to old 
words. Likewise inflections vary in response to new movements. 
This change brings great wealth and variety. The idea of prog- 
ress has seized the modern mind and has been applied to the 
study of language as to everything else. 

(c) CHANGE CHIEFLY IN THE VERNACULAR. Linguistic change 
occurs chiefly in the vernacular. T'rom the spoken language new 
words and new inflections work their way gradually into the 
written style, which is essentially conservative, sometimes even 
anachronistic and purposely archaic. Much slang is finally ac- 
cepted in the literary style. The study of grammar was originally 
confined to the artificial book-style. Dionysius Thrax expressly 
defined grammar as éureipia Tay rapa rountais Te Kal cvyypadedow 
ws érl TO ToAv Aeyouerwy. It was with him a concern for the 
poets and writers, not “die Sprache des Lebens.”? Grammar 
(ypaumatixn, ypadw), then, was first to write and to understand 
what was written; then the scientific interpretation of this litera- 
ture; later the study of literary linguistic usage. It is only the 
moderns who have learned to investigate the living speech for 
its own historical value. Before the discovery of the Greek in- 
scriptions the distinction between the vernacular and the literary 
style could not be so sharply drawn for the Greek of the classical 


1 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 481. 

2 Ib., p. 18. Kiihner speaks of “das organische Leben der Sprache” and 
of ‘ein klares, anschauliches und lebensvolles Bild des grofen und kraftig 
bliihenden Sprachbaums.” Ausfihrl. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1. Bd., 1890, p. iii. 

3 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 3-5. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 35 


period, though Aristophanes should have taught us much. We 
have moved away from the position of Mure! who said: “The 
distinction between the language of letters and the vulgar tongue, 
so characteristic of modern civilization, is imperceptible or but 
little defined in the flourishing age of Greece. Numerous peculi- 
arities in her social condition tended to constitute classical ex- 
pression in speaking or writing, not, as with us, the privilege of a 
few, but a public property in which every Hellene had an equal 
interest.”” The people as a whole were wonderfully well educated, 
but the educated classes themselves then, as now with us, used a 
spoken as well as a literary style. Jannaris? is clear on this point: 
“But, speaking of Attic Greek, we must not infer that all Athe- 
nians and Atticized Greeks wrote and spoke the classical Attic 
portrayed in the aforesaid literature, for this Attic is essentially 
what it still remains in modern Greek composition: a merely 
historical abstraction; that is, an artistic language which nobody 
spoke but still everybody understood.’’ We must note therefore 
both the vernacular and the literary style and expect constant 
change in each, though not in the same degree. Zarncke indeed 
still sounds a note of warning against too much attention to the 
vernacular, though a needless one.* In the first century a.p. the 
vernacular Greek was in common use all over the world, the char- 
acter of which we can now accurately set forth. But this non- 
literary language was not necessarily the speech of the illiterate. 
Mahaffy‘ is very positive on this point. “I said just now that 
the Hellenistic world was more cultivated in argument than we 
are nowadays. And if you think this is a strange assertion, ex- 
amine, I pray you, the intellectual aspects of the Epistles of St. 
Paul, the first Christian writer whom we know to have been thor- 
oughly educated in this training. Remember that he was a practi- 
cal teacher, not likely to commit the fault of speaking over the 
heads of his audience, as the phrase is.” Hatzidakis® laments that 
the monuments of the Greek since the Alexandrian period are no 
longer in the pure actual living speech of the time, but in the ar- 


1 A Crit. Hist. of the Lang. and Lit. of Anc. Greece, 1850, vol. I, p. 117. 

SSO agi. LOO FD. 1. 

3 Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1890, p. 2: ‘Denn man liefe Gefahr, 
den Charakter der Literaturdenkmiler ginzlich zu zerst6ren, indem man, 
ihre eigenartige Gestaltung verkennend, sie nach den Normen einer gespro- 
chenen Mundart corrigirt.’”’ But see Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Att., 1881; and 
Apostolides, op. cit. 

4-Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 137. 

5 Kinleitung, p. 3. 


36 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


 tificial Attic of a bygone age. The modern Greek vernacular is 
a living tongue, but the modern literary language so proudly 
called xafapevouca is artificial and unreal.!. This new conception 
of language as life makes it no longer possible to set up the Greek 
of any one period as the standard for all time. The English 
writer to-day who would use Hooker’s style would be affected 
and anachronistic. Good English to-day is not what it was two. 
hundred years ago, even with the help of printing and (part of 
the time) dictionaries. What we wish to know is not what 
was good Greek at Athens in the days of Pericles, but what was 
good Greek in Syria and Palestine in the first century a.p. The 
direct evidence for this must be sought among contemporaries, 
not from ancestors in a distant land. It is the living Greek that 
we desire, not the dead. 

III. Greek not an Isolated Language. 

(a) THE ImpoRTANCE OF COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR. Julius Cesar, 
who wrote a work on grammar, had in mind Latin and Greek, for 
both were in constant use in the Roman world.?, Formal Sanskrit 
grammar itself may have resulted from the comparison of San- 
skrit with the native dialects of India. Hence comparative 
grammar seems to lie at the very heart of the science. It cannot 
be said, however, that Panini, the great Sanskrit scholar and 
grammarian of the fourth century B.c., received: any impulse 
from the Greek civilization of Alexander the Great.4 The work 
of Panini is one of the most remarkable in history for subtle orig- 
inality, “une histoire naturelle de la langue sanscrite.” The 
Roman and Greek grammarians attended to the use of words in 
sentences, while the Sanskrit writers analyzed words into syl- 
lables® and studied the relation of sounds to each other. It is 
not possible to state the period when linguistic comparison was 
first made. Max Miiller in The Science of Language even says: 
“From an historical point of view it is not too much to say that 
the first Day of Pentecost marks the real beginning of the Science 
of language.”’ One must not think that the comparative method 
is “more characteristic of the study of language than of other 


1 “Fine Literatursprache ist nie eine Art Normalsprache.”” Schwyzer, 
Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 12. 

2 King, Intr. to Comp. Gr. paz: 

8 Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., p. 261. 

4 Goblet d’Alviella, Ce que |’Inde doit 4 la Gréce, 1897, p. 129. 

5 King, op. cit., p. 2f. ‘The method of comparative grammar is merely 
auxiliary to historical grammar,’ Wheeler, Whence and Whither of the 
Mod. Sci. of Lang., p. 96. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD of 


branches of modern inquiry.”! The root idea of the new gram- 
mar is the kinship of languages. Chinese grammar is said to be 
one of the curiosities of the world, and some other grammatical 
works can be regarded in that light. But our fundamental obli- 
gation is to the Hindu and Greek grammarians.? 

(b) Tue Common Bonp 1n Laneuace. Prof. Alfredo Trom- 
betti, of Rome, has sought the connecting link in all human 
speech.’ It is a gigantic task, but it is doubtless true that all 
speech is of ultimate common origin. The remote relationships 
are very difficult to trace. As a working hypothesis the compara- 
tive grammarians speak of isolating, agglutinative and inflectional 
languages. In the isolating tongues like the Chinese, Burmese, 
etc., the words have no inflection and the position in the sen- 
tence and the tone in pronunciation are relied on for clearness 
of meaning. Giles* points out that modern English and Persian 
have nearly returned to the position of Chinese as isolating lan- 
guages. Hence it is inferred that the Chinese has already gone 
through a history similar to the English and is starting again on 
an inflectional career. Agglutinative tongues like the Turkish ex- 
press the various grammatical relations by numerous separable 
prefixes, infixes and suffixes. Inflectional languages have made 
still further development, for while a distinction is made between 
the stem and the inflexional endings, the stems and the endings 
do not exist apart from each other. There are two great families 
in the inflexional group, the Semitic (the Assyrian, the Hebrew, 
the Syriac, the Arabic, etc.) and the Indo-Germanic or Indo-Euro- 
pean (the Indo-Iranian or Aryan, the Armenian, the Greek, the 
Albanian, the Italic, the Celtic, the Germanic and the Balto- 
Slavic).6 Indo-European also are Illyrian, Macedonian, Phrygian, 
Thracian and the newly-discovered Tocharian. Some of these 
groups, like the Italic, the Germanic, the Balto-Slavic, the Indo- 
Iranian, embrace a number of separate tongues which show an 
inner affinity, but all the groups have a general family likeness.® 


1 Whitney, Life and Growth of Lang., 1875—, p. 315. 

2 F. Hoffmann, Uber die Entwickel. des Begriffs der Gr. bei den Alten, 
1891, p. 1. 

8 See his book, The Unity of Origin of Lang. Dr. Allison Drake, Disc. in 
Heb., Gaelic, Gothic, Anglo-Sax., Lat., Basque and other Caucasic Lang., 
1908, undertakes to show ‘fundamental kinship of the Aryan tongues and 
of Basque with the Semitic tongues.”’ 

4 Man. of Comp. Philol., 1901, p. 36. 

5 Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr. der indoger. Spr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 4. 

6 See Misteli, Characteristik der hauptsichlichsten Typen des Sprach- 


38 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) THE ORIGINAL INDO-GERMANIC SPEECH. It is not claimed 
that the original Indo-Germanic speech has been discovered, 
though Kretschmer does speak of “die indogermanische Ur- 
sprache,”’ but he considers it only a necessary hypothesis and a 
useful definition for the early speech-unity before the Indo-Ger- 
manic stock separated.!. Brugmann speaks also of the original 
and ground-speech (Ur- und Grundsprache) in the prehistoric back- 
ground of every member of the Indo-Germanic family.2 The 
science of language has as a historic discipline the task of inves- 
tigating the collective speech-development of the Indo-Germanic 
peoples. Since Bopp’s day this task is no longer impossible. The 
existence of an original Indo-Germanic speech is the working 
hypothesis of all modern linguistic study. This demands indeed 
a study of the Indo-Germanic people. Horatio Hale‘ insists that 
language is the only proper basis for the classification of man- 
kind. But this test breaks down when Jews and Egyptians speak 
Greek after Alexander’s conquests or when the Irish and the 
American Negro use English. The probable home and wander- 
ings of the original Indo-Germanic peoples are well discussed by 
Kretschmer.® It is undeniable that many of the same roots exist 
in slightly different forms in all or most of the Indo-Germanic 
tongues. They are usually words that refer to the common do- 
mestic relations, elementary agriculture, the ordinary articles of 
food, the elemental forces, the pronouns and the numerals. In- 
flexional languages have two kinds of roots, predicative (nouns 
and verbs) and pronominal. Panini found 1706 such roots in 
Sanskrit, but Edgren has reduced the number of necessary San- 
skrit roots to 587.6 But one must not suppose that these hypo- 
thetical roots ever constituted a real language, though there was 
an original Indo-Germanic tongue.’ 


baues, 1893. For further literature on comparative grammar see pp. 10 ff. 
of this book. There is an English translation of Brugmann’s Bde. I and II 
called Elements of the Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., 5 vols., 1886-97. 
But his Kurze vergl. Gr. (1902-4) is the handiest edition. Meillet (Intr. a 
]’Etude Comp. etc., pp. 441-455) has a discriminating discussion of the litera- 
ture. 

1 Hinl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 7-9. 

2 Kurze vergl. Gr., 1. Lief., 1902, p. 3. 

PIDs Dies. 

4 Pop. Sci. Rev., Jan., 1888. 

5 Finl. in die Gesch. etc., pp. 7-92. 

8 See Max Miiller, Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 29. 

7 Sayce, Prin. of Comp. Philol., 1875, p. vi. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 39 


(d) GREEK AS A “DIALECT” OF THE INDO-GERMANIC SPEECH. 
Greek then can be regarded as one of the branches of this original 
Indo-Germanic speech, just as French is one of the descendants of 
the Latin,! like Spanish, Portuguese, Italian. Compare also the re- 
lation of English to the other Teutonic tongues.2 To go further, 
the separation of this original Indo-Germanic speech into various 
tongues was much like the breaking-up of the original Greek into 
dialects and was due to natural causes. Dialectic variety itself 
implies previous speech-unity.’ Greek has vital relations with all 
the branches of the Indo-Germanic tongues, though in varying 
degrees. The Greek shows decided affinity with the Sanskrit, the 
Latin and the Celtic* languages. Part of the early Greek stock 
was probably Celtic. The Greek and the Latin flourished side by 
side for centuries and had much common history. All the com- 
parative grammars and the Greek grammars from this point of 
view constantly compare the Greek with the Latin. See especially 
the great work of Riemann and Goelzer, Grammaire comparée 
du Grec et du Latin.®> On the whole subject of the relation of the 
Greek with the various Indo-Germanic languages see the excel- 
lent brief discussion of Kretschmer.6 But the hypothesis of an 
original Graeco-Italic tongue cannot be considered as proved, 
though there are many points of contact between Greek and 
Latin.’ But Greek, as the next oldest branch known to us, 
shows more kinship with the Sanskrit. Constant use of the San- 
skrit must be made by one who wishes to understand the 
historical development of the Greek tongue. Such a work as 
Whitney’s Sanskrit Grammar is very useful for this purpose. 
See also J. Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik. I, Lautlehre 
(1896). II, 1, Hinlettung zur Wortlehre (1905). So Thumb’s 


1 See Meyer-Liibke, Gr. der rém. Spr., 3 Bde., 1890, 1894, 1899. 

2 See Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 2d ed., 1912, p. 13. 
Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 112 (Ethn. Affin. of the Anc. Greeks). 

3 Whitney, Lang. and the Study of Lang., 1868, p. 185. See Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr., p. 5: ‘Die griechische, lateinische, indische u.s.w. Grammatik 
sind die konstitutiven Teile der indogermanischen Grammatik in gleicher 
Weise, wie z. B. die dorische, die ionische u.s.w. Grammatik die griechische 
Grammatik ausmachen.” 

4 See Holder, Altcelt. Sprachsch., 1891 ff. 

6 Synt., 1897. Phonét. et Et. des Formes Grq. et Lat., 1901. 

6 Winl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., pp. 153-170. 

7 Prof. B. L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins Univ., has always taught Greek, 
but his Latin Grammar shows his fondness for Latin. See also Henry, A 
Short Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., 1890, and A Short Comp. Gr. of Eng. and 
Ger., 1893. 


40 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Handbuch des Sanskrit. I, Grammatik (1905). Max Miller? 

playfully remarks: “It has often been said that no one can know 

anything of the science of language who does not know Sanskrit, 

and that is enough to frighten anybody away. from its study.” 

It is not quite so bad, however. Sanskrit is not the parent stock 

of the Greek, but the oldest member of the group. The age of 

the Sanskrit makes it invaluable for the study of the later speech-— 
developments. 

The Greek therefore is not an isolated tongue, but sustains vital 
relations with a great family of languages. So important does 
Kretschmer consider this aspect of the subject that he devotes 
his notable Hinleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache 
to the setting forth of “the prehistoric beginnings of the Greek 
speech-development.”? This effort is, of necessity, fragmentary | 
and partly inferential, but most valuable for a scientific treat- 
ment of the Greek language. He has a luminous discussion of the 
effect of the Thracian and Phrygian stocks upon the Greek when 
the language spread over Asia Minor.® 

IV. Looking at the Greek Language as a Whole. We cannot 
indeed make an exhaustive study of the entire Greek language in 
a book that is professedly concerned only with one epoch of that 
history. As a matter of fact no such work exists. Jannaris* in= 
deed said that “an ‘historical’ grammar, tracing in a connected 
manner the life of the Greek language from classical antiquity to 
the present, time, has not been written nor even seriously at- 
tempted as yet.” Jannaris himself felt his limitations when he 
faced so gigantic a task and found it necessary to rest his work 
upon the classical Attic as the only practical basis.® But so far 


1 Three Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 72. 

2 P.5. Prof. Burrows (Disc. in Crete, 1907, pp. 145 ff.) raises the question 
whether the Greek race (a blend of northern and southern elements) made 
the Gk. language out of a pre-existing Indo-European tongue. Or did the 
northerners bring the Gk. with them? Or did they find it already in the 
/Egean? It is easier to ask than to answer these questions. 

3 See pp. 171-248. 4“ Hist. ‘Gk. Gr.,.1897, p: v. 

5 Ib., p. xi. Thumb says: “Wir sind noch sehr weit von einer Geschichte 
oder historischen Grammatik der griechischen Sprache entfernt; der Ver- 
such von Jannaris, so dankenswert er ist, kann doch nur provisorische Gel- 
tung beanspruchen, wobei man mehr die gute Absicht und den Fleif8 als das 
sprachgeschichtliche Verstindnis des Verfassers loben mu.’ Die griech. 
Spr., etc., 1901, p. 1. Cf. also Krumbacher, Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. 
Spr. (1884, p. 4): ‘““Kine zusammenhangende Darstellung des Entwickelungs- 
ganges der griechischen Sprache ist gegenwartig nicht méglich.” But it is 
more possible now than in 1884. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 41 


he departed from the pure historical method. But such a gram- 
mar will come some day. 

(a) DEescriPTIVE HisTorRIcAL GRAMMAR. Meanwhile descriptive 
historical grammar is possible and necessary. “ Descriptive gram- 
mar has to register the grammatical forms and grammatical con- 
ditions in use at a given date within a certain community speaking 
a common language.”! There is this justification for taking 
Attic as the standard for classical study; only the true historical 
perspective should be given and Attic should not be taught as 
the only real Greek. It is possible and essential then to correlate 
the N. T. Greek with all other Greek and to use all Greek to 
throw light on the stage of the language under review. If the 
Greek itself is not an isolated tongue, no one stage of the lan- 
guage can be so regarded. ‘‘ Wolff? deprecates the restriction of 
grammar to a set of rules abstracted from the writings of a 
‘golden’ period, while in reality it should comprise the whole his- 
tory of a language and trace its development.” H. C. Miller? 
indeed thought that the time had not arrived for a grammar of 
Greek on the historical plan, because it must rest on a greater 
amount of material than is now at hand. But since then a vast 
amount of new material has come to light in the form of papyri, 
inscriptions and research in the modern Greek. Miiller’s own 
book has added no little to our knowledge of the subject. Mean- 
while we can use the historical material for the study of N. T. 
Greek. 

(b) Unity oF THE GREEK LAnGauaGE. At the risk of slight repe- . 
tition it is worth while to emphasize this point. Miller‘ is apolo- 
getic and eager to show that “the Greek language and literature 
is one organic, coherent whole.” The dialectical variations, while 
confusing to a certain extent, do not show that the Greek did not 
possess original and continuous unity. As early as 1000 B.c. these 
dialectical distinctions probably existed and the speech of Homer 
is a literary dialect, not the folk-speech.® The original sources of 


1 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., 1888, p. 2. 

2 Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 27. Thumb (Theol. Litera- 
turzeit., 1903, p. 424) expresses the hope that in a future edition of his Gr. 
des N. T., Blass may do this for his book: ‘‘ Die Sprache des N. T. auf dem 
grofBen Hintergrund der hellenistischen Sprachentwicklung beschreiben zu 
kénnen.”’ 3 Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, p. 14 f. 

4 Ib., p. 16. On “die griechische Sprache als Einheit’’ see Thumb’s able 
discussion in Handb. d. griech. Dial. (pp. 1-12). With all the diversity of 
dialects there was essential unity in comparison with other tongues. 

5 Brugmann, Vergl. Gr., 1902, p. 8. 


42 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the Greek speech go back to a far distant time when as one single 
language an Asiatic idiom had taken Europe in its circle of in- 
fluence.t The translator of Buttmann’s Greek Grammar speaks 
of Homer “almost as the work of another language.” This was 
once a common opinion for all Greek that was not classic Attic. 
But Thiersch entitled his great work Griechische Grammatik vor- 
ztiglich des homerischen Dialekts, not simply because of the worth 
of Homer, “but because, on the contrary, a thorough knowledge 
of the Homeric dialect is indispensably necessary for those who 
desire to comprehend, in their whole depth and compass, the 
Grecian tongue and literature.”? But Homer is not the gauge by 
which to test Greek; his poems are invaluable testimony to the 
early history of one stage of the language. It is a pity that we 
know so little of the pre-Homeric history of Greek. “ Homer pre- 
sents not a starting-point, but a culmination, a complete achieve- 
ment, an almost mechanical accomplishment, with scarcely a 
hint of origins.”’* But whenever Greek began it has persisted as a 
linguistic unit till now. It is one language whether we read the 
Epic Homer, the Doric Pindar, the Ionic Herodotus, the Attic 
Xenophon, the Atolic Sappho, the Atticistic Plutarch, Paul the 
exponent of Christ, an inscription in Pergamus, a papyrus letter 
in Egypt, Tricoupis or Vlachos in the modern time. None of 
these representatives can be regarded as excrescences or imperti- 
nences. ‘There have always been uneducated persons, but the 
Greek tongue has had a continuous, though checkered, history all 
the way. The modern educated Greek has a keen appreciation of 
“die Schénheiten der klassischen Sprache.”’* Miiller®> complained 
that “almost no grammarians have treated the Greek language 
as a whole,” but the works of Krumbacher, Thumb, Dieterich, 
Hatzidakis, Psichari, Jannaris, etc., have made it possible to ob- 
tain a general survey of the Greek language up to the present 
time. Like English,® Greek has emerged into a new sphere of 
unity and consistent growth. 


1 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, p. 6. On the un- 
mixed character of the Gk. tongue see Wackernagel, Die griech. Spr., p. 294, 
Tl. I, Abt. 8 (Die Kult. der Gegenw.). On the antiquity of Gk. see p. 292 f. 

2 Sandford, Pref. to Thiersch’s Gk. Gr., 1830, p. viii. 

3 Miss Harrison, Prol. to the Study of Gk. Rel., 1903, p. vii. 

4 Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 1892, p. 4. 

5 Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, p. 2. 

6 See John Koch, Eng. Gr., for an admirable bibliography of works on Eng. 
(in Ergeb. und Fortschr. der germanist. Wiss. im letzten Vierteljahrh., 1902, 
pp. 89-138, 325-437). The Germans have taught us how to study English! 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 43 


(c) PERIODS OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE. It will be of service to 
present a brief outline of the history of the Greek tongue. And 
yet it is not easy to give. See the discussion by Sophocles in his 
Greek Lexicon (p. 11 f.), inadequate in view of recent discoveries 
by Schliemann and Evans. The following is a tentative outline: 
The Mycenzan Age, 1500 B.c. to 1000 B.c.; the Age of the Dia- 
lects, 1000 B.c. to 300 B.c.; the Age of the Kow7, 300 B.c. to 330 
A.D.; the Byzantine Greek, 330 a.p. to 1453 a.p.; the modern 
Greek, 1453 a.p. to the present time. The early stage of the 
Byzantine Greek (up to 600 a.p.) is really xow7 and the rest is 
modern Greek. See a different outline by Jannaris! and Hadley 
and Allen.2 As a matter of fact any division is arbitrary, for 
the language has had an unbroken history, though there are 
these general epochs in that history. We can no longer call the 
pre-Homeric time mythical as Sophocles does.* In naming this 
the Mycenzan age we do not wish to state positively that the 
Mycenzans were Greeks and spoke Greek. “Of their speech we 
have yet to read the first syllable.’* Tsountas® and Manatt, 
however, venture to believe that they were either Greeks or of 
the same stock. They use the term “to designate all Greek 
peoples who shared in the Mycenzan civilization, irrespective of 
their habitat.””® Ohnefalsch-Richter (Cont. Rev., Dec., 1912, 
p. 862) claims Cyprus as the purveyor of culture to the Creto- 
Mycenzan age. He claims that Hellenes lived in Cyprus 1200 to 
1000 s.c. The Mycenzan influence was wide-spread and comes 
“down to the very dawn of historical Greece.’ That Greek was 
known and used widely during the Mycenean age the researches 
of Evans at Knossos, in Crete, make clear. The early linear 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. xxii. Cf. also Schuckburgh, Greece, 1906, p. 24f. 

Moulton (Prol., p. 184) counts 32 centuries of the Gk. language from 1275 
B.c., the date of the mention of the Achzans on an Egyptian monument. 
_ 2 Gk. Gr., 1885, p. 1 f. Deissmann indeed would have only three divisions, 
the Dialects up to 300 B.c., Middle Period up to 600 a.p., and Mod. Gk. up 
to the present time. Hauck’s Realencyc., 1889, p. 680. Cf. Miiller, Hist. 
Gr. der hell. Spr., 1891, pp. 42-62, for another outline. 

* Gk. Lex., ete., p. 11: 

4 Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenzan Age, 1897, p. 316. 

°. Lb; psdouu. 

6 Ib., p. 235. 

7 Ib., p. 325. See also Beloch, Griech. Gesch., I., 85: ‘‘Auch sonst kann 
kein Zweifel sein, da8 die mykeniische Kultur in Griechenland bis in das 
VIII. Jahrhundert geherrscht.’”’ Flinders-Petrie (Jour. of Hell. Stud., xii, 
204) speaks of 1100 to 800 B.c. as the ‘‘age of Mycenzan decadence.” 

8 Cretan Pictographs and Pre-Phcenician Script, 1895, p. 362; cf. also 


44 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT © 


writing of the Cretans came from a still earlier pictograph. The 
Greek dialects emerge into light from about 1000 B.c. onward and 
culminate in the Attic which flourished till the work of Alexander 
is done. The Homeric poems prove that Greek was an old language 
by 1000 to 800 B.c. The dialects certainly have their roots deep 
in the Mycenean age. Roughly, 300 B.c. is the time when the 
Greek has become the universal language of the world, a Welé- 
sprache. 330 A.D. is the date when the seat of government was re- 
moved from Rome to Constantinople, while a.p. 1453 is the date 
when Constantinople was captured by the Turks. With all the 
changes in this long history the standards of classicity have not 
varied greatly from Homer till now in the written style, while 
the Greek vernacular to-day is remarkably like the earliest known 
inscriptions of the folk-speech in Greece.’ We know something 
of this history for about 3000 years, and it is at least a thousand 
years longer. Mahaffy has too poor an idea of modern Greek, 
but even he can say: “Even in our miserable modern pigeon- 
Greek, which represents no real pronunciation, either ancient or 
modern, the lyrics of Sophocles or Aristophanes are unmistakably 
lovely.’’? 

(d) MopERN GREEK IN ParticuLaR. [tis important to single out 
the modern Greek vernacular’ from the rest of the language for 
the obvious reason that it is the abiding witness to the perpetuity 
of the vernacular Greek as a living organism. It is a witness 
also that is at our service always. The modern Greek popular 
speech does not differ materially from the vernacular Byzantine, 
and thus connects directly with the vernacular xow7. Alexandria 
was “the great culture-reservoir of the Greek-Oriental world... 
the repository of the ancient literary treasures.”4 With this 


Jour. of Hell. Stud., xiv, 270-372. See Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 22, for fur- 
ther proofs of the antiquity of Gk. as a written tongue. Mosso (Palaces of 
Crete, 1907, p. 73 f.) argues that the Mycenzan linear script was used 1900 
B.c. Cf. Evans, Further Researches, 1898. 

1 Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 18. See also Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. 
GrJ; 1802; p. 3: 

2 Survey of Gk. Civiliz., 1896, p. 209. Cf. further Mosso, Dawn of Civiliz. 
in Crete, 1910; Baike, Kings of Crete, 1910; Firmen, Zeit und Dauer der 
kretisch- myken. Kult., 1909. 

3 The modern literary language (xa@apevovea) is really more identical with 
the ancient classical Gk. But it is identity secured by mummifying the dead. 
It is identity of imitation, not identity of life. Cf. Thumb-Angus, Handb. of 
Mod. Gk. Vern., Foreword (p. xi f.). 

_ 4 Dieterich, Gesch. der byz. und neugr. Lit., 1902, p. 2. 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 45 


general position Thumb heartily agrees... Hatzidakis? even says: 
“The language generally spoken to-day in the towns differs less 
from the common language of Polybius than this last differs from 
the language of Homer.” Since this is true it, at first seems odd 
that the students at the University of Athens should object so 
much to the translation of the N. T. into the modern vernacular. 
They forget that the N. T. is itself written in the vernacular 
xown. But that was so long ago that it is now classic to them. 
Certainly in the Gospels, as Wellhausen® insists, the spoken 
Greek became literature. Knowledge of the modern Greek‘ helps 
the student to escape from “the Procrustean bed of the old 
Greek”’ which he learned as a fixed and dead thing.’ It is prob- 
able that Roger Bacon had some Byzantine manual besides the 
old Greek grammars. “In England, no less than in the rest of 
Western Europe, the knowledge of Greek had died away, and 
here also, it was only after the conquest of Constantinople that a 
change was possible.”’? Western Christians had been afraid of 
the corruptions of paganism if they knew Greek, and of Moham- 
medanism if they knew Hebrew (being kin to Arabic!). But at 
last a change has come in favour of the modern Greek. Boltz in- 
deed has advocated modern Greek as the common language for 
the scholars of the world since Latin is so little spoken.’ There is 
indeed need of a new world-speech, as Greek was in the N. T. 
times, but there is no language that can now justly make such a 
claim. English comes nearer to it than any other. This need 
has given rise to the artificial tongues like Volapik and Espe- 


1 “Tie heutige griechische Volkssprache ist die natiirliche Fortsetzung der 
alten Kow7.’’ Die neugr. Spr., 1892, p. 8. See Heilmeier’s book on the Ro- 
maic Gk. (1834), who first saw this connection between the mod. vern. and 
the vern. xow7. 

2 Transl. by J. H. Moulton in Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1906 and 1908, p. 30, from 
Rev. des Et. Grq., 1903, p. 220. Cf. Krumbacher, Das Prob. der neugr. 
Schriftspr., 1902. 3 Hinl. in die drei ersten Evang., 1905, p. 9. 

4 See Riiger, Prap. bei Joh. Antiochenus, 1896, p. 7. 

6 Thumb, Handb. der neugr. Volkspr., 1895, p. x. 

6 Roger Bacon’s Gk. Gr., edited by Nolan and Hirsch, 1902, p. lx f. 

Ze lDs). Daxiik 

8 Hell. die internat. Gelehrtenspr. der Zukunft, 1888. Likewise A. Rose: 
“Die griechische Sprache... hat... eine glinzende Zukunft vor sich.” 
Die Griechen und ihre Spr., 1890, p. 4. He pleads for it as a “‘ Weltsprache,”’ 
p. 271. But Schwyzer pointedly says: “Die Rolle einer Weltsprache wird 
das Griechische nicht wieder spielen.”’ Weltspr. des Altert., 1902, p. 38. Cf. 
also A. Boltz, Die hell. Spr. der Gegenw., 1882, and Gk. the Gen. Lang. of- 
the Future for Scholars. 


46 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ranto,! the latter having some promise in it. But the modern 
Greek vernacular has more merit than was once conceded to it. 
The idioms and pronunciation of the present-day vernacular are 
often seen in the manuscripts of the N. T. and other Greek docu- 
ments and much earlier in inscriptions representing one or an- 
other of the early dialects. The persistence of early English forms 
is easily observed in the vernacular in parts of America or Eng- 
land. In the same way the late Latin vernacular is to be compared 
with the early Latin vernacular, not with the Latin of elegant 
literature. “Speaking generally, we may say that the Greek of a 
well-written newspaper [the literary language] is now, as a rule, 
far more classical than the Hellenistic of the N. T., but decidedly 
less classical than the Greek of Plutarch.”’? What the rela- 
tion between the N. T. Greek and the modern Greek is will be 
shown in the next chapter. It should be noted here that the 
N. T. Greek had a strong moulding influence on the Byzantine, 
and so on the modern Greek because of the use of the Greek New 
Testament all over the world, due to the spread of Christianity 
throughout the Roman Empire.* The great Christian preachers 
did not indeed use a peculiar ecclesiastical Greek, but the N. T. 
did tend to emphasize the type of xow7 in which it was written. 
“The diction of the N. T. had a direct influence in moulding 
the Greek ordinarily used by Christians in the succeeding cen- 
turies.”’4 Compare the effect of the King James Version on the 
English language and of Luther’s translation of the Bible on 
German. . 

V. The Greek Point of View. It sounds like a truism to 
insist that the Greek idiom must be explained from the Greek 
point of view. But none the less the caution is not superfluous. 
Trained linguists may forget it and so commit a grammatical 
vice. Even Winer® will be found saying, for instance: “Appel- 
latives which, as expressing definite objects, should naturally 


1 Cf. J. C. O’Connor, Esperanto Text-book, and Eng.-Esper. Dict. 

2 Jebb, On the Rela. of Mod. to Class. Gk., in Vincent and Dickson’s 
Handb. to Mod. Gk., 1887, p. 294. Blass actually says: ‘“‘ Der Sprachge- 
brauch des Neuen Testaments, der vielfaltig vom Neugriechischen her eine 
viel bessere Beleuchtung empfingt als aus der alten klassischen Literatur.”’ 
Kiihner’s Ausf. Gr. etc., 1890, p. 25. Blass also says (ib., p. 26) that ‘‘eine 
wissenschaftliche neugriechische Grammatik fehlt.”’ But Hatzidakis and 
others have written since. 

3 See Reinhold, De Graecitate Patrum, 1898. 

4 Jebb, ib., p. 290. 

5 Gr. of the N. T. Gk., Moulton’s transl., 1877, p. 147. ~ 


THE HISTORICAL METHOD 47 


have the article, are in certain cases used without it.’ That 
“should” has the wrong attitude toward Greek. The appel- 
lative in Greek does not need to have the article in order to be 
definite. So when Winer often admits that one tense is used 
“for” another, he is really thinking of German and how it would 
be expressed in German. Each tongue has its own history and 
genius. Parallel idioms may or may not exist in a group of lan- 
guages. Sanskrit and Latin, for instance, have no article. It is 
not possible to parallel the Hebrew tenses, for example, with the 
Greek, nor, indeed, can it be done as between Greek and English. 
The English translation of a Greek aorist may have to be in the 
past perfect or the present perfect to suit the English usage, but 
that proves nothing as to how a Greek regarded the aorist tense. 
We must assume in a language that a good writer knew how to 
use his own tongue and said what he meant to say. Good Greek 
may be very poor English, as when Luke uses & 76 eicayayety tovs 
yovets TO tavdiov "Incody (Lu. 2:27). A literal translation of this 
neat Greek idiom makes barbarous English. The Greeks simply 
did not look at this clause as we do. “One of the commonest and 
eravest errors in studying the grammar of foreign languages is 
to make a half-conjectural translation, and then reason back 
from our own language to the meaning of the-original; or to ex- 
* plain some idiom of the original by the formally different idiom 
which is our substantial equivalent.’’! Broadus was the greatest 
teacher of language that I have known and. he has said nothing 
truer than this. After all, an educated Greek knew what he 
meant better than we do. It is indeed a great and difficult task 
that is demanded of the Greek grammarian who to-day under- 
takes to present a living picture of the orderly development of 
the Greek tongue “zu einem schénen und grofen Ganzen”’ and 
also show “in the most beautiful light the flower of the Greek 
spirit and life.”2 Deissmann? feels strongly on the subject of the 
neglect of the literary development of Primitive Christianity, “a 


1 Broadus, Comm. on Mt., 1886, p. 316. See also Gerber, Die Spr. als 
Kunst, 1. Bd., 1871, p. 321: ‘Der ganze Charakter dieser oder jener Sprache 
ist der Abdruck der Natur des Landes, wo sie gesprochen wird. Die griechi- 
sche Sprache ist der griechische Himmel selbst mit seiner tiefdunklen Blaue, 
die sich in dem sanft wogenden igiischen Meere spiegelt.”’ 

2 Kiihner, Ausf. Gr. der griech. Spr., 1834, p. iv. How much more so 
now! 

8 Expos. Times, Dec., 1906, p. 103. Cf. also F. Overbeck, Hist. Zeitschr., 
neue Folge, 1882, p. 429 ff. 


48 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


subject which has not yet been recognized by many persons in its 
full importance. Huge as is the library of books that have been 
written on the origin of the N. T. and of its separate parts, the 
N. T. has not often been studied by historians of literature; that 
is to say, as a branch of the history of ancient literature.” 


CHAPTER III 
THE KOINH 


The Greek of the N. T. has many streams that flow into it. 
But this fact is not a peculiarity of this phase of the language. 
The xow7 itself has this characteristic in a marked degree. If 
one needs further examples, he can recall how composite English 
is, not only combining various branches of the Teutonic group, 
but also incorporating much of the old Celtic of Britain and re- 
ceiving a tremendous impress from the Norman-French (and so 
Latin), not to mention the indirect literary influence of Latin and 
Greek. The early Greek itself was subject to non-Greek influ- 
ence as other Indo-Germanic tongues were, and in particular from 
the side of the Thracians and Phrygians in the East,! and in the 
West and North the Italic, Celtic and Germanic pressure was 
strong.” 

I. The Term Kowy. The word xouwn, sc. duadexros, means 
simply common language or dialect common to all, a world- 
speech (Weltsprache). Unfortunately there is not yet uniformity 
in the use of a term to describe the Greek that prevailed over 
Alexander’s empire and became the world-tongue. Kiihner- 
Blass’ speak of “7 cow oder éAdAnviK? diddextos.”” So also Schmie- 
del* follows Winer exactly. But Hellenic language is properly 
only Greek language, as Hellenic culture® is Greek culture. Jan- 
naris® suggests Panhellenic or new Attic for the universal Greek, 


1 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. der griech. Spr., 1896, pp. 171-2438. But 
the true Phrygians were kin to the Greeks. See Percy Gardner, New Ch. 
of Gk. Hist., p. 84. 

2 Kretschmer, op. cit., pp. 153-170, 244-282. 

3 Griech. Gr., Bd. I, p. 22. SW wersChiee Ney Leg Cale Deel ds 

5 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 38. Mahaffy does use Hel- 
lenism like Droysen in his Hist. of Hellenism, as corresponding to Hellen- 
istic, but he does so under protest (p. 3f.). He wishes indeed that he had 
coined the word “ Hellenicism.”’ But Hogarth (Philip and Alexander, p. 277) 
had already used “ Hellenisticism,”’ saying: ‘‘ Hellenisticism grew out of Hel- 
lenism.’’ 

‘Hist. Gk. Grp. 6. 

49 


50 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the Greek par excellence as to common usage. Hellenistic Greek 
would answer in so far as it is Greek spoken also by Hellenists 
differing from Hellenes or pure Greeks. Krumbacher applies Hel- 
lenistic to the vernacular and xow7n to the “conventional literary 
language” of the time,! but this is wholly arbitrary. Krumbacher 
terms the Hellenistic “ein verschwommenes Idiom.” Hatzida- 
kis and Schwyzer include in the xow7n both the literary and the 
spoken language of the Hellenistic time. This is the view adopted 
in this grammar. Deissmann dislikes the term Hellenistic Greek 
because it was so long used for the supposedly peculiar biblical 
Greek, though the term itself has a wide significance.? He also 
strongly disapproves the terms “vulgar Greek,” “bad Greek,” 
“oraecitas fatiscens,’’ in contrast with the “classic Greek.” 
Deissmann moreover objects to the word xow7 because it is used 
either for the vernacular, the literary style or for all the Greek 
of the time including the Atticistic revival. So he proposes 
“Hellenistic world-speech.”’* But this is too cumbersome. It'is 
indeed the world-speech of the Alexandrian and Roman period 
that is meant by the term xowy. There is on the other hand the 
literary speech of the orators, historians, philosophers, poets, the 
public documents preserved in the inscriptions (some even Atti- 
cistic); on the other hand we have the popular writings in the 
LXX, the N. T., the Apostolic Fathers, the papyri (as a rule) 
and the ostraca. The term is thus sufficient by itself to express 
the Greek in common use over the world, both oral and literary, 
as Schweizer’ uses it following Hatzidakis. Thumb® identifies 
xown and Hellenistic Greek and applies it to both vernacular and 
written style, though he would not regard the Atticists as proper 
producers of the xow7y. Moulton® uses the term xown for both 
spoken and literary xow7. The doctors thus disagree very widely. 
On the whole it seems best to use the term xow7 (or Hellenistic 
Greek) both for the vernacular and literary xow7, excluding the 
Atticistic revival, which was a conscious effort to write not kow7 


1 Miinchener Sitzungsber., 1886, p. 435. 

2 Art. Hell. Griech., Hauck’s Realencyc., p. 629. 

3 Ib., p. 630. 

4 Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 19 f. 5 Die griech. Spr. etce., p. 9. 

6 Prol., p. 23. It is not necessary to discuss here the use of “‘ Hellenistic”’ 
Gk. as ‘“‘ Jewish-Gk.”’ (see ‘Semitic Influence”’ in ch. IV), for it is absurd. 
The notion that the xowy is Macedonian Gk. is quite beside the mark, for 
Mac. Gk. is too barbarous. The theory of an Alexandrian dialect is obsolete. 
Du Canges, in his Glossarium called Hell. Gk. “corruptissima lingua,” and 
Niebuhr (Uber das Agyp.-Griech., Kl. Schr., p. 197) calls it “jargon.” 


THE KOINH Bl 


but old Attic.1 At last then the Greek world has speech-unity, 
whatever was true of the beginning of the eneals language.’ 

II. The Origin of the Kotvy. 

(a) TRIuMPH OF THE Attic. This is what happened. Even 
in Asiatic Ionia the Attic influence was felt. The Attic ver- 
nacular, sister to the Ionic vernacular, was greatly influenced 
by the speech of soldiers and merchants from all the Greek 
world. Attic became the standard language of the Greek world 
in the fifth and the fourth centuries B.c. “The dialect of Athens, 
the so-called Attic — one of the Ionic group — prevailed over all 
other sister dialects, and eventually absorbed them. It was the 
Attic, because Athens, particularly after the Persian wars, rose 
to absolute dominion over all the other Greek communities, and 
finally became the metropolis of all Greek races.’”* This is 
rather an overstatement, but there is much truth in it. This 
classic literary Attic did more and more lose touch with the ver- 
nacular. ‘It is one of our misfortunes, whatever be its practical 
convenience, that we are taught Attic as the standard Greek, and 
all other forms and dialects as deviations from it ... when many 
grammarians come to characterize the later Greek of the Middle 
Ages or of to-day, or even that of the Alexandrian or N. T. 
periods, no adjective is strong enough to condemn this ‘verdor- 
benes, veruneinigtes Attisch’”’ (S. Dickey, Princeton Rev., Oct., 
1903). The literary Attic was allied to the literary Ionic; but 
even in this crowning development of Greek speech no hard and 
fast lines are drawn, for the artificial Doric choruses are used in 
tragedy and the vernacular in comedy.* There was loss as well 
as gain as the Attic was more extensively used, just as is true 


1 Blass indeed contrasts the literature of the Alex. and Rom. periods on 
this principle, but wrongly, for it is type, not time, that marks the difference. 
“Tf then the literature of the Alexandrian period must be called Hellenistic, 
that of the Roman period must be termed Atticistic. But the popular lan- 
guage had gone its own way.” Gr. of the N. T. Gk., 1898 and 1905, p. 2. On 
the Gk. of Alexandria and its spread over the world see Wackernagel, Die 
Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 304 f. 

2 See Kretschmer, Einl., p. 410. Dieterich: ‘Das Sprachgebiet der Kowy 
bildet eben ein Ganzes und kann nur im Zusammenhang betrachtet werden.” 
Unters., p. xvi. 

% Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 1897, p. 3f. On the superiority of the Attic see 
Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 299. ~ 

4 Rutherford, Zur Gesch. des Atticismus, Jahrb. fiir class. Phil., suppl. 
xiii, 1884, pp. 360, 399. So Audoin says: ‘Ce n’est point arbitrairement que 
les écrivains grecs ont employé tel ou tel dialecte,” Et, sommaire des Dial, 
Grecs. Litt., 1891, p. 4, 


52 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of modern English. “The orators Demosthenes and A‘schines 
may be counted in the new Attic, where other leading representa- 
tives in literature are Menander, Philemon and the other writers 
of the New Comedy.”’! As the literary Attic lived on in the literary 
xown, So the vernacular Attic survived with many changes in the 
vernacular xow7n. We are at last in possession of enough of the 
old Attic inscriptions and the xow7 inscriptions and the papyri to 
make this clear. The march of the Greek language has been 
steadily forward on this Attic vernacular base even to this pres- 
ent day.2. In a sense, therefore, the xown became another dialect 
(AXolic, Doric, Ionic, Attic, xown). Cf. Kretschmer, Die Ent- 
stehung der Kown, pp. 1-37. But the xown was far more than a 
dialect. Kretschmer holds, it is fair to say, that the xow7 is “eine 
merkwiirdige Mischung verschiedenster Dialecte” (op. cit., p. 6). 
He puts all the dialects into the melting-pot in almost equal pro- 
portions. Wilamowitz-Mo6llendorff considers the Ionic as the 
chief influence in the xow7, while W. Schmidt denies all Doric 
and Ionic elements. Schwyzer rightly sees that the dialectical 
influences varied in different places, though the vernacular Attic 
was the common base. 

(b) FaTe OF THE OTHER Diauects. The triumph of the Attic was 
not complete, though in Ionia, at the end of the third century B.c., 
inscriptions in Attic are found, showing that in Asia Minor pure 
Ionic had about vanished. In the first century B.c. the Attic 
appears in inscriptions in Beeotia, but as late as.the second cen- 
tury A.D. Ionic inscriptions are found in Asia Minor. Ionic first 
went down, followed by the Aéolic. The Doric made a very stub- 
born resistance. It was only natural that the agricultural com- 
munities should hold out longest. See Thumb, Hellen., p. 28 f. 
Even to-day the Zaconian patois of modern Greek vernacular 


1 Simonson, Gk. Gr., Accidence, 1903, p. 6. He has a good discussion of 
the dialects, pp. 221-265. 

2 Riemann and Goelzer well say: ‘Quant au dialecte attique, grace aux 
grands écrivains qui l’illustrérent, grace 4 la prépondérance politique et com- 
merciale d’Athénes, grace aussi 4 son caractére de dialecte intermédiaire entre 
Vionien et les dialectes en a, il se r6pandit de bonne heure, hors de son domaine 
primitif, continua 4 s’étendre méme aprés la chute de l’empire politique 
d’Athénes et finit par embrasser tout le monde sur le nom de langue com- 
mune (kow7 duadextos)’”’? (Phonétique, p. 16). And yet the common people 
understood Homer also as late as Xenophon. Cf. Xenophon, Com. 3, 5, 
kal viv duvaiuny av "Idada bdAnv kal ’Odbaceaav ad aroyuartos eimetv. Cf. Lottich, 
De Serm. vulg. Attic., 1881. On the “Growth of the Attic Dialect”’ see 
Rutherford, New Phrynichus, pp. 1-31. 


THE KOINH 53 


has preserved the old Laconic Doric “whose broad a holds its 
ground still in the speech of a race impervious to literature and 
proudly conservative of a language that was always abnormal to 
an extreme.”! It is not surprising that the Northwest Greek, 
because of the city leagues, became a kind of Achzean-Dorian 
xown? and held on till almost the beginning of the Christian era 
before it was merged into the xow7n of the whole Greco-Roman 
world.? There are undoubtedly instances of the remains of the 
Northwest Greek and of the other dialects in the xow7 and so in 
the N. T. The Ionic, so near to the Attic and having flourished 
over the coast of Asia Minor, would naturally have considerable 
influence on the Greek world-speech. The proof of this will ap- 
pear in the discussion of the xow7 where remains of all the main 
dialects are naturally found, especially in the vernacular.4 

(c) PartraAL Kornes. The standardizing of the Attic is the 
real basis. The xow7y was not a sudden creation. There were 
quasi-koines before Alexander’s day. These were Strabo’s alli- 
ance of Ionic-Attic, Doric-Atolic (Thumb, Handb., p. 49). It is 
therefore to be remembered that there were “various forms of 
xown’”’ before the xown which commenced with the conquests of 
Alexander (Buck, Gk. Dialects, pp. 154-161), as Doric xoww7, Ionic 
xown, Attic xown, Northwest xown. Hybrid forms are not un- 
common, such as the Doric future with Attic ov as in rovnoodvre 
(cf. Buck, p. 160). There was besides a revival here and there of 
local dialects during the Roman times. 

(d) ErFEcTs oF ALEXANDER’S CAMPAIGNS. But for the conquests 
of Alexander there might have been no xow7 in the sense of a 
world-speech. The other Greek koines were partial, this alone 
was a world-speech because Alexander united Greek and Persian, 
east and west, into one common world-empire. He respected the 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 32. Mila l yop eel 

3 Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 1) puts it clearly: ‘‘ Es geniigt zu sagen, daf§ die 
xown stirksten Zusammenhang mit dem Attischen, in zweiter Linie mit dem 
Ionischen, verrit. In der dltesten Periode des Hellenismus zeigt sich daneben 
geringer Einflu8 anderer Dialekte, des Dorischen und Aolischen.”’ 

4 “T] est A peine besoin de répéter que ces caractéres s’effacent, & mesure 
que l’on descend vers |’ére chrétienne. Sous l’influence sans cesse grandis- 
sante de l’atticisme, il s’établit une sorte d’uniformité.”’ Boisacq, Les Dial. 
Dor., 1891, p. 204. ‘The Gk. of the N. T. is not, however, mere xowy. In 
vocabulary it is fundamentally Ionic’? (John Burnet, Rev. of Theol. and 
Phil., Aug., 1906, p. 95). ‘‘Fundamentally” is rather strong, but dzdc7To)os, 
as ambassador, not mere expedition, edAoyia, vnoreia, give some colour to the 
statement. But what does Prof. Burnet mean by “‘mere kown”’ ? 


54 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


customs and language of all the conquered nations, but it was in- 
evitable that the Greek should become the lingua franca of the 
world of Alexander and his successors. In a true sense Alexander 
made possible this new epoch in the history of the Greek tongue. 
The time of Alexander divides the Greek language into two peri- 
ods. “The first period is that of the separate life of the dialects 
and the second that of the speech-unity, the common speech or 
xown’”’ (Kretschmer, Die Entst. d. Kown, p. 1). 

(ce) Toe Marcu towarp UNIVERSALISM. The successors of 
Alexander could not stop the march toward universalism that had 
begun. The success of the Roman Empire was but another proof 
of this trend of history. The days of ancient nationalism were 
over and the xow7 was but one expression of the glacial move- 
ment. The time for the world-speech had come and it was ready 
for use. 

III. The Spread of the Kotvy. 

(a) A Worup-SprecH. What is called 4 xow was a world- 
speech, not merely a general Greek tongue among the Greek 
tribes as was true of the Achean-Dorian and the Attic. It is not 
speculation to speak of the xow7 as a world-speech, for the in- 
scriptions in the xow7 testify to its spread over Asia, Egypt, Greece, 
Italy, Sicily and the isles of the sea, not to mention the papyri. 
Marseilles was a great centre of Greek civilization, and even Cy- 
rene, though not Carthage, was Grecized.1. The xowy was in 
such general use that the Roman Senate and imperial governors 
had the decrees translated into the world-language and scattered 
over the empire.” It is significant that the Greek speech becomes 
one instead of many dialects at the very time that the Roman 
rule sweeps over the world.? The language spread by Alexander’s 
army over the Eastern world persisted after the division of the 
kingdom and penetrated all parts of the Roman world, even 
Rome itself. Paul wrote to the church at Rome in Greek, and 
Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Emperor, wrote his Meditations 
(ray eis ‘Eavrov) in Greek. It was the language not only of letters, 
but of commerce and every-day life. A common language for all 


1 See Churton, Infl. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 14. 

* Viereck, Sermo Graecus quo Senatus Popul. Rom. etc., 1888, p. xi. 

8 See Wilamowitz-Modllendorff: ‘‘In demselben Momente, wo die casari- 
sche Weltmonarchie alle Stréme hellenischer und italischer Kultur in einem 
Bette leitet, kommt die griechische Kunst auf allen Gebieten zu der Erkennt- 
nis, daf ihre Kreise erfiillt sind, das einzige das ihr bleibt, Nachahmung ist.” 
Uber die Entst. der griech. Schriftspr., Abhandl. deuts. Phil., 1878, p. 40. 


THE KOINH 55 


men may indeed be only an ideal norm, but “the whole character 
of a common language may be strengthened by the fact of its 
transference to an unquestionably foreign linguistic area, as we 
may observe in the case of the Greek xowy7.’’! The late Latin 
became a xow7 for the West as the old Babylonian had been for 
the East, this latter the first world-tongue known to us.2- Xeno- 
phon with the retreat of the Ten Thousand? was a forerunner of 
the xow7n. Both Xenophon and Aristotle show the wider outlook 
of the literary Attic which uses Ionic words very extensively. 
There is now the “Grof-Attisch.” It already has yivoua, exer, 
—rwoav, ema and jveyxa, édwkayevy and édwxar, Baciduooa, dexvbw, 
oo, vaos. Already Thucydides and others had borrowed oo from 
the Ionic. It is an easy transition from the vernacular Attic to 
the vernacular cow after Alexander’s time. (Cf. Thumb’s Hand- 
buch, pp. 373-880, ‘‘ Entstehung der Kow7.”’) On the development 
of the xow7 see further Wackernagel, Die Kultur der Gegenwart, 
Til, Abt. 8, p. 301 ff.; Moulton, Prol.,ch. I, IT; Mayser, Gr. d. 
griech. Pap., Kap. I. But it was Alexander who made the later 
Attic the common language of the world, though certainly he had 
no such purpose in view. Fortunately he had been taught by 
Aristotle, who himself studied in Athens and knew the Attic of 
the time. “He rapidly established Greek as the lingua franca of 
the empire, and this it was which gave the chief bond of union 
to the many countries of old civilizations, which had hitherto 
been isolated. This unity of culture is the remarkable thing in 
the history of the world.’’4 It was really an epoch in the world’s 
history when the babel of tongues was hushed in the wonderful 
language of Greece. The vernaculars of the eastern Roman 
provinces remained, though the Greek was universal; so, when 
Paul came to Lystra, the people still spoke the Lycaonian speech 


1 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 496. See also Kaerst, Gesch. d. hel- 
lenist. Zeitalt., 1901, p. 420: ‘“Die Weiterentwicklung der Geschichte des 
Altertums, so weit sie fiir unsere eigene Kultur entscheidende Bedeutung er- 
langt hat, beruht auf einer fortschreitenden Occidentalisierung; auch das im 
Oriente emporgekommene Christentum entfaltet sich nach dem Westen zu 
und gelangt hier zu seiner eigentlich weltgeschichtlichen Wirksamkeit.”’ 

2 Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. etc., p. 7. 

3 See Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 7; cf. also Rutherford 
New Phrynichus, 1881, p. 160 f.; Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 16. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 31) points out that the vase-inscriptions prove the state- 
ment of the Const. of Athens, 11.3, that the Athenians spoke a larguage com- 
pounded of all Greek and barbarian tongues besides. 

4 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen., etc., p. 40. 


56 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of their fathers.1. The papyri and the inscriptions prove beyond 
controversy that the Greek tongue was practically the same 
whether in Egypt, Herculaneum, Pergamum or Magnesia. The 
Greeks were the school-teachers of the empire. Greek was 
taught in the grammar schools in the West, but Latin was not 
taught in the East. 

(b) VERNACULAR AND. LITERARY. 

1. Vernacular. The spoken language is never identical with the 
literary style, though in the social intercourse of the best edu- 
cated people there is less difference than with the uncultured.? 
We now know that the old Attic of Athens had a vernacular and 
a literary style that differed considerably from each other.? This 
distinction exists from the very start with the xow7, as is apparent 
in Pergamum and elsewhere.4’ This vernacular xow7 grows right 
out of the vernacular Attic normally and naturally. The colo- 
nists, merchants and soldiers who mingled all over Alexander’s 
world did not carry literary Attic, but the language of social and 
business intercourse. This vernacular xouw7 at first differed little 
from the vernacular Attic of 300 B.c. and always retained the 
bulk of the oral Attic idioms. “Vulgar dialects both of the an- 
cient and modern times should be expected to contain far more 
archaisms than innovations.”? The vernacular is not a varia- 
tion from the literary style, but the literary language is a develop- 
ment from the vernacular. See Schmid? for the relation between 
the literary and the vernacular xow7. Hence if the vernacular is 
the normal speech of the people, we must look to the inscriptions 
and the papyri for the living idiom of the common Greek or xow7. 
The pure Attic as it was spoken in Athens is preserved only in 


1 Schwyzer, Weltspr., p. 29. 2 Schweizer, Gr. der perg. etc., p. 22. 

3 See Kretschmer, Die griech. Vaseninschr. und ihre Spr., 1894; and Mei- 
sterhans, Gr. der att. Inschr., 1900. Cf. Lottich, De Serm. vulg. Attic., 1881. 

4 Schweizer, Gr., p. 27. 

5 Thumb, Griech. Spr. im Zeitalter etc., p. 208f. Lottich in his De Serm. 
vulg. Attic. shows from the writings of Aristophanes how the Attic vernacular 
varied in a number of points from the literary style, as in the frequent use of 
diminutives, desiderative verbs, metaphors, ete. 

6 Schweizer, Gr., p. 23. 

7 Geldart, Mod. Gk. Lang. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870, p. 73. See also 
Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 10, who calls “die cow weniger ein Abschlu& 
als der Anfang einer neuen Entwicklung.’’ On the older Gk. xow see 
Wackernagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 300 f. 

8 Deissmann, Hell. Griech., Hauck’s Realencye., p. 633. 

9 Atticismus, Bd. IV, pp. 577-734. A very important treatment of the 
whole question is here given. 


THE KOINH 57 


the inscriptions... In the Roman Empire the vernacular xow7 
would be understood almost everywhere from Spain to Pontus. 
See IV for further remarks on the vernacular xow7. 

2. Literary. If the vernacular xow7 was the natural develop- 
ment of the vernacular Attic, the literary cow was the normal 
evolution of the literary Attic. Thumb well says, “Where there 
is no development, there is no life.”’? “In style and syntax the 
literary Common Greek diverges more widely from the collo- 
quial.”’* This is natural and in harmony with the previous re- 
moval of the literary Attic from the language of the people. The 
growth of the literary xow7 was parallel with that of the popular 
kown and was, of course, influenced by it. The first prose monu- 
ment of literary Attic known to us, according to Schwyzer, is the 
Constitution of Athens® (before 413), falsely ascribed to Xeno- 
phon. The forms of the literary xow7 are much like the Attic, as 
in Polybius, for instance, but the chief difference is in the vocab- 
ulary and meaning of the same words.® Polybius followed the 
general literary spirit of his time, and hence was rich in new 
words, abstract nouns, denominative verbs, new adverbs.’ He 
and Josephus therefore used Ionic words found in Herodotus and 
Hippocrates, like &éeo.s, tapadvAaky, not because they consciously 
imitated these writers, but because the xow7y, as shown by papyri 
and inscriptions, employed them.’ For the same reason Luke and 
Josephus? have similar words, not because of use of one by the 
other, but because of common knowledge of literary terms, Luke 
also, using many common medical terms natural to a physician 
of culture. Writers like Polybius aimed to write without pedan- 
try and without vulgarism. In a true sense then the literary xow7 
was a “compromise between the vernacular xow7 and the literary 
Attic,’ between “life and school.” !° There is indeed no Chinese 


1 Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 1902, p. 41. 

2 Griech. Spr., p. 251. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 26. 

4 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 5. Deissmann (New Light on the N. T., 1907, 
p. 3f.) shows that part of Norden’s criticism of Paul’s Gk. is nothing but 
the contrast between literary cow and vernacular xow7; cf. Die ant. Kunstpr. 

5. Schwyzer, Die Weltspr. der Alt., p. 15. See also Christ, Gesch. der 
griech. Lit., p. 305. See Die pseudoxenophontische ’A@nvaiwy Ilodurela, von 
E. Kalinka, 1913. 


6 Schweizer, Gr., p. 21. 7 Christ, op. cit., p. 588. 
8 Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 213. See also Goetzeler, De Polyb. Eloc., 
1887, p. 15. 


9 Thumb, ib., p. 225f. See also Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas, 1894, 
pp. 283 ff. 10 Thumb, ib., p. 8. 


58 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


wall between the literary and the vernacular xow7, but a constant 
inflow from the vernacular to the written style as between prose 
and poetry, though Zarncke! insists on a thorough-going distinc- 
tion between them. The literary cow would not, of course, use 
such dialectical forms as robs mavres, Tots mpayyuaros, etc., com- 
mon in the vernacular xow7.? But, as Krumbacher? well shows, 
no literary speech worthy of the name can have an independent 
development apart from the vernacular. Besides Polybius and 
Josephus, other writers in the literary xow7 were Diodorus, Philo, 
Plutarch, though Plutarch indeed is almost an “Anhanger des 
Atticismus’’4 and Josephus was rather self-conscious in his use of 
the literary style.6 The literary xow7 was still affected by the 
fact that many of the writers were of “un-Greek or half Greek 
descent,’’ Greek being an acquired tongue.® But the point must 
not be overdone, for the literary xow7n “was written by cosmopoli- 
tan scholars for readers of the same sort,” and it did not make 
much difference “whether a book was written at Alexandria or 
Pergamum.”’? Radermacher® notes that, while in the oldest 
Greek there was no artificiality even in the written prose, yet in 
the period of the xow7 all the literary, prose shows “eine Kunst- 
sprache.”’ He applies this rule to Polybius, to Philo, to the N. T., 
to Epictetus. But certainly it does not hold in the same manner 
for each of these. 

(c) Tue Arricistic Reaction. Athens was no longer the centre 
of Greek civilization. That glory passed to Alexandria, to Per- 
gamum, to Antioch, to Ephesus, to Tarsus. But the great crea- 
tive epoch of Greek culture was past. Alexandria, the chief seat 
of Greek learning, was the home, not of poets, but of critics of 
style who found fault with Xenophon and Aristotle, but could 
not produce an Anabasis or a Fhetoric. The Atticists wrote, to 
be sure, in the xow7 period, but their gaze was always backward 
to the pre-xow7 period. The grammarians (Dionysius, Phryni- 


1 Zarncke in Griech. Stud., Hermann Lipsius, 1894, p. 121. He considers 
the Homeric poetry a reflection of the still older historical prose and the epic 
the oldest literary form. See his Die Entst. der griech. Literaturspr., 1896. 
Cf. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, Die Entst. der griech. Schriftspr., Verhandl. d. 


Phil#*1878Ap, 3Git: ? Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Spr., p. 6.. 
8’ Das Prob. der neugr. Schriftspr., 1903, p. 6. A valuable treatment of 
this point. 


4 Weissenberger, Die Spr. Plut. von Chironea, 1895, pp. 3, 11. 

$< Jos.;, Ant: A1V, 7. 

6 Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit. in der Alexandrienzeit, 1. Bd., 1891, p. 2. 
7 Croiset, An Abr. Hist. of Gk. Lit., 1904, p. 425. ’ NN. LuGrainace 


THE KOINH A 59 


chus, Moeris) set up Thucydides and Plato as the standards for 
pure Greek style, while Aratus and Callimachus sought to revive 
the style of Homer, and Lucian and Arrian! even imitated Herod- 
otus. When they wished to imitate the past, the problem still 
remained which master to follow. The Ionic revival had no great 
vogue, but the Attic revival had. Lucian himself took to Attic. 
Others of the Atticists were Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dio 
Chrysostom, Aristides, Herodes Atticus, Athan, etc. “They as- 
sumed that the limits of the Greek language had been forever 
fixed during the Attic period.” Some of the pedantic declaimers 
of the time, like Polemon, were thought to put Demosthenes to 
the blush. These purists were opposed to change in language 
and sought to check the departure from the Attic idiom. “The 
purists of to-day are like the old Atticists to a hair.” The Atti- 
cists were then archaic and anachronistic. The movement was 
rhetorical therefore and not confined either to Alexandria or Per- 
gamum. The conflict between the xow7 (vernacular and literary) 
and this Atticistic reaction affected both to some extent.t This 
struggle between “archaism and life” is old and survives to-day. 
The Atticists were in fact out of harmony with their time,® and 
not like Dante, who chose the language of his people for his im- 
mortal poems. They made the mistake of thinking that by 
imitation they could restore the old Attic style. ‘‘The effort and 
example of these purists, too, though criticized at first, gradually 
became a sort of moral dictatorship, and so has been tacitly if 
not zealously obeyed by all subsequent scribes down to the pres- 
ent time.’ As a result when one compares N. T. Greek,® one 


1 A sharp distinction as a rule must be made between the language of 
Arrian and Epict. The Gk. of Epict. as reported by Arrian, his pupil, is a 
good representative of the vern. cow? of an educated man. Arrian’s intro- 
duction is quite Atticistic, but he aims to reproduce Epictetus’ own words as 
far as possible. 

2 Sophocles, Lex., p.6. Athenzeus 15.2 said: Ei ui iarpol joav, obdey ay jv 
TOV YPAUMUATEWY UWPOTEpOV. 

§ Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 180. On Atticism in the xown see Wacker- 
nagel, Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 309. 

4 Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr. bis Aug., Bd. I, 1898, p. 150. 

dod Wish hicleyun | opeay opera es 

Sb peaoe 1: 7 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p. 26. The diction of Aristophanes is interesting as a 
specimen of varieties of speech of the time. Cf. Hope, The Lang. of Parody; 
a Study in the Diction of Aristophanes (1906). Radermacher (N. T. Gk., 
p. 3) holds that we must even note the “‘barbarisches Griechisch”’ of writers 
like John Philoponos and Proclos. 


60 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


must be careful to note whether it is with the book Greek (kxa- 
dapevovoa) or the vernacular (6uAovpevn). This artificial reac- 
tionary movement, however, had little effect upon the vernacular 
kow? as is witnessed by the spoken Greek of to-day. Consequently 
it is a negligible quantity in direct influence upon the writers of 
the N. T.!. But the Atticists did have a real influence upon the 
literary xow7y both as to word-formation? and syntax.’ With 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus beauty was the chief element of style, 
and he hoped that the Attic revival would drive out the Asiatic 
influence. The whole movement was a strong reaction against 
what was termed “ Asianism”’ in the language.®> It is not surpris- 
ing therefore that the later ecclesiastical literary Greek was largely 
under the influence of the Atticists. “Now there was but one 
grammar: Attic. It was Attic grammar that every freeman, 
whether highly or poorly educated, had learned.”’*® “This purist 
conspiracy”’ Jannaris calls it. The main thing with the Atticists 
was to have something as old as Athens. Strabo said the style 
of Diodorus was properly “antique.’’? 

IV. The Characteristics of the Vernacular Kouwvn. 

(a) VERNACULAR ATTIC THE BASE. One must not feel that the 
vernacular Greek is unworthy of study. “The fact is that, during 
the best days of Greece, the great teacher of Greek was the com- 
mon people.”® There was no violent break between the vernacu- 
lar Attic and the vernacular xow7, but the one flowed into the other 
as a living stream.® If the reign of the separated dialects was 
over, the power of the one general Greek speech had just begun 
on the heels of Alexander’s victories. The battle of Chzronea 
broke the spirit of the old Attic culture indeed, but the Athenians 


1 Schmid, Der Atticismus etc., Bd. IV, p. 578. 27lbspO0G t 

8 Tréger, Der Sprachgeb. in der pseudolong. Schr., 1899, TI. I, p. 61. 

4 Schmid, ib., Bd. I, pp. 17, 25. See Bd. IV, pp. 577-734, for very valu- 
able summary of this whole subject. 

5’ Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr., 1898. 1. Bd., p. 149. So Blass calls it 
“oleichzeitige atticistische Reaction gegen die asianische Beredsamkeit.’’ 
Die griech. Beredsamkeit etc. von Alex. bis Aug., 1865, p. 77. 

6 Jannaris, op. cit., p. 11. See also Fritz, Die Briefe des Bischofs Syne- 
sius von Kyrene. Ein Beitr. zur Gesch. des Att. im 4. und 5. Jahrh., 1898. 

7 Strabo, 13. 4, 9. 

8 Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 11. 

® Deissmann, Die sprachl. Erforsch. etc., p. 11. Rutherford (New Phryn., 
p. 2) says that “the debased forms and mixed vocabulary of the common 
dialect would have struck the contemporaries of Aristophanes and Plato as 
little better than jargon of the Scythian policemen.’’ On the form of the xowh 
see Wackernagel, Kult. etc., Tl. I, Abt. 8, p. 305. 


THE KOINH 61 


gathered up the treasures of the past, while Alexander opened the 
flood-gates for the change in the language and for its spread over 
the world.! ‘“‘What, however, was loss to standard Attic was 
gain to the ecumenical tongue. The language in which Hellenism 
expressed itself was eminently practical, better fitted for life than 
for the schools. Only a cosmopolitan speech could comport with 
Hellenistic cosmopolitanism. Grammar was simplified, excep- 
tions decreased or generalized, flexions dropped or harmonized, 
construction of sentences made easier” (Angus, Prince. Rev., 
Jan., 1910, p. 53). The beginning of the development of the ver- 
nacular xow7n is not perfectly clear, for we see rather the com- 
pleted product.? But it is in the later Attic that lies behind the 
xown. The optative was never common in the vernacular Attic 
and is a vanishing quantity in the xown. The disappearance of 
the dual was already coming on and so was the limited use of the 
superlative, —rwoay instead of —ytwy, and —cdwoay instead of —cbwyr, 
yivoyat, oo, ema, Tis instead of wérepos, éxaoros and not éxarepos.3 
But while the Attic forms the ground-form‘ of the xo.wy it must 
not be forgotten that the xown was resultant of the various forces 
and must be judged by its own standards.> There is not complete 
unanimity of opinion concerning the character of the vernacular 
xowny. Steinthal® indeed called it merely a levelled and debased 
Attic, while Wilamowitz’ described it as more properly an Ionic 
popular idiom. Kretschmer* now (wrongly, I think) contends that 
the Northwest Greek, Ionic and Boeotian had more influence on 
the xown than the Attic. The truth seems to be the position of 
Thumb,’ that the vernacular xow7 is the result of the mingling with 
all dialects upon the late Attic vernacular as the base. As between 
the Doric a and the Ionic 7 the vernacular xow7 follows the Attic 


1 Christ, Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 509f. For “the Attic ground- 
character of the xo.wn’’ see Mayser, Gr. der griech. Pap. (1906, p. 1). 

2 Kaibel, Stil und Text der ’A@nvaiwy IHoXreia, p. 37. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 3. Even in the literary xowwn the dual is nearly 
gone, as in Polybius and Diodorus Siculus; cf. Schmidt, De Duali Graec. et 
Emor. et Reviv., 1893, pp. 22, 25. 

4 Gott. Gel.-Anz., 1895, p. 30f.; Hatzidakis, Einl. in die neugr. Gr., 
p. 168 f.; Krumbacher, Byz. Lit., p. 789. 

5 “Die Erforschung der xow7 hat lange genug unter dem Gesichtswinkel des 
‘Klassicismus’ gestanden.’”?’ Thumb, Griech. Spr. ete., p. 10. 

6 Gesch. der Sprachw., II, p. 37 f. 

7 Verhandl. der 32. phil. Versamml., p. 40. 

8 Wochenschr. fiir klass. Philol., 1899, p. 3; Die Entst. der Ko.w, 1900. 

9 Op. cit., pp. 53-101, 202 f. 


62 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


usage, and this fact alone is decisive.’ Dieterich? indeed sums 
up several points as belonging to the “Attic cow” such as verbs 
in —vw instead of —vu, in —woayv instead of —wy in contract imper- 
fects, disuse of the temporal and the syllabic augment in com- 
position, disuse of reduplication, —nv instead of —n in acc. sing. 
of adjs. in —js, —ov instead of —ovs in gen. sing. of third declen- 
sion, —a instead of —ov in proper names, disuse of the Attic de- 
clension, —es for —as in accusative plural, roy as relative pronoun, 
idvos aS possessive pronoun. But clearly by “Attic xow7n” he means 
the resultant Attic, not the Attic as distinct from the other dialects. 

Besides the orthography is Attic (cf. iXews, not tAaos) and the 
bulk of the inflections and conjugations likewise, as can be seen 
by comparison with the Attic inscriptions.* Schlageter* sums 
the matter up: “The Attic foundation of the xow7 is to-day gen- 
erally admitted.” 

(b) Tue OrnerR DriaLects IN THE Kowvy. But Kretschmer® is 
clearly wrong in saying that the xow7 is neither Attic nor decayed 
Attic, but a mixture of the dialects. He compares the mixture 
of dialects in the xowy to that of the high, middle and low Ger- 
man. The Attic itself is a cow out of Ionic, Alolic and Doric. 
The mixed character of the vernacular xow7 is made plain by 
Schweizer® and Dieterich.’ The Ionic shows its influence in the 
presence of forms like (6in, omeipns, eldvta, —vins, Kab’ éros (cf. 
vetus), daTéa, xeLAEwv, BaBEwr, xXpuTEeov, —Gs, —ddos; absence of the 
rough breathing (psilosis or de-aspiration, Avolic also); dropping 
of we in verbs like 6:68; xOav (xutwv), Téeooepa, Tpacow for mpatTw 
(Attic also), etc. Ionic words like jov-d¢0adpos (Herod.) instead 
of Attic érep-6¢0adpos occur. Conybeare and Stock (Sel. from 
LXX, p. 48) suggest that Homer was used as a text-book in Alex- 
andria and so caused Ionisms like oreipns in the cow. The spread 
of the Ionic over the East was to be expected. In Alexander’s 
army many of the Greek dialects were represented.’ In the Egyp- 
tian army of the Ptolemies nearly all the dialects were spoken.® 
The Ionians were, besides, part of the Greeks who settled in Alex- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 33 f. 

2 Unters. zur Gesch. d. griech. Spr., 1898, p. 258 f. 

3 Meisterhans, Gr. der Att. Inschr. 

4 Der Wortsch. der aufferhalb Attikas gefundenen att. Inschr., 1912. 

5 Wochenschr. fiir klass. Phil., 1899, p. xvii. 

6 Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 201 f. 

7 Unters. zur Gesch. etc., p. 259 f. 8 Arrian, IT, 20. 5. 
® Myer, Das Heerwesen der Ptolemier und Rémer in Agypten, 1900. 


THE KOINH 63 


andria.!_ Besides, even after the triumph of the Attic in Greece 
the Ionic had continued to be spoken in large parts of Asia Minor. 
The Ionic influence appears in Pergamum also. The mixing of the 
Attic with foreign, before all with Ionic, elements, has laid the 
foundation for the xow7.2 The Afolic makes a poor showing, 
but can be traced especially in Pergamum, where Schweizer con- 
siders it one of the elements of the language with a large injection 
of the Ionic.? A®olic has the a for 7 in proper names and forms 
inas. Boeotian-AXolic uses the ending —ocar, as eixooay, So common 
in the LXX. Moulton* points out that this ending is very rare 
in the papyri and is found chiefly in the LXX. He calls Boeotian- 
fKolic also “the monophthongizing of the diphthongs.’ In the 
Attic and the Ionic the open sound of 7 prevailed, while in the 
Boeotian the closed. In the xow7 the two pronunciations existed 
together till the closed triumphed. Psilosis is also Ionic. The 
Doric appears in forms like Aads (Aews), vads (vews), mratw (rerw), 
éorrovdata, Atos, TO TAODTOS, AAEKTWP, KALIBavos (KpiBavos); and in 
the pronunciation perhaps 6, y, 6 had the Doric softer sound as 
in the modern Greek vernacular. But, as Moulton® argues, the 
vernacular xow7 comes to us now only in the written form, and 
that was undoubtedly chiefly Attic. The Arcadian dialect possibly 
contributes ddewvrar, since it has agewoAn, but this form occurs 
in Doric and Ionic also.® Cf. also the change of gender 4 Acuods 
(Luke) and 7é rAodros (Paul). The Northwest Greek contrib- 
uted forms like dpyovros, Tovs eyovtes, Arac (Hunv cf. Messe- 
nian and Lesbian also), 7pwrovr (like Ionic), etxooav (cf. Boeotian), 
AeAvKav. The accusative plural in —es is very common in the 
papyri, and some N. T. MSS. give récoapes for récoapas.’ The 
Achean-Dorian kxowy had resisted in Northwest Greece the 
inroads of the common Greek for a century or so. The Mace- 


1 H. Anz, Subsidia ad cognoscendum Graec. Serm. vulg. etce., 1894, p. 386. 
Mayser, Gr., pp. 9-24, finds numerous Ionic peculiarities in the Ptolemaic 
pap. far more than Afolic and Doric. He cites —rwoav, waxaipns, tow, evexer, 
dptwy, yoyyitw, mapabhkn, técoepes, ExmTwua, etc. On the Ionic and other non- 
Attic elements in the xowf see Wackernagel, Kult., p. 306 f. 

2 Kaibel, Stil und Text ete., p. 37. 3 Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 202. 

4 Prol., p. 33. The caution of Psichari (Essais de Gr. Hist. Néo-grq., 2°™° 
éd., 1889, p. exlix) is to be noted, that the vernacular is not necessarily dia- 
lectical, but ‘‘destinée au peuple et venait du peuple.’’ Cf. on Avolic ele- 
ments, Mayser, Gr., p. 9. He cites 7 \cuds in the pap.; Aads is also AXolic. 

5 Prol., p. 34. 

6 Moulton, ib., p. 38, n. 3. For Doric elements in the pap. see Mayser, 
(XE Deo ke 7 W. H., Intr. to the Gk. N. T., App., p. 150, 


64 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


donian Greek, spoken by many of Alexander’s soldiers, naturally 
had very slight influence on the xow7. We know nothing of the 
old Macedonian Greek. Polybius! says that the Illyrians needed 
an interpreter for Macedonian. Sturz? indeed gives a list of 
Macedonian words found in the kow7, as domedos, Kopac.ov, Tapeu- 
Bodn, poun. But he also includes ayyéAAw! The Macedonians 
apparently used 8 instead of ¢ as Bidurros, 6=6 as davatos, o=B 
as oépeOpov. Plutarch? speaks of Alexander and his soldiers 
speaking to each other Maxedovori. For full discussion of the 
Macedonian dialect see O. Hoffmann, Die Makedonen, thre 
Sprache und Volkstum, 1906, pp. 232-255. 

(c) Non-D1aLecticaL Cuances. It is not always possible to 
separate the various peculiarities of the xown into dialectical in- 
fluences. “Where Macedonian, Spartan, Boeotian, Athenian and 
Thessalian were messmates a xown was inevitable. Pronounced 
dialecticisms which would render unintelligible or ludicrous to 
others were dropped” (see Angus, Prince. Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, 
p. 67). The common blood itself went on changing. It was a 
living whole and not a mere artificial mingling of various ele- 
ments. There is less difference in the syntax of the xow7n and that 
of the earlier Greek than in the forms, though the gradual disap- 
pearance of the optative, use of iva and finite verb in the non-final 
sense rather than the infinitive or even 67., the gradual disuse of 
the future part. may be mentioned. It was in the finer shades 
of thought that a common vernacular would fail to hold its 
own. “Any language which aspires to be a Weltsprache (world- 
language), as the Germans say, must sacrifice much of its deli- 
cacy, its shades of meaning, expressed by many synonyms and 
particles and tenses, which the foreigner in his hurry and without 
contact with natives cannot be expected to master.’’4 


1 Polybius, 28. 8, 9. 

* De Dial. Alexan. etc., 1786, p. 56f.; see also De Dial. Macedonica et 
Alexan., 1808, pp. 37, 42; Maittaire, Graecae Ling. Dial. Sturzii, 1807, p. 184; 
Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 3. Schweizer, Gr. der perg. 
Inschr., p. 27, sees very little in the Macedonian influence. 

3 J, 592 B, 694 C. Kennedy (Sources of N. T. Gk., p. 17) says: ‘In any 
case, the Macedonian type of Greek, whether or not it is admissible to call it 
a special dialect, was so far removed from ordinary Attic as to make it cer- 
tain that the latter on Macedonian lips must soon and inevitably suffer thor- 
ough-going modification.” 

4 Mahaffy, Survey of Gk. Civilization, p. 220. Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. 
Lang. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., p. 73, for discussion of “the levelling tendency 
common to all languages.’’ 


THE KOINH 65 


(d) New Worps, New Forms ork NEw MEANINGS TO OLD 
Worps. Naturally most change is found either in new words or 
in new meanings in old words, just as our English dictionaries must 
have new and enlarged editions every ten years or so. This growth 
in the vocabulary is inevitable unless the life of a people stops. A 
third-century inscription in Thera, for instance, shows ovvaywy7 
used of a religious meeting, wapoixos (not the Attic pérovxos) for 
stranger, amocroA\os and xarnxnots in their old senses like those 
Americanisms which preserve Elizabethan English (“fall’”’ for 
“autumn,” for instance). Here are some further examples. It is 
hard to be sure that all of these are words that arose in the xown, 
for we cannot mark off a definite line of cleavage. We mention 
ayanrn, ayloTns, ayvorns, abecuos, abfeérnats, aAAOTPLETICOKOTOS, aKaTa- 
Autos, akpoaTnp.ov, avOpwrapeckos, avTiduTpoy, avakawvow (and many 
verbs in —dw, —afw, —ifw), avayevvaw, Bamrricwa (many words in —ya), 
Bartiopos, Bartiotns, ypnyopew (cf. also ornkw), derordatpovia, dnvaproy, 
duxatoxptaia, EXenuoovrn, ExKakeéw, ExuUKTNPLEW, HerdTyNs, DedmvevaTos, Novia, 
KaTnxXeéw, KpaBarTos, wabynrevw, oixodeorOTns, OpOpifw, dPapiov, oYwror, 
mpockatpos, poudaia, cuuBobvrALovy, TEeAwvLOV, vioNegia, Uromdd.ov, piraded- 
gia, wriov, etc. Let these serve merely as examples. For others 
see the lists in Deissmann’s Bible Studies, Light from the Ancient 
East, Moulton and Milligan’s “Lexical Notes on the Papyri” 
(Expositor, 1908—), Winer-Schmiedel (p. 22), Thayer’s Lexicon, 
(p. 691 f.), Rutherford’s New Phrynichus, and the indices to the 
papyri collections. One of the pressing needs is a lexicon of the 
papyri and then of the xown as a whole. Many of these words 
were already in the literary xow7, though they probably came from 
the vernacular.2, Some old words received slightly new forms, 
like dva0eua ‘curse’ (avdOnua ‘offering’), admavtnows (aravTnua), azo- 
atacia (amdctacts), apotpiaw (apow), Bacihiooa (Bacidera), yeveora 
(yeveOXia), dexatow (dexatebw), AvXvia (AvXviov), pLcAarrodocia (pLGA0- 
doaia), povddOadpwos (€érepopOadpos), vovecia (vovdérnats), olkodoun (oi- 


1 Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen., in Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., 1896, p. 5. Mayser 
(Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 24-35) gives an interesting list of words that were 
chiefly ‘‘ poetical” in the classic literature, but are common in the papyri. 
The poets often use the vernacular. Some of these words are é\éxrwp, BiBpw- 
oxw, déopu.os, SGua, extwdoow, evTpéwopar, Emrattéw, Emtoelw, OadTwW, KaTaoTEdArAY, 
kotudouat, Koros, Naol = people, pépiuva, vynmLos, oiknTHpLov, weplkeuar, TpoTpwvew, 
axbAX\w, oTeyn, guvavTaw, veros. New forms are given to old words as Aiurarw 
from delrw, etc. Ramsay (see The Independent, 1913, p. 376) finds éuBarebw 
(cf. Col. 2:18) used in the technical sense of entering in on the part of in- 
itiates in the sanctuary of Apollos at Claros in an inscription there. 

2 See W.-Sch., p. 19, n. 8, 


66 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Koddunots), dverducuds (dverdos), dmracia (prs), tavdoxebs (ravdoxets), 
rapappovia (rapappootvn), pavtifw (paivw, cf. Bartifw, Bartw), o7hKw 
(éornxa), Tapetov (rametov), rexviov (and many diminutives in —topr 
which lose their force), rardapiov (and many diminutives in —apvov), 
votdouat (pyodouar), ete. 

Words (old and new) receive new meanings, as dvaxdivw (‘re- 
cline at table’). Cf. also dvamimrw, dvaxemar, avtrreyw (‘speak 
against’), amoxpi0qvac (passive not middle, ‘to answer’), dapdvioy 
(‘evil spirit,’ ‘demon’), dua (‘house-top’), goewraw (‘beg’), ebxapiorew 
(‘thank’), émo7é\\w (‘write a letter’), dapiov (‘fish’), dpyarov 
(‘wages’), mapaxadéw (‘entreat’), tappnoia (‘confidence’), repromdao- 
pac (‘distract’), madebw (‘chastise’), mr&ua (‘corpse’), ocuyKpivw 
(‘compare’), cxod7y (‘school’), d0a4vw (‘come’), xopTafw (‘nourish’), 
xpnuaticw (‘be ecalled’).! This is all perfectly natural. Only we 
are to remember that the difference between the xown vocabulary 
and the Attic literature is not the true standard. The vernacular 
kown must be compared with the Attic vernacular as seen in the 
inscriptions and to a large extent in a writer like Aristophanes 
and the comic poets. Many words common in Aristophanes, ta- 
boo to the great Attic writers, reappear in the xown. They were 
in the vernacular all the time. Moulton*® remarks that the ver- 
nacular changed very little from the first century a.p. to the 
third. “The papyri show throughout the marks of a real lan- 
guage of daily life, unspoilt by the blundering bookishness which 
makes the later documents so irritating.” It is just in the first 
century A.D. that the xowy comes to its full glory as a world- 
language. “The fact remains that in the period which gave birth 
to Christianity there was an international language” (Deissmann, 
Light from the Ancient East, p. 59). It is not claimed that all the 
points as to the origin of the xowy are now clear. See Hesseling, 
De koine en de oude dialekten van Griechenland (1906). But 
enough is known to give an intelligible idea of this language 
that has played so great a part in the history of man. 

(e) ProvinciAL INFLUENCES. For all practical purposes the 
Greek dialects were fused into one common tongue largely as a 
result of Alexander’s conquests. The Germanic dialects have 
gone farther and farther apart (German, Dutch, Swedish, Nor- 
wegian, Danish, English), for no great conqueror has arisen to 


1 Schlageter (Wortsch. etc., pp. 59-62) gives a good list of words with 
another meaning in the xou7. 

2 Cf. Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., pp. 70f., 147. 

§ Cl. Quar., April, 1908, p. 137. 


THE KOINii 67 


bind them into one. The language follows the history of the peo- 
ple. But the unification of the Greek was finally so radical that 
“the old dialects to-day are merged into the general mass, the 
modern folk-language is only a continuation of the united, Hel- 
lenistic, common speech.’’! So completely did Alexander do his 
work that the balance of culture definitely shifted from Athens 
to the East, to Pergamum, to Tarsus, to Antioch, to Alexandria. 
This “union of oriental and occidental was attempted in every 
city of Western Asia. That is the most remarkable and interest- 
ing feature of Hellenistic history in the Greeco-Asiatic kingdoms 
and cities.’ Prof. Ramsay adds: “In Tarsus the Greek qualities 
and powers were used and guided by a society which was, on the 
whole, more Asiatic in character.”” There were thus non-Greek 
influences which also entered into the common Greek life and 
language in various parts of the empire. Cf. K. Holl, ‘Das Fort- 
leben der Volkssprachen in nachchristlicher Zeit’’ (Hermes, 1908, 
43, p. 240). These non-Greek influences were especially noticeable 
in Pergamum, Tarsus and Alexandria, though perceptible at other 
points also. But in the case of Phrygia long before Alexander’s 
conquest there had been direct contact with the Arcadian and 
the A£olic dialects through immigration. The Greek inscriptions 
in the Hellenistic time were first in the old dialect of Phrygia, 
then gliding into the xow7, then finally the pure xow7.» Hence the 
Ko. Won an easy victory in Pergamum, but the door for Phry- 
gian influence was also wide open. Thus, though the xow7 rests 
on the foundation of the Greek dialects, some non-Greek elements 
were intermingled. Dieterich’? indeed gives a special list of 
‘peculiarities that belong to the xown of Asia Minor, as, for in- 
stance, —av instead of —a in the accus. sing. of 3d decl., proper names 
in ds, tis for dor7us, dots for ds, ecuac for eiut, use of O€Xw rather than 
future tense. In the case of Tarsus “a few traces of the Doric 


1 Kretschmer, Einl. in die Gesch. etc., p. 417. 

2 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p.6. The multitudinous mod. Gk. patois illus- 
trate the xown. 

3 W. M. Ramsay, Tarsus, Exp., Mar., 1906, p. 261. 

4 Schweizer, Gr. der perg. Inschr., pp. 15 ff. eel bsp. 20: 

6 Bruns, Die att. Bestrebungen in der griech. Lit., 1896, p. 12, says: ‘‘Statt 
ihrer (classische attische Sprache) regiert ein gemeines Kebsweib, das aus 
irgend einer phrygischen Spelunke stammt — das ist der hellenistische Stil”’ ! 
A slight exaggeration. Cf. Brugmann, Vergl. Gr., p. 9. 

7 Untersuch. zur Gesch. ete., pp. 258 ff. The speech of Asia Minor has in- 
deed close affinity with that of Paul and Luke and with all the N. T. writers. 
Cf. Thieme, Die Inschr. von Magn. am Miiander und das N. T., 1906. 


68 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dialect may perhaps have lingered”’ in the xowy, as Ramsay sug- 
gests (Expositor, 1906, p. 31), who also thinks that vaoxdpos for 
vewkopos in Ac. 19:35 in D may thus be explained. 

But no hard and fast distinction can be drawn, as —av for —» 
as accusative appears in Egypt also, e.g. in @vyarépayv. Is it proper 
to speak of an Alexandrian dialect? Blass! says so, agreeing 
with Winer-Schmiedel? (4 ’AXe~avdpewy duadexTos). This is the old 
view, but we can hardly give the name dialect to the Egyptian 
Greek. Kennedy* says: “In all probability the language of the 
Egyptian capital had no more right to be called a dialect than 
the vernacular of any other great centre of population.’”’ Schwei- 
zer4 likewise refuses to consider the Alexandrian xowv7 as a dialect. 
Dieterich® again gives a list of Egyptian peculiarities such as ot 
instead of ai, -a instead of —as in nominatives of third declension, 
adjectives in —y instead of —a, éood for cod, xafets for ekaoros, im- 
perfect and aorist in —a, juny for jv, disuse of augment in simple 
verbs, indicative instead of the subjunctive. Mayser (Gr. d. 
griech. Pap., pp. 35-40) gives a list of “EKgyptian words” found in 
the Ptolemaic papyri. They are words of the soil, like zazvpos 
itself. But Thumb® shows that the majority of the so-called 
Alexandrian peculiarities were general in the xown like #\6ocap, 
elxav, yeyovay, éwpaxes, etc. “There was indeed a certain un- 
wieldiness and capriciousness about their language, which displays 
itself especially in harsh and fantastic word-composition.” As 
examples of their words may be mentioned karavwrifdpevos, rapa- 
ovyypadev, drravOpwretv, etc. It is to be observed also that the 
kown was not the vernacular of all the peoples when it was spoken 
as a secondary language. In Palestine, for instance, Aramaic was 


1'Gr. of N. T. Gk., 1905, p. 3 note. 

2 Gr. des neut. Sprachid., § 3. 1, n. 4. 

3 Sour. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 23. Ireneus (Minucius Pacatus) and De- 
metrius Ixion wrote treatises on “the dialect of Alexandria” (Swete, Intr. 
to the O. T. in Gk., p. 289). But they probably did not understand that the 
vernacular xowy, which differed from the literary xow7, was international 
(Thackeray, Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., vol. I, p. 19). ‘It is certain that many 
forms of this later language were specially characteristic of Alexandria’’ (ib.). 

4 Gr. der perg. Inschr., p. 27. 5 Unters. zur Gesch. etc., pp. 258 ff. 

6 Die griech. Spr. etc., p. 168 ff. See also Anz, Subs. ad cognos. Graec. 
Serm. vulg. etc., 1891, p. 262. ‘‘Nec quae Apostolides homo doctus Alexan- 
drinus nuperrime protulit omnes caligines propulsaverunt. Certe nemo 
jam existet qui cum Sturzio Macedonicam dialectum ibi quaerat, sed altera 
e parte neminem puto judicare illam quae vulgo appellatur dialectum Alexan- 
drinam solis vindicandam esse Alexandrinis.’’ Cf, Susemihl, Lit. der Alexan- 
drinerzeit. 


THE KOINH 69 


the usual language of the people who could also, most of them, 
speak Greek. Moulton’s parallel of the variations in modern 
English is not therefore true, unless you include also peoples like 
the Welsh, Scotch, Irish, etc. 

But as a whole the vernacular xow7 was a single language with 
only natural variations like that in the English of various parts 
of the United States or England. Thumb perhaps makes too 
much of a point out of the use of éués rather than you in Asia 
Minor in its bearing on the authorship of the Gospel of John 
where it occurs 41 times, once only in 3 Jo. and Rev. (34 times 
elsewhere in the N. T.), though it is interesting to note, as he 
does, that the infinitive is still used in Pontus. But there were 
non-Greek influences here and there over the empire as Thumb? 
well shows. Thumb? indeed holds that “the Alexandrian popular 
speech is only one member of a great speech-development.”’ 

(f) THe Personau Equation. In the vernacular xow7, as in the 
literary language, many variations are due to differences in edu- 
cation and personal idiosyncrasies. “The colloquial language in 
its turn went off into various shades of distinction according to 
the refinement of the speaker” (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient 
East, p. 59). The inscriptions on the whole give us a more for- 
mal speech, sometimes official decrees, while the papyri furnish a 
much wider variety. ‘‘The papyri show us the dialect of Greek 
Egypt in many forms, — the language of the Government off- 
cial, of the educated private person, of the dwellers in the temples, 
of the peasantry in the villages.” We have numerous examrles 
of the papyri through both the Ptolemaic and the Roman rule in 
Egypt. All sorts of men from the farm to the palace are here 
found writing all sorts of documents, a will or a receipt, a love- 


1 Sir Jonathan Williams, an Eng. savant, is quoted in the Louisville Cou- 
rier-Journal (May 9, 1906) as saying: ‘‘I have found in the city of Louisville 
a pronunciation and a use of terms which is nearer, to my mind, to Addison 
and the English classicists than anything which the counties of England, the 
provinces of Australia, or the moors of Scotland can offer.”” He added that 
the purest English known to him is spoken in Edinburgh and Louisville. 
These two cities, for geographical reasons, are not provincial. 

2 Griech. Spr. etc., pp. 102-161; Theol. Literaturzeit., 1908, p. 421; cf. 
also Moulton, Prol. p. 40. Moulton sets over against éuéds the fact that 
John’s Gospel uses ta rather than the infinitive so often. Much of the 
force of such an argument vanishes also under the personal equation. 

3 Griech. Spr. etc., p. 171. Cf. also Zahn, Hinleitung in das N. T., 
I, 38. 

4 Kenyon, ext. vol. of Hast. D. B., art. Papyri, p. 355. See also id., 
Palzog. of the Gk. Pap., 1899. 


70 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


letter or a dun, a memorandum or a census report, a private letter 
or a public epistle. “Private letters are our most valuable 
sources; and they are all the better for the immense differences 
that betray themselves in the education of the writers. The well- 
worn epistolary formule show variety mostly in their spelling; 
and their value for the student lies primarily in their remarkable 
resemblances to the conventional phraseology which even the N. T. 
letter-writers were content to use.””! Deissmann? has insisted on 
a sharp distinction between letters and epistles, the letter being 
private and instinct with life, the epistles being written for the 
public eye, an open letter, a literary letter. This is a Just dis- 
tinction. A real letter that has become literature is different 
from an epistle written as literature. In the papyri therefore we 
find all grades of culture and of illiteracy, as one would to-day if 
one rummaged in the rubbish-heaps of our great cities. One need 
not be surprised at seeing tov untpws, Tov Péow, and even worse 
blunders. As a sample Jannaris’ gives d&ewHels traipatav ypa- 
para pel eldmrwv, for aéwels br’ abtav ypaupata pH eiddtwv. Part 
of these are crass errors, part are due to identity of sounds in 
pronunciation, as o and w, e and 7, e« ands. Witkowski‘ properly 
insists that we take note of the man and the character of work 
in each case. 

It is obvious that by the papyri and the inscriptions we gain a 
truer picture of the situation. As a specimen of the vernacular 
xown of Egypt this letter of the school-boy Theon to his father has 
keen interest (see O. P. 119). It belongs to the second century 
A.D. and has a boy’s mistakes as well as a boy’s spirit. The writ- 
ing is uncial. 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 27 f. 

2 B.S., 1901, pp. 3-59. ‘The distinction holds good, even if we cannot go 
all the way with Deissmann in pronouncing all the Pauline writings ‘letters’ 
rather than ‘Epistles.’’’ G. Milligan, Gk. Pap., p. xxxi. 

3 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 7. - Quoted from Griech. Urk., Berlin, 132, belonging 
to year 289 A.D. 

4 The papyri contain “exempla ex vita deprompta, cum sermo scripto- 
rum ut solutae ita poeticae orationis nullo modo veram nobis imaginem ser- 
monis illius aetatis praebeat. Etenim sermo, quem apud auctores hellinisticos 
deprehendimus, arti, non vitae, debetur.’? Witkowski Prodr. gr. pap. Graec., 
etc., 1898, p. 197. He urges that in case of variations in forms or syntax one 
must inquire “utrum ab alia qua dialecto petita sit an in Aegypto nata, utrum 
ab homine Graeco an barbaro formata.”’ Ib., p. 198. He thinks it is necessary 
that we have “‘librum de sermone papyrorum, librum de sermone titulorum, 
librum de sermone auctorum poeticae et pedestris orationis illius aetatis, 
librum de dialecto Macedonica tractantem.” Ib. 


THE KOINH val 


Oéwy O€wrr TH TaTpl xalpev. 
KaA@S Eroinoes. OUK ATEVNXES ME MET’ E- 
cov els TOALY. 1 OU MEALS ATTEVEKKELY ME- 
T €gov els “AXeEavdpiay ov un ypayw ce E- 
TioTOAHnY oUTE AMAAG GE, OUVTE VIVEVW GE, 
eiTa. av O€ EdOns els “ANeEavdpiav, ov 
My AaBw xEetpay mapa [cou ore TAAL Xalpw 
oe NuTOV. au wr OeAns arrevexae ule], 
Tadra yel[t|vere. Kal) untnp pov ete ’Ap- 
XEAAW OTL AVATTATOL ME’ ApPpov avTov. 
Kah@s d€ érrolnaes. Spa por Ereue[s | 
meyada apakia. merAavynKay Huds éxe[t], 
TH nuepa 8’ ote Exdevoes. Hurov Tenor eis] 
Me, TapakadG® oe. Gm wy weupnys ov un da- 
yw, ov ur Teive’ TavTa. 
épaabe ce e'x(ouat). 
Toe cn’. 
On the other side: 

amodos Oéwre [a]r6 Oewvaros vid. 

Milligan (Greek Papyri, p. xxxii) admits that there may be now 
a temptation “to exaggerate the significance of the papyri.”’ But 
surely his book has a wonderful human, not to say linguistic, in- 
terest. Take this extract from a letter of Hilarion to his wife 
Alis (P. Oxy. 744 B.c. 1): ’Eav rodd\aToAdGy Téxys, Edy AY apoevor, 
aides, Edy jv Onrea, ExGare. 

(g) Résumé. To all intents and purposes the vernacular xow7 
is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under 
historical environment created by Alexander’s conquests. On 
this base then were deposited varied influences from the other 
dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character 
of the language. There is one cow everywhere (cf. Thumb, Griech. 
Spr., p. 200). The literary xowh was homogeneous, while the 
vernacular xown was practically so in spite of local variations 
(cf. Angus, The Koiné: “The Language of the N. T.,” Prince. 
Theol. Rev., Jan., 1910, p. 78 f.). In remote districts the language 
would be Doric-coloured or Ionic-coloured. 

Phonetics and Orthography. It is in pronunciation that the 
most serious differences appear in the cow (Moulton, Prol., p. 5). 
We do not know certainly how the ancient Attic was pronounced, 
though we can approximate it. The modern Greek vernacular 
pronunciation is known. The xown stands along the path of 
“progress, precisely where it is hard to tell. But we know enough 


72 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


not to insist too strongly on “hair-splitting differences hinging 
on forms which for the scribe of our uncials had identical value 
phonetically, e.g. oc, 7, n, v, c= 6 in feet, or ac=e’’ (Angus, op. cit., 
p. 79). Besides itacisms the -monophthongizing is to be noticed 
and the equalizing of o and w. The Attic 77 is oo except in a few 
instances (like éd\arrwv, kpeirrwv). The tendency is toward de- 
aspiration except in a few cases where the reverse is true as a 
result of analogy (or a lost digamma). Cf. é¢’ éA7iés. Elision is not 
so common as in the Attic, but assimilation is carried still further 
(cf. éuuéow). There is less care for rhythm in general, and the 
variable final consonants v and s appear constantly before con- 
sonants. The use of —e— for —ve— m forms like zety and rapetov 
probably comes by analogy. Ovfeis and pnfeis are the common 
forms till 100 B.c. when ovdeis and unéeis begin to regain their 
ascendency. — 

Vocabulary. The words from the town-life (the stage, the mar- 
ket-place) come to the front. The vocabulary of Aristophanes is 
in point. There was an increase in the number of diminutive 
forms. The xow7 was not averse to foreign elements if they were 
useful. Xenophon is a good illustration of the preparation for 
the xown. Cf. Radermacher, NV. 7. Gr., p. 8. 

Word-Formation. 'There is the natural dropping of some old 
suffixes and the coining of new suffixes, some of which appear in 
the modern Greek vernacular. The number of compound words 
by juxtaposition is greatly increased, like rAnpo-dopéw, xerpd-ypador. 
In particular two prepositions in compounds are frequent, like 
ouv-avTi-AauBavouac. New meanings are given to old words. 

Accidence. In substantives the lonic —pys, not —pas, is common, 
bringing nouns in —pa into harmony with other nouns of the first 
declension (Thackeray, Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., p. 22). The Attic 
second declension disappears. Some feminine nouns in -os be- 
come masculine. The third declension is occasionally assimilated 
to the first in forms like vixrav, Ovyarépay. Contraction is absent 
sometimes in forms like dpéewv. Both xapw and xdpita occur. 
Adjectives have forms like aogadqv, rAnpns indeclinable, wav for 
mavta (cf. weyav), dvoi for dvotv. The dual, in fact, has disappeared 
in all inflections and conjugations. Pronouns show the disap- 
pearance of the dual forms like éxarepos and wérepos. Tis is used 
sometimes like doris, and és éay is more frequent than ds &y about 
A.D. 1. Analogy plays a big part in the language, and this is proof 
of life. In the verb there is a general tendency toward simpli- 
fication, the two conjugations blending into one (4 verbs going). 


THE KOINH 73 


New presents like azoxrevyw, drravw, are formed. There is con- 
fusion in the use of —aw and —éw verbs. We find yivoua, ywwokw. 
The increase of the use of first aorist forms like éoxa (cf. erov and 
eftva in the older Greek). This first aorist termination appears 
even in the imperfect as in eya. The use of —ocap (etyooar, éoxo- 
cav) for —-ov in the third plural is occasionally noticeable. The 
form —av (dédwxay) for —acc may be due to analogy of this same 
first aorist. There is frequent absence of the syllabic augment 
in the past perfect, while in compound verbs it is sometimes 
doubled like azrexaréornoay. The temporal augment is often ab- 
sent, especially with diphthongs. We have -—7woay rather than 
—yrwv, —cwoay rather than —cOwr. 

Syntax. There is in general an absence of many Attic refine- 
ments. Simplicity is much more in evidence. This is seen in the 
shorter sentences and the paratactic constructions rather than 
the more complex hypotactic idioms. The sparing use of parti- 
cles is noticeable. There is no effort at rhetorical embellishment. 
What is called “Asianism” is the bombastic rhetoric of the arti- 
ficial orators. Atticism aims to reproduce the classic idiom. The 
vernacular xow7n is utterly free from this vice of Asianism and 
Atticism. Thackeray (op. cit., p. 23) notes that “in the breach 
of the rules of concord is seen the widest deviation from classical 
orthodoxy.” This varies a great deal in different writers as the 
papyri amply testify. The nominativus pendens is much in evi- 
dence. The variations in case, gender and number of substan- 
tives, adjectives and verbs are frequent xara cbveow. The neuter 
plural is used with either a singular or plural verb. The com- 
parative does duty often for the superlative adjective. The 
superlative form usually has the elative sense. IIp&ros is com- 
mon (as sometimes in older Greek) when only two are compared. 
‘Eavrév occurs for all three persons. The accusative is regaining 
its old ascendency. There is an increase in the use of the accu- 
satives with verbs and much freedom in the use of transitive 
and intransitive verbs. The growth in the use of prepositions 
is very marked both with nouns and in composition, though some 
of the old prepositions are disappearing. Few prepositions occur 
with more than two cases. Phrases like BdXérw aro show a de- 
parture from the old idiom. New adverbial and prepositional 
phrases are coming into use. The cases with prepositions are 
changing. The instrumental use of & is common. The optative 
is disappearing. The future participle is less frequent. The in- 
finitive (outside of rod, & 74, els 76 and the inf.) is receding: before 


74. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


iva, Which is extending its use very greatly. There is a wider use 
of é7. Everywhere it is the language of life and not of the books. 
The N. T. use of expressions like eis 7d dvoua, dbo dto, once cited 
as Hebraisms, is finding illustration in the papyri (cf. Deissmann, 
Light, etc., p. 123 f.). My begins to encroach on ov, especially 
with infinitives and participles. The periphrastic conjugation is 
frequently employed. The non-final use of tva is quite marked. 
Direct discourse is more frequent than indirect. Clearness is 
more desired than elegance. It is the language of nature, not of 
the schools. | 

V. The Adaptability of the Ko.vy to the Roman World. It is 
worth while to make this point for the benefit of those who may 
wonder why the literary Attic could not have retained its suprem- 
acy in the Greco-Roman world. That was impossible. The 
very victory of the Greek spirit made necessary a modern com- 
mon dialect. Colonial and foreign influences were inevitable and 
the old classical culture could not be assimilated by the Jews 
and Persians, Syrians, Romans, Ethiopians. “In this way a Pan- 
hellenic Greek sprang up, which, while always preserving all its 
main features of Attic grammar and vocabulary, adopted many 
colonial and foreign elements and moreover began to proceed in a 
more analytical spirit and on a simplified grammar.”’! The old 
literary Attic could not have held its own against the Latin, for 
the Romans lamented that they were Hellenized by the Greeks 
after conquering them.” Spenserian English would be an af- 
fectation to-day. .The tremendous vitality of the Greek is seen 
precisely in its power to adjust itself to new conditions even to 
the present time. The failure of the Latin to do this not only 
made it give way before the Greek, but, after Latin became the 
speech of the Western world during the Byzantine period, the ver- 
nacular Latin broke up into various separate tongues, the modern 
Romance languages. The conclusion is irresistible therefore that 
the xown possessed wonderful adaptability to the manifold needs 
of the Roman world.* It was the international language. Nor 
must one think that it was an ignorant age. What we call the 
“Dark Ages” came long afterwards. “Let me further insist that 
this civilization was so perfect that, as far as it reached, men were 


1 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 6. 

2 Cf. Sharp, Epictetus and the N. T. (1914), for useful comparison of lan- 
guage and thought of Epictetus and the N. T. 

3 Lafoscade, Infl. du Lat. sur le Grec, pp. 83-158, in Biblioth. de ’ Ecole des 
hautes ét., 1892. 


THE KOINH 75 


more cultivated in the strict sense than they ever have been 
since. We have discovered new forces in nature; we have made 
new inventions; but we have changed in no way the methods of 
thinking laid down by the Greeks . . . The Hellenistic world was 
more cultivated in argument than we are nowadays.”?! Moulton? 
cannot refrain from calling attention to the remarkable fact that 
the new religion that was to master the world began its career 
at the very time when the Mediterranean world had one ruler 
and one language. On the whole it was the best language possible 
for the Graeco-Roman world of the first century A.D. 


1 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 137. He adds (p. 111): 
“The work of Alexandria was a permanent education to the whole Greek- 
speaking world; and we know that in due time Pergamum began to do similar 
work.’’ 

2 Prol., p. 6. See also Breed, Prep. of the World for Chr., 1904, ch. IX, 
The Hellenizing of the Nations, and ch. XI, The Unification of the World. 
Jannaris (op. cit., p. 8) indeed puts the LX X, N. T. and many pap. into “the 
Levantine group” of the literary language, but this is a wrong assignment 
for both the LXX and the N. T. 


CHAPTER IV 
THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 


I. The New Testament Chiefly in the Vernacular Kowy. Ob- 
serve “chiefly,” for not quite all the N. T. is wholly in the ver- 
nacular xow? as will be shown.t But the new point, now obvious 
to every one, is just this, that the N. T. is in the normal xow7 of 
the period. That is what one would have looked for, when you 
come to think of it. And yet that is a recent discovery, for the 
Purists held that the N. T. was in pure Attic, while the Hebraists 
explained every peculiarity as a Hebraism. The Purists felt that 
revelation could only come in the “best’’ Greek, and hence it had 
to be in the Attic. This, as we now know, could only have been 
true if the N. T. writers had been Atticistic and artificial stylists. 
So the Hebraists got the better of the argument and then overdid 
it. The most popular language in the N. T. is found in the 
Synoptic Gospels. Even Luke preserves the words of Jesus in 
colloquial form. The Epistle of James and the Johannine writings 
reflect the vernacular style very distinctly. We see this also in 
the Epistles of Peter (Second Peter is very colloquial) and Jude. 
The colloquial tone is less manifest in Acts, some of Paul’s Epistles 
and Hebrews. Cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 63f. 
Wellhausen (Hinl., p. 9) stresses the fact that in the Gospels the 
Greek spoken by the people makes its entry into literature.’ 

(a) Nota BrBiicaAL GREEK. As late as 1893 Viteau® says: “Le 
grec du N. T. est une variété du grec hébraisant.”’ Again: “C’est 
par le grec des LX X qu’il faudrait expliquer, le plus souvent, le 
grec du N. T.’’4 Viteau is aware of the inscriptions and the pa- 
pyri and even says: “The Greek of the N. T. must be compared 
continually with the post-classical Greek in its various branches: 
with the Greek of the profane writers, the Greek of the inscrip- 


1 Cf. Deissmann, Light, pp. 55, 69. 
2 Cf. Moulton, N. T. Gk. (Camb. Bibl. Ess., pp. 488 ff.) who notes a special 
deficiency in Gk. culture in Mark’s Gospel and the Apocalypse. 
8 Etude sur le Grec du N. T., Le Verbe, p. liv. 4clbs Daly. 
76 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 77 


tions of the Alexandrian and Greco-Roman periods, the He- 
braizing Greek, finally the Christian Greek.”! But he labours 
under Hatch’s false idea of a distinct biblical Greek of which the 
N. T. is a variety; both of these ideas are erroneous. There is no 
distinct biblical Greek, and the N. T. is not a variety of the LXX 
Greek. Jowett? over forty years ago said: “There seem to be 
reasons for doubting whether any considerable light can be 
thrown on the N. T. from inquiry into language.”’ That proph- 
ecy is now almost amusing in the light of modern research. 
Simcox® admitted that “the half-Hebraized Greek of the N. T. is 
neither a very elegant nor a very expressive language,” but he 
found consolation in the idea that “it is a many-sided language, 
an eminently translatable language.’’ Dr. Hatch‘ felt a reaction 
against the modern Atticistic attitude toward the N. T. language: 
“In almost every lexicon, grammar and commentary the words 
and idioms of the N. T. are explained, not indeed exclusively, but 
chiefly, by a reference to the words and idioms of Attic historians 
and philosophers.” In this protest he was partly right, but he 
went too far when he insisted that® “biblical Greek is thus a 
language which stands by itself. What we have to find in study- 
ing it is what meaning certain Greek words conveyed to a Semitic 
mind.” 

Dr. Hatch’s error arose from his failure to apply the Greek in- 
fluence in Palestine to the language of Christianity as he had done 
to Christian study. Judea was not an oasis in the desert, but was 
merged into the Greco-Roman world. Rothe® had spoken “of a 
language of the Holy Ghost. For in the Bible it is evident that 
the Holy Spirit has been at work, moulding for itself a distinc- 
tively religious mode of expression out of the language of the 
country.’ Cremer,’ in quoting the above, says: “We have a very 
clear and striking proof of this in N. T. Greek.” Winer® had in- 
deed seen that “the grammatical character of the N. T. language 
has a very slight Hebrew colouring,” but exactly how slight he 
could not tell. Winer felt that N. T. Greek was “a species of a 
species,” “a variety of later Greek,’”’ in a word, a sort of dialect. 
In this he was wrong, but his notion (op. cit., p. 3) that a gram- 
mar of the N. T. should thus presuppose a grammar of the later 


1 Th., p. lii. 4 Hss. in Bibl. Gk., 1889, p. 2. 
2 Ess. and Rev., p. 477. Jil love sene BE 
3 Lang. of the N. T., 1890, p. 20. 6 Dogmatik, 1863, p. 238. 


7 Biblico-Theol. Lex. of N. T. Gk., 1892, p. iv. 
8 W.-M., 1877, p. 38. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 28. 


* 


78 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Greek or xow7 is quite right, only we have no such grammar even 
yet. Winer made little use of the papyri and inscriptions (p. 21 
ft. n.). We still sigh for a grammar of the xown, though Thumb 
has related the xow7 to the Greek language as a whole. Kennedy! 
contended that there was “some general characteristic’? about 
the LXX and N. T. books, which distinctly marked them off from 
the other Greek books; but “‘they are both children of the same 
parent, namely, the colloquial Greek of the time. This is the secret 
of their striking resemblance.” Even in the Hastings’ Dictionary 
Thayer?.contends for the name “ Hellenistic Greek” as the proper 
term for N. T. Greek. That is better than “biblical” or “Jew- 
ish”? Greek, etc. But in simple truth we had better just. call it 
N. T. Greek, or the Greek of the N. T., and let it go at that. It is 
the Greek of a group of books on a common theme, as we would 
speak of the Greek of the Attic orators, the Platonic Greek, etc. 
It is not a peculiar type of Greek except so far as that is due to 
the historical conditions, the message of Christianity, and the 
peculiarities of the writers. Deissmann,* however, is the man 
who has proven from the papyri and inscriptions that the N. T. 
Greek is not a separate variety of the Greek language. He denies 
that the N. T. is like the LX X Greek, which was “a written Sem- 
itic-Greek which no one ever spoke, far less used for literary: pur- 
poses, either before or after.”’4 Blass® at first stood out against 
this view and held that “the N. T. books form a special group — 
one to be primarily explained by study,” but in his Grammar of 
N. T. Greek he changed his mind and admitted that “a grammar 
of the popular language of that period written on the basis of all 
these various authorities and remains’ was better than limiting 
oneself “to the language of the N. T.”® So Moulton’ concludes: 
“The disappearance of that word ‘Hebraic’ from its prominent 
place in our delineation of N. T. language marks a change in our 
conceptions of the subject nothing less than revolutionary.”? The 
new knowledge of the «ow has buried forever the old controversy 
between Purists and Hebraists.2 The men who wrote the N. T. 


1 Sour. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 146. 

2 Art. Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B., 1900. 

3 B.S., 1901; Hell. Griech., Hauck’s Realencye. ete. 

BORD eure § Gr ofN. DaGhetnes: 

5 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1895, p. 487. Me Proleenr i: 

8 Thumb, Griech. Spr. etc., p. 120. It lasted “solange die biblische Gri- 
citit als etwas isoliertes betrachtet wurde.’”’ Thumb attacks the idea of a 
N. T. dialect or a peculiar biblical variety of the cow, pp. 162-201. For his- 
tory of the Purist controversy see W.-Th. § 1, W.-Sch. § 2. 


U 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 79 


were not aloof from the life of their time. “It embodied the 
lofty conceptions of the Hebrew and Christian faith in a language 
which brought them home to men’s business and bosoms.’’! 
Wackernagel understates the matter: “As little as the LX X does 
the N. T. need to be isolated linguistically.’ ? 

(b) Proor THAT N. T. GREEK IS IN THE VERNACULAR Kowv7. The 
proof is now at hand. We have it in the numerous contemporary 
Greek inscriptions already published and in the ever-increasing 
volumes of papyri, many of which are also contemporary. As 
early as 1887 a start had already been made in using the inscrip- 
tions to explain the N. T. by E. L. Hicks. He was followed by 
W. M. Ramsay,* but it is Deissmann who has given us most of 
the proof that we now possess, and he has been ably seconded by 
J. Hope Moulton. Deissmann® indeed insists: “If we are ever in 
this matter to reach certainty at all, then it is the inscriptions ~ 
and the papyri which will give us the nearest approximation to 
the truth.”” Hear Deissmann® more at length: “Until the papyri 
were discovered there were practically no other contemporary 
documents to illustrate that phase of the Greek language which 
comes before us in the LX X and N. T. In those writings, broadly, 
what we have, both as regards vocabulary and morphology, and 
not seldom as regards syntax as well, is the Greek of ordinary 
intercourse as spoken in the countries bordering on the Mediter- 
ranean, not the artificial Greek of the rhetoricians and litterateurs, 
strictly bound as it was by technical rules. This language of or- 
dinary life, this cosmopolitan Greek, shows unmistakable traces 
of a process of development that was still going on, and in many 
respects differs from the older dialects as from the classical 


1 Thayer, Hast. D. B., art. Lang. of the N. T., III, p. 366. 

2 Die griech. Spr. (Die Kult. der Gegenw., Tl. I, Abt. 8), p. 309. 

8 Cl. Rev., 1887. 

4 Exp. Times, vol. X, pp. 9 ff. 

5 B. S., p. 81. Deissmann calls attention also to a booklet by Walch, 
Observ. in Matthzeum ex graecis inscr., 1779. So in 1850, Robinson in the 
Pref. to his N. T. Lex. says: “It was, therefore, the spoken language of 
common life, and not that of books, with which they became acquainted”’; 
cf. also the works of Schweizer, Nachmanson, Dittenberger, etc. 

6 Encye. Bibl., art. Papyri. ‘At the time when the ancient Greek culture 
was in conflict with Christianity, the assailants pointed sarcastically at the 
boatman’s idiom of the N. T., while the defenders, glorying in the taunt, 
made this very homeliness their boast. Latin apologists were the first to 
make the hopeless attempt to prove that the literary form of the Bible as a 
whole, and of the N. T. in particular, was artistically perfect.’”’ Deissmann, 
Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59; cf. also Norden, Kunstpr., I, pp. 512 f., 526 f. 


80 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Attic.” As Moulton! puts it, “the Holy Ghost spoke absolutely 
in the language of the people.” 

The evidence that the N. T. Greek is in the vernacular xoww7 is 
partly lexical and partly grammatical, though in the nature of 
the case chiefly lexical. The evidence is constantly growing. See 
Deissmann, Bible Studies, Light from the Ancient Hast; Moulton 
and Milligan’s “Lexical Notes on the Papyri” (The Expositor, 
1908—). We give first some examples of words, previously sup- 
posed to be purely “biblical,’? now shown to be merely popular 
Greek because of their presence in the papyri or inscriptions: 
ayarn, akaTayywoTos, avafaw, avacTaTow, avTiAnuTTWwp, addoyer7s, 
adirapyupos, av0evTéw, Bpoxn, EvavTt, EvdrdvoKW, EvwITLOV, EWLKATAPATOS, 
ériouvaywyn, EevaperTos, E’TpOTWTeW, LEpATEVW, CwaTiCW, KaTaTETACUA, 
KaTayyedels, KaTHYwWp, Kabapifw, KOKKLVos, KUpLaKds, NELTOUPYLKOS, Novela, 
vedguTos, Opetkn, TapaBoXelouar, TEPLTTELA, TANPOPOPEW, TpOTKApPTEpHGLs, 
TPOTKUVYNTNS, WPOTEVXN, WPWTOTOKOS, OLTOMETPLOV, oGuUVaVTLAaUPavopaL, 
giroTpwrevw, dpevararyns, etc. For a lively discussion of these 
words see Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 198-247; Light, etc., pp. 
69-107). The recovery of the inscription on the marble slab that 
warned the gentiles from the fepdv is very impressive. Mrnéeva 
addoyovy eiatropevecOar EvTOs TOU TeEpl TO LEepov TpUPaKTOU Kal TEpLBOXOUV. 
ds 6’ dv AndOH, éavT&e airios eotar dia TO EEaxoNovdety Gavatov. The 
words above are no longer biblical araé Xeyoueva. But this is 
not all. Many words which were thought to have a peculiar 
meaning in the LXX or the N. T. have been found in that very 
sense in the inscriptions or papyri, such as déeddods in the sense of 
‘common brotherhood,’ adernots, dueravontos, d4udotepor = Tavres, ava- 
oTpepoual, avapepw, avTidnuyis, aTEXW, ATOKPLA, ATOTATCGOMAL, ApETH, 
apkeros, ’Aouapxns, Gonuos, aomdfouar, atoros, BacTavw, BeBaiwars, 
Biafouar, Bovropar, yernua, yoyyifw, Ypaumatels, ypadw, derrvew, déov 
éoTl, dvaBardrAw, diaceiw, dikalos, dLoTL = OTL, dtxoTOMeW, JoKipios, dOKt- 
Mos, OG@pa, éavy = av, ef pny, eldos, els, ExTevera, ExTOs, ExTLVATOW, &, 
Evedpevw, EvoXos, EVTUYXaVW, ErlPahwy, EmlioKoTOS, EpwTdw, EvoXNUWY, 
ETLOVOLOS, EVXAPLOTEW, EWS, HYoUuaL, WALKLa, Hnovxla, Oeuediov, Dewpew, 
tdvos, tAkaoTHpiov, tAews, taoTopéw, Kabapifw, Kafapos, Kavos, KaxoTrabe.a, 
KaTa, KaTaKplua, KaTavTaw, KAivn, KoAaCouaL, KoAAAW, KoAadifw, KOTOS, 
Kopac.ov, KTdomaL, KUpLos, AiKUaw, AL, ANOVOMAL, MEvodYyE, WapTUpODUAL, 
MerCOTEpos, pLKpOs, poyAaNos, povn, vas, VvEeKpol, v7, Vouds, OlKla, Opuo- 
oyéw, Gvoua, OYwriov, Tapa, Tapadercos, wapabnkyn, TapakiTTwW, Tapel- 
opepw, mapeTidnuos, Tapeois, TapoiKos, Taposlvouat, waTpotapacoros, 
TEPLOTAW, TWEPLTEMVYW, THXUS, TAEOVEKTEW, TAOS, wANpoPopew, TpAayua, 

Prol.,“p. 5. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH S81 


TpaxTwp, mpecBUTepos, mpdbecis, TpocéXwW, TpoTKAapTEPeW, TpPOPHTNS, 
campos, okUANW, oKOAOW, Tuapaydwwos, covdapLov, oTEKOVAATWP, TTAOLS, 
oTpatevoual, oppayifw, odupis, cvyyevns, cuuPovALov, auveldnots, ouv- 
EXW, TUVEVOOKEW, TUVEVWXEOMAL, TUViOTHUL, THUA, TWTHP, THONTLS, TOTOS, 
vids, vids Oeod, viobecia, brofvy.ov, brordd.ov, brocTacis, Pacis, Pep, 
dbavw, hiros, PrroaTopyia, PrroTipeéouar, xapayya, xapis TH OG, xpeia, 
xpovos, Wwuiov, Yuxnv cBoa. This seems like a very long list, but 
it will do more than pages of argument to convince the reader 
that the vocabulary of the N. T. is practically the same as that of 
the vernacular xow7 in the Roman Empire in the first century 
A.D.! This is not a complete list, for new words will be added 
from time to time, and all that are known are not here included. 
Besides neither Deissmann nor Moulton has put together such 
a single list of words, and Kenyon’s in Hastings’ D. B. (Papyri) 
is very incomplete. After compiling this list of words I turned to 
the list in the Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible by Thayer (art. 
“Language of the N. T.’’) where are found some thirty new words 
common to the N. T. and the vernacular xo.wwy, words not com- 
mon in the classic Greek. Thayer’s list is entirely different save 
a half-dozen. In his list are comprised such interesting words as 
adAnyopew, avTopladpew, amoKapadokia, derordaimovia, eyxplw, evyyifo, 
émixopyn yew, evdokew, evKarpew, OprauBebw, etc. This list can be 
largely increased also by the comparison between words that are 
common to the N. T. and the comic poets (Aristophanes, Menan- 
der, etc.) who used the language of the people. See Kennedy’s 
lists in Sources of N. T. Greek (ch. VI). Many of these, as Ken- 
nedy shows, are theological terms, like aic@yrnpiov, appaBav, Bat- 
Titw, evxapioTia, Kupia, uvoTnp.ov, diradeAdia. The Christians found 
in common use in the Roman Empire terms like a6e\¢6s, errdaveca, 
éripavns, Kiptos, NEeLTOUPYla, Tapovoia, TpEecBULTEPOs, TPOYpPAadw, TwTP, 
owrnpia, vids Oeod. They took these words with the new popular 
connotation and gave them “the deeper and more spiritual 


1 Tt is not meant, of course, that the bulk of the N. T. words are new as 
compared with the old Gk. Far from it. Of the 4829 words in the N. T. 
(not including proper names) 3933 belong to older classic language (literary 
and vernac.) while 996 are late or foreign words. See Jacquier, Hist. des Livres 
du N. T., tome 1°, 1906, p. 25. Thayer’s Lex. claimed 767 N. T. words, 
but Thayer considered 89 as doubtful and 76 as late. Kennedy (Sour. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 62) found about 550 “biblical” words. But now Deissmann 
admits only about 50, or one per cent. of the 5000 words in the N. T. (Light, 
etc., p. 72f.). Findlay (Exp. Gk. T., 1 Cor., p. 748) gives 5594 Greek 
words in the N. T. (whole number), while Viteau (Syntaxe des Prop., p. xxx) 
gives 5420. 


82 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


sense with which the N. T. writings have made us familiar” 
(Milligan, Greek Papyri, p. xxx). They could even find 70d 
yeyadou Bed evepyérouv kal cwripos (GH 15, ii/B.c.). Cf. Tit. 2:13; 
2 Pet. 1:1.! The papyri often show us how we have misunder- 
stood a word. So dzoypady (Lu. 2:2) is not “taxing,” but “en- 
rolling” for the census (very common in the papyri). But this 
is not all, for the modern Greek vernacular will also augment the 
list of N. T. words known to belong to the oral speech. When 
this much is done, we are ready to admit the vernacular character 
of all the words not known to be otherwise. The N. T. Greek is 
like the cow? also in using many compounded (“sesquipedalian’’) 
words like dvexéinynros, dve~epatyntos, addoTpLeTioxoros, brepevtvy- 
xavw, etc. There is also the same frequency of diminutives, some 
of which have lost that significance, as mAovdpiov, wTapiov, wriov, ete. 
The new meanings to old words are well illustrated in the list 
from the papyri, to which may be added dvadtw, évrporn, fworoew, 
cxoAn, xopTatvw, ete. 

As to the forms we need say less, but the evidence is to the same 
effect. The papyri show examples of ’AxtAa (and —-ov) for geni- 
tive, duvav and dual, éyevaunv, édaBa, Edreyas, EXewWa, AAIa, Hvoliyny, 
npmaynv, néa, dedwxes, oldes, Eypaves, TOG, orelpns; the imperative 
has only the long forms —rwoav, —cOwaav, etc. The various dialects 
are represented in the forms retained in the N. T., as the Attic in 
Bobder, Sddacr, Huedre, etc.; the Ionic in wayailpys, yivouat, ywwoKw, 
etc.; the Doric in adéwyta, jrw, etc.; the Aolic in amoxrevvw, 3d 
plural in —cay, etc.; the Northwest Greek in accusative plural in 
—es, perfect in —ay (3d plural), confusion of —aw and —ew verbs, etce.; 
the Arcadian-Cyprian group in accusative singular in —av, adéwv- 
tau (also). It is curious that Thayer in Hastings’ D. B., follows 
Winer’s error in giving é6idocay as an example of a form like e/yocay, 
for the present stem is 6do—-, and cay is merely the usual ww ending. 
See Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 4-20. 

Among the syntactical peculiarities of N. T. Greek which are 
less numerous, as in the xown, the following are worthy of note 
and are found in the xowy: the non-final use of iva; the frequent 
use of the personal pronoun; the decreased use of the possessive 
pronouns; disuse of the optative; increased use of é71; disuse of 
the future participle; use of participle with eiyui; article with the 
infinitive (especially with é and eis); ades and Bdére with sub- 
junctive without conjunction; the absence of the dual; use of 
dpedov as Conjunction; frequency of éav; d7av, etc., with indicative; 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 84; Wendland, Hell.-rém. Kult., p. 100. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 83 


interchange of ééy and av; wy increasing upon od; decreased use of 
indirect discourse; eis=71s; disuse of some interrogative particles; 
use of iév0s aS possessive pronoun; tapa and brép with compara- 
tives; disappearance of the superlative; frequency of prepositions; 
vivid use of present tense (and perfect); laxer use of particles; 
growth of the passive over the middle, ete. 

Various phrases are common both to the N. T. and to the 
papyri, like deftav didwur, év rots = ‘in house of,’ ard 70d viv, eis 7d 
dinverés, KaOws yéypamrat, ék cuudwvov, él 76 abro, Kat’ bvap, KaTa TO 
Gos, ox 6 TUXwY, Tapexouar euauTov, TO a’TO dpovetv. “There is 
placed before us in the N. T. neither a specific speech-form nor 
a barbaric Jewish-Greek, but a natural phase of the Hellenistic 
speech-development.”! Deissmann (Hap. Times, 1906, p. 63) 
properly holds the N. T. to be the Book of Humanity because 
it “came from the unexhausted forces below, and not from the 
feeble, resigned culture of a worn-out upper class.’”’. Swete (O. T. 
in Gk., pp. 295 ff.) shows how the LXX is influenced by the 
vernacular xown. As early as 1843 B. Hase (Wellhausen, Einl., 
p. 14) explained the LXX as “Volkssprache.” Thackeray (Gram- 
mar, pp. 22 ff.) gives a good summary of “the cow? basis of LXX 
Greek.” 

II. Literary Elements in the New Testament Greek. It is true 
then, as Blass? sums it up, that “the language employed in 
the N. T. is, on the whole, such as was spoken in the lower circles 
of society, not such as was written in works of literature.”’ The 
N. T. writers were not Atticists with the artificial straining after 
the antique Attic idiom. But one must not imagine that they 
were mere purveyors of slang and vulgarisms. Freudenthal* 
speaks of the Hellenistic Jews as “one of those societies without 
a mother-tongue which have never attained to any true excel- 
lence in literature.”’ And even Mahaffy* speaks of the Greek 
learned by the Jews as “the new and artificial idiom of the trad- 
ing classes”? which had neither “traditions nor literature nor 
those precious associations which give depth and poetry to 
words.” That is a curious mistake, for it was the Atticistic re- 
vival that was artificial. The xow7n had all the memories of a 


1 Thumb, Die sprachgesch. Stell. des bibl. Griech., Theol. Runds., 1902, 
p. 93. Cf. also Arnaud, Essai sur le caractére de la langue grecque du N. T., 
1899. Viteau (Et. sur le Grec du N. T., 2 vols., 1893, 1896) insists on the dis- 
tinction between the lit. and the vernac. elements in the N. T. 

4 Gr, of the N#T..Gk;, p. 1. 3 Hell. Stud., 1875. 

4 Gk. Life and Thought, 1896, p. 530. 


84 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


people’s life. Instance Robert Burns in Scotland. It is to be 
said for Mahaffy, however, that he changed his mind, for he later! 
wrote: “They write a dialect simple and rude in comparison with 
Attic Greek; they use forms which shock the purists who examine 
for Cambridge scholarships. But did any men ever tell a great 
story with more simplicity, with more directness, with more 
power? ... Believe me against all the pedants of the world, the 
dialect that tells such a story is no poor language, but the out- 
‘come of a great and a fruitful education.” The N. T. uses the 
language of the people, but with a dignity, restraint and pathos 
far beyond the trivial nonentities in much of the papyri remains. 
All the N. T. Greek is not so vernacular as parts of the LX X.? 
The papyri often show the literary xowy and all grades of varia- 
tion, while the lengthy and official inscriptions’ “often approx- 
imate in style to the literary language.” Long before many 
words are used in literature they belong to the diction of polite 
speech.4 In a word, the N. T. Greek “occupies apparently an in- 
“termediate position between the vulgarisms of the populace and 
the studied style of the litterateurs of the period. It affords a 
striking illustration of the divine policy of putting honour on 
what man calls ‘common.’’’> It would indeed have been strange 
if men like Paul, Luke and the author of Hebrews had shown no 
literary affinities at all. Prof. J. C. Robertson (The Classical 
Weekly, March 9, 1912, p. 189) in an article entitled “Reasons 
for Teaching the Greek N. T. in Colleges” says: “Take the par- 
able of the Prodigal Son, for instance. In literary excellence this 
piece of narrative is unsurpassed. Nothing more simple, more 
direct, more forceful can be adduced from among the famous 
passages of classical Greek literature. It is a moving tragedy of 


1 Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., 1905, p. 114f. Cf. Schiirer, Jew. Peo. 
in Time of Jes. Ch., div. II, vol. I, pp. 11 ff., Hellen. in the Non-Jew. Regions, 
Hellen. in the Jew. Regions. He shows how Gk. and Lat. words were common 
in the Aram. and how thoroughly Gk. the Jews of the Dispersion were. On 
this point see Schiirer, Diaspora, in ext. vol. of Hast. D. B. “Greek was the 
mother-tongue of the Jews”’ all over the gentile world. Susemihl holds that 
in Alexandria the Jews gave ‘“‘quite a considerable Hebraic tinge” to the 
xown, Gesch. der griech. Lit., Bd. II, 1892, p. 602. An excellent discussion 
of the literary elements in the Gk. N. T. is to be found in Heinrici’s Der lit. 
Charakter der neutest. Schr. (1908). He shows also the differences between 
Palestinian and Alexandrian Judaism. 

2 Cf. Geldart, Mod. Gk. in its Rela. to Anc. Gk., 1870, p. 180. Cf. also 
Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 65; Friinkel, Altert. von Perg., 1890, p. xvii. 

3 Deissmann, B.8., p. 180. 4" Kennedy, Sour. of N.TaGk ape ee 

5 Thayer, art. Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B., III, 36». 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 85 
reconciliation. Yet its literary excellence is not accidental. The 
elements of that excellence can be analyzed.” In an age of un- 
usual culture one would look for some touch with that culture. 
“T contend, therefore, that the peculiar modernness, the high in- 
tellectual standard of Christianity as we find it in the N. T., is 
caused by its contact with Greek culture.”’! In his helpful article 
on N. T. Times Buhl? underrates, as Schiirer* does, the amount 
of Greek known in Palestine. It is to be remembered also that 
great diversity of culture existed among the writers of the N. T. 
Besides, the educated men used much the same vernacular all 
over the Roman world and a grade of speech that approached 
the literary standard as in English to-day. One is not to stress 
Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 2 : 1—4 into a denial that he could use 
the literary style. It is rather a rejection of the bombastic rhet- 
oric that the Corinthians liked and the rhetorical art that was so 
common from Thucydides to Chrysostom.® It is with this com- 
parison in mind that Origen (c. Celsus, vil, 59 f.) speaks of Paul’s 
literary inferiority. It is largely a matter of standpoint. Deiss- 
mann® has done a good service in accenting the difference between 
letters and epistles. Personal letters not for the public eye are, 
of course, in the vernacular. Cicero’s Letters are epistles written 
with an eye on posterity. “In letters one does not look for trea- 
tises, still less for treatises in rigid uniformity and proportion of 
parts.”"” There may be several kinds of letters (private, family, 
pastoral or congregational, etc.). But when a letter is published 
consciously as literature, like Horace’s Ars Poetica, for instance, 
it becomes a literary letter or epistle. Epistles may be either 
genuine or unauthentic. The unauthentic may be either merely 


1 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen., p. 139. 2 Ext; vol. of Hast. D. B. 

3 Jew. Peo. in Time of Jes. Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 47f. He admits a wide 
diffusion of a little knowledge of and easy use of Gk. among the educated 
classes in Palestine. 

4 Cf. Norden, Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. I], pp. 482 ff., for discussion of literary 
elements in N. T. Gk. Deissmann makes ‘‘a protest against overestimating 
the literary evidence” (Theol. Runds., 1902, pp. 66 ff.; Exp. Times, 1906, p. 9) 
and points out how Norden has missed it in contrasting Paul and that ancient 
world, merely the contrast between non-literary prose and artistic lit. prose. 

5 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 15. 

6 B.S., pp. 16 ff. However, one must not think that the N. T. Epistles al- 
ways fall wholly in one or the other category. Ramsay calls attention to the 
“new category” in the new conditions, viz., a general letter to a congregation 
(Let. to the Seven Chur., p. 24). 

7 Ib., p. 11. See also Walter Lock, The Epistles, pp. 114 ff., in The Bible 
and Chr, Life, 1905, 


86 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pseudonymous or real forgeries. If we examine the N. T. Letters 
or Epistles in the light of this distinction, we shall see that Phile- 
mon is a personal letter. The same is true of the Pastoral Epistles; 
but Ephesians is more like an epistle from its general nature. 
The Thessalonian, Corinthian, Galatian, Colossian, Philippian 
writings are all congregational and doctrinal letters. Romans 
partakes of the nature of a letter and an epistle. Jacquier, how- 
ever (Histoire des Livres du N. T., 1906, tome 1°, p. 66), re- 
marks that “The Pauline Epistles are often more discourse than 
letter.’ It will thus be seen that I do not agree with Deissmann 
(Bible Studies, p. 3 f.) in calling all the Pauline writings “letters”’ 
as opposed to “epistles.” Milligan (Greek Papyrt, p. xxxi) like- 
wise protests against the sweeping statement of Deissmann. 
Deissmann gives a great variety of interesting letters from the 
papyri in his Light from the Ancient Hast, and argues here (pp. 
224-234) with passion that even Romans is just “a long let- 
ter.’ “TI have no hesitation in maintaining the thesis that all 
the letters of Paul are real, non-literary letters.’”’ Hebrews is 
more like an epistle, as are James, 1 John, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, 
while 2 and 3 John are again letters. The Letters to the Seven 
Churches again are epistles. This is a useful distinction and 
shows that the N. T. writers knew how to use one of the favourite 
literary methods of the Alexandrian period. Dr. Lock concludes: 
“Letters have more of historic and literary interest, epistles more 
of central teaching and practical guidance.”! That Paul could 
use the more literary style is apparent from the address on Mars 
Hill, the speech before Agrippa,? and Ephesians and Romans. 
Paul quotes Aratus, Menander and Epimenides and may have 
been acquainted with other Greek authors. He seems also to 
have understood Stoic philosophy. We cannot tell how extensive 
his literary training was. But he had a real Hellenic feeling and 
outlook. The introduction to Luke’s Gospel and the Acts show 
real literary skill. The Epistle to the Hebrews has oratorical flow 
and power with traces of Alexandrian culture. Viteau® reminds 


1 Bible and Chr. Life, p. 117. For the history and literature of ancient 
letters and epistles see Deissmann, B. 8.; Susemihl, Gesch. der griech. Lit.; 
Overbeck, Uber die Anf. der patrist. Lit. The oldest known Gk. letter was 
written on a lead tablet and belongs to the iv/B.c. and comes from near 
Athens. It was discovered by Prof. Winsch of Giessen. See art. by Dr. 
Wilhelm of Athens in Jahresh. des dsterreich. archiiol. Inst. (1904, vii, pp. 
94 ff.). 

4 Blass;Gr of Nate Gk. nap: 3 Le Verbe: Synt. des Prop., p. xxx. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 87 


us that about 3000 of the 5420 words in the Greek N. T. are 
found in ancient Attic writers, while the syntax in general “obeys 
the ordinary laws of Greek grammar.’’?! These and other N. T. 
writers, as James, occasionally use classic forms like tcouer, tore, 
icact, éEnecav, etc. Konig? in his discussion of the Style of Scrip- 
ture finds ample illustration in the N. T. of the various literary 
linguistic devices, though in varying degree. See ‘Figures of 
Speech” (ch. XXII). But the literary element in the N. T. is sub- 
ordinate to the practical and is never artificial nor strained. We 
have the language of spirit and life. The difference between the 
old point of view and the new is well illustrated by Hort’s remark 
(Notes on Orthography, p. 152 f.) when he speaks of “the popular 
Greek in which the N. T. is to a certain extent written.’ He con- 
ceives of it as literary xowy with some popular elements. The 
new and the true view is that the N. T. is written in the popular 
xown With some literary elements, especially in Luke, Paul, He- 
brews and James. 

Josephus is interesting as a background to the N. T. He wrote 
his War in Aramaic and secured the help of Greek writers to’ 
translate it, but the Antiquities was composed in Greek, probably 
with the aid of similar collaborateurs, for parts of Books XVII- 
XIX copy the style of Thucydides and are really Atticistic.? It 
is interesting to take a portion of 1 Maccabees as we have it 
translated from the Hebrew original and compare it with the cor- 
responding portion of Josephus. The Greek of 1 Mace. is, like 
the LXX, translation Greek and intensely Hebraistic, while Jo- 
sephus smooths out all the Hebraistic wrinkles and shifts it into 
the rolling periods of Thucydides. The N. T. has slight affinities 
in vocabulary, besides Josephus, with Philo, Plutarch, Polybius, 
Strabo, Diodorus and a few other writers in the literary xow7.* 

Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 64) holds that 
Paul’s “Greek never becomes literary.”? “It is never disciplined, 
say, by the canon of the Atticists, never tuned to the Asian rhythm: 


1 W.-M., p. 37. Kennedy indeed (Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 134) says that 
80 per cent. of the N. T. words date from before 322 B.c. 

2+Hast. D. B., ext. vol. 

3 See Thackeray, art. Josephus in ext. vol. of Hast. D. B.; ef. also Schmidt, 
De Flavii Jos. Eloc., 1898. Thumb (Die griech. Spr., p. 125) and Moulton 
(Prol., p. 233) accent the fact that Josephus has only one Hebraism, zpooti- 
Gecba: With infinitive =9 V0. Cf. also Raab, De FI. Jos. Eloc. Quest., 1890. 

4 Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., pp. 50 ff. Hoole, The Class. Elem. in the 
N. T., 1888, gives an interesting list of Gk. and Rom. proper names that 
occur in the N. T. 


88 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 
it remains non-literary.”” But has not Deissmann given a too 
special sense to “literary”? If 1 Cor.13 and 15, Ro. 8 and 
Eph. 3 do not rise to literary flavour and nobility of thought and 
expression, I confess my ignorance of what literature-is. Har- 
nack (Das hohe Lied des Apostels Paulus von der Liebe und seine 
religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung, 1911) speaks of the rhythm, the 
poetic form, the real oratory, the literary grace of 1 Cor. 13. The 
best literature is not artificial nor pedantic like the work of the 
Atticists and Asian stylists. That is a caricature of literature. 
We must not forget that Paul was a man of culture as well as a 
man of the people. Deissmann (Light, p. 64 f.) does admit the 
literary quality of Hebrews. This epistle is more ornate as Origen 
Saw (Hus. el Ccla Hist eVects 

III. The Semitic Influence. This is still the subject of keen 
controversy, though not in the same way that the Purists and the 
Hebraists debated it. Now the point is whether the N. T. Greek 
“is wholly in the xowy or whether there is an appreciable Semitic 
colouring in addition. There is something to be said on both 
‘sides of the question. 

(a) Tue TRADITION. See 1, (a), for proof of the error of this posi- 
tion. It is certain that the idea of a special Hebraic Greek for the 
N. T. is gone. Schaff! said that the Greek spoken by the Grecian 
Jews “assumed a strongly Hebraizing character,’ and the N. T. 
Greek shared in this “sacred and Hebraizing character.’ Ac- 
cording to Hatch? “the great majority of N. T. words... ex- 
press in their biblical use the conceptions of a Semitic race.” 
Viteau? calls it “Hebraizing Greek,’ while Simcox‘ speaks of “‘the 
half-Hebraized Greek of the N. T.’’ Reuss® calls it “the Jewish- 
Greek idiom.” Hadley*® considered the “Hellenistic dialect, 
largely intermixed with Semitic idioms.’’? Westcott’? spoke of 
“the Hebraic style more or less pervading the whole N. T.”’ But 
Westcott’ admitted that “a philosophical view of the N. T. lan- 
guage as a whole is yet to be desired,” as Hatch® lamented that 
the N. T. Greek “has not yet attracted the attention of any con- 
siderable scholar.”” That cannot now be said after the work of 
Blass, Deissmann, Moulton, Radermacher and others, and was an 
overstatement then. And yet the old view of “biblical Greek’ 


1 Comp. to the Gk. Test., 1885, pp. 22, 25. 


2 Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 34. 6 Lang. of the N. T., Smith’s B. D. 
8 Synt. des Prop., p. xxxvi. VirreeN. T., Smith’s B: D: 
4 Lang. of the N. T., p. 20. 8 Tb. 


5 Hist. of the N. T., 1885, p. 36. 9 Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 1. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 89 


for both N. T. and LXX is still championed by Conybeare and 
Stock in their grammar of the Septuagint (Selections from the 
Sept., 1905, p. 22 f.). They insist, against Deissmann, on the 
“linguistic unity” of the LX X and of the N. T. as opposed to the 
vernacular xown. They admit, of course, that the LXX is far more 
Hebraic than the N. T. This sturdy contention for the old view 
is interesting, to say the least. Wellhausen (Hinl. in die drei ersten 
Evangelien) is rather disposed to accent the “Semiticisms” (Ara- 
maisms) in the Synoptic Gospels in contrast with the Attic Greek. 
Nobody now claims the N. T. Greek to be Attic in purity. “No 
one denies the existence of Semiticisms; opinions are only divided 
with reference to the relative proportion of these Semiticisms”’ 
(Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 65). The old view 
is dead beyond recall. 

(b) THE VirEw OF DEISSMANN AND Mouton. Over against the 
old conception stands out in sharp outline the view of Deissmann! 
who says: “The linguistic unity of the Greek Bible appears only 
against the background of classical, not of contemporary ‘pro- 
fane’ Greek.” Note the word “only.” -Once more?: “The few 
Hebraizing expressions in those parts of the N. T. which were in 
Greek from the first are but an accidens which does not essentially 
alter the fundamental character of its language.’’? The portions 
of the Synoptic Gospels which were either in Aramaic or made 
use of Aramaic originals he considers on a par with the LXX. 
They use translation Greek. No one “ever really spoke as he 
may have translated the Logia-collection, blessed — and cramped 
—as he was by the timid consciousness of being permitted to 
convey the sacred words of the Son of God to the Greeks.’’’ 
Thumb‘ accepts the view of Deissmann and admits “Hebraisms 
in a few cases” only and then principally the meaning of words. 
In 1879 Guillemard® disclaimed any idea of being able to give 
“an exhaustive exhibition of all the Hebraisms,”’ but he “put for- 
ward only a few specimens”! Moulton® admits practically no 
Hebraisms nor Aramaisms outside of “translation Greek.” “Be- 
tween these two extremes the N. T. writers lie; and of them all 


1B. S., 1901, p. 66. 2b mane l 6c. 

3 Tb., p. 76. “What would we give if we could recover but one papyrus 
book with a few leaves containing genuine Aramaic sayings of Jesus! For 
those few leaves we would, I think, part willingly with the theological out- 
put of a whole century” (Deissmann, Light, p. 57). 

4 Griech. Spr. etc., p. 121. 

5 Hebraisms in the Gk. Test., Pref. Ser col- 50710. 


90 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


we may assert with some confidence that, where translation is 
not involved, we shall find hardly any Greek expression used 
which would sound strangely to speakers of the xow7n in Gentile 
lands.’ Once more!: “What we can assert with assurance is that 
the papyri have finally destroyed the figment of a N. T. Greek 
which in any material respect differed from that spoken by ordi- 
nary people in daily life.’”? Moulton? realizes “the danger of go- 
ing too far” in summing up thus the issue of the long strife 
over N. T. Hebraisms. According to Moulton (p. 18) the matter 
is complicated only in Luke, who, though a gentile, used Aramaic 
sources in the opening chapters of the Gospel and Acts. This new 
and revolutionary view as to Semitisms is still challenged by Dal- 
man? who finds many more Aramaisms in the Synoptic Gospels 
than Moulton is willing to admit. Deissmann indeed is not dis- 
posed in his later writings to be dogmatic on the subject. “The 
last. word has not yet been said about the proportion of Semiti- 
cisms’”’ (Hxpositor, Jan., 1908, p. 67). He is undoubtedly right 
in the idea that many so-called Semiticisms are really “interna- 
tional vulgarisms.”’ Schiirer, Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1908, p. 
555, criticizes Deissmann (Licht vom Osten, 1908, p. 35) for run- 
ning the parallel too close between the N. T. and the unliterary 
papyri. It is truer of the LXX than of the N. T. 

The old view cannot stand in the light of the papyri and in- 
scriptions. Both the Purists and the Hebraists were wrong. 
Many words and idioms heretofore claimed as Hebraisms are 
shown to be current in the vernacular xow7. As specimens‘ one 
can mention é&wmov (7322 according to Winer-Liinemann, p. 201, 
and “biblical”? according to Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek, 
p. 90) as found in the papyri; zpeoBirepos in the official sense 
occurs in the papyri of Egypt in combinations like zpecBirepor 
tepets; Epwraw = ‘to beg’ is in the papyri; ets in sense of rp&ros also; 


1y Proly pals: 

2 Ib., p. 18. He quotes approvingly Deissmann’s remark that ‘“‘Semitisms 
which are in common use belong mostly to the technical language of religion’’ 
and they do not alter the scientific description of the language. Moulton 
(Interp., July, 1906, p. 380) says: ‘Suffice it to say that, except so far as the 
N. T. writers are quoting baldly literal translations from the LXX, or making 
equally literal translations from the Aramaic in which the Lord and His 
disciples usually spoke, we have no reason whatever to say that the N. T. 
was composed in a Greek distinguishable from that spoken all over the Roman 
Empire.”’ 

3 Wds. of Jes., 1902. . 

4 See Deissmann (B. 8. and Light) and Moulton (Prol.). 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 9Q1 


mpocevxy can no longer be regarded as a word of Jewish formation 
for a Jewish place of prayer, since it appears in that sense in a 
Ptolemaic inscription in Lower Egypt in the III cent. B.c.; dvoua 
occurs also in the sense of “person’’; expressions like vids davarou 
are found in the papyri; BAerev aro occurs in a papyrus letter; 
eis Svowa iS in inscriptions, ostraca, papyri; dvo dtc is matched in 
the papyri by zpia rpia (this idiom has been traced in Greek for 
2500 years); the instrumental use of & as év waxaipy is common; 
the use of & 76 and the infinitive so common in Luke appears in 
the papyri; and even els amavtnow meets us in the papyri (Tebt. 
Pap. 43, II cent. B.c.). Certainly a full list of the words and 
phrases that can no longer be called Hebraisms would be very 
formidable. Besides, the list grows continually under the re- 
searches of Deissmann, Moulton, Mayser, Thumb, Kilker, Wit- 
kowski, Milligan and other scholars. The presumption is now 
clearly against a Hebraism. The balance of evidence has gone 
over to the other side. But after all one has the conviction that 
the joy of new discovery has to some extent blurred the vision of 
Deissmann and Moulton to the remaining Hebraisms which do 
not indeed make Hebraic Greek or a peculiar dialect. But enough 
remain to be noticeable and appreciable. Some of these may 
vanish, like the rest, before the new knowledge. The LXX, 
though “translation Greek,” was translated into the vernacular of 
Alexandria, and one can but wonder if the LX X did not have some 
slight resultant influence upon the Alexandrian xo.v7 itself. The 
Jews were very numerous in Alexandria. “Moreover, it remains 
to be considered how far the quasi-Semitic colloquialisms of the 
papyri are themselves due to the influence of the large Greek- 
speaking Jewish population of the Delta’ (Swete, The Apocalypse 
of St. John, 1906, p. cxx). Thackeray (Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., 
vol. I, p. 20) uses the small number of Coptic words in the Greek 
papyri against the notion of Hebrew influence on the xowy in 
Egypt. However, Thackeray (p. 27) notes that the papyri so far 
discovered tell us little of the private life of the Jews of Egypt and 
of the Greek used by them specifically. The marshes of the Delta 
were not favourable for the preservation of the papyri. The 
xo. received other foreign influences we know. The Jews of the 
Dispersion spoke the vernacular xowy everywhere, but they read 
the LXX, “a written Semitic Greek which no one ever spoke, far 
less used for literary purposes, either before or after.””! And yet 


1 Deissmann, B. S., p. 67. See also Angus, N. T. Philol., Harv. Theol. 
Rev., July, 1909, p. 453. The LXX, though translation Greek (see above), 


92 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the Hellenistic Jews all over the world could not read continually 
the LX X and not to some extent feel the influence of its peculiar 
style. No one to-day speaks the English of the King James Ver- 
sion, or ever did for that matter, for, though hike Shakespeare, it 
is the pure Anglo-Saxon, yet, unlike Shakespeare, it reproduces 
to a remarkable extent the spirit and language of the Bible. As 
Luther’s German Bible largely made the German language, so the 
King James Version has greatly affected modern English (both 
vernacular and literary). The situation is not the same, but there 
is enough of truth to justify the comparison. There are fewer 
details that preserve the Semitic character, but what does not 
disappear is the Hebrew cast of thought in a writer like John, for 
instance. No papyrus is as much a parallel to John’s Gospel as 
the Book of Job, for instance. Westcott! has true insight when 
he says of N. T. Greek: “It combines the simple directness of He- 
brew thought with the precision of Greek expression. In this way 
the subtle delicacy of Greek expression in some sense interprets 
Hebrew thought.” What is true of John’s Gospel is true also of 
James. The numerous quotations both from the LXX and the 
Hebrew in the N. T. put beyond controversy the constant use of 
the O. T. in Greek on the part of the N. T. writers. Besides, 
with the possible exception of Luke and the author of Hebrews, 
they all knew and used Aramaic as well as Greek. The point is 
that the N. T. writers were open to Semitic influence. How great 
that was must be settled by the facts in the case, not by pre- 
sumptions for or against. Dr. George Milligan (Greek Papyri, 
p. xxix f.) says: “In the matter of language, we have now abun- 
dant proof that the so-called ‘peculiarities’ of biblical Greek are 
due simply to the fact that the writers of the N. T. for the most 
part made use of the ordinary colloquial Greek, the xow7 of their 
day. This is not. to say that we are to disregard altogether the 
influence of ‘translation Greek,’ and the consequent presence of 
undoubted Hebraisms, both in language and grammar. An over- 
tendency to minimize these last is probably the most pertinent 


is in the vern. cow, and thus the N. T. writers had a double point of contact 
with the xowy. Cf. Wackernagel, Theol. Lit., 1908, p. 38; Milligan, Epis. to 
the Th., p. lv. 

1 Exp., 1887, p. 241. Thumb (Griech. Spr. etc., p. 132) denies any influ- 
ence on the development of the Gk. But Thayer (Hast. D. B., Lang. of the 
N. T., III, 40*) is not surprised to find “idioms having a distinctly Hebra- 
istic flavour even in native Greek circles.’ Cf. also Reuss, Hist. of the N. T., 
1884, vol. I, p. 33. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 93 


criticism that can be directed against Dr. J. H. Moulton’s Pro- 
legomena to his Grammar of N. T. Greek.’ So Dr. Swete 
“deprecates the induction which, as it seems to him, is being 
somewhat hastily based upon them (the papyri), that the Greek 
of the N. T. has been but slightly influenced by the familiarity of 
the writers with Hebrew and Aramaic” (Apocalypse of St. John, 
Da cxx): 

Von Soden! sums up the whole matter as follows: “It was 
unavoidable but that the primitive Christian writers often used 
compulsion with the Greek tongue and offended against its 
genius. They wished to bring to expression things which, up 
to that time, were foreign to the Greek spirit and only found ex- 
pression in Semitic languages. And besides, it is only natural 
that the phraseology of the Greek translation of the O. T., to 
which they were habituated from their youth, should uncon- 
sciously flow from their pens, and still more, that when their sub- 
ject-matter brought them into close contact with the O. T. or 
when they translated from the Aramaic dialect of Palestine, their 
Greek should receive a foreign tinge.’ This by no means makes 
a special N. T. dialect or even Jewish-Greek, but it admits a 
real, though slight, Semitic influence even where it is not “trans- 
lation Greek.’’ This position is more nearly in accord with all 
the facts as we now know them. It is pleasing to find Deissmann 
(Expositor, Oct., 1907, ‘‘Philology of the Greek Bible,” p. 292) 
rather reacting a bit from the first extreme position. He accents 
here strongly the influence of the LXX on the N. T. “It is one 
of the most painful deficiencies of biblical study at the present 
day that the reading of the LX X has been pushed into the back- 
ground, while its exegesis has been scarcely even begun.” (Jb., 
p. 293): “A single hour lovingly devoted to the text of the Sep- 
tuagint will further our exegetical knowledge of the Pauline 
Epistles more than a whole day spent over a commentary.” (Jb., 
p. 294): “This restoration of the Greek Bible to its own epoch is 
really the distinctive feature of the work of modern scholarship.” 
That hits the point. We cordially agree with his remark (Exposi- 
tor, Nov., 1907, p. 435) that the Semiticisms of the Greek Bible 
_ do not place the N. T. outside of the scope of Greek philology, 
but are merely its birth-marks. In the Dec. (1907) Expositor 
(p. 520) Deissmann comments feelingly on the fact that the LXX 
“has served the Christian Church of Anatolia in unbroken con- 
tinuity down to the present day.” 

1 Karly Chr. Lit., 1906, p. 11 f. 


94 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) Lirrtn Direct Hesrew InrituencE. The Hebrew was not 
a living language any longer. Less than half of the O. T. quota- 
tions! in the N. T. are from the Hebrew text. It was still read 
in most of the synagogues of Palestine and it is possible that a 
modernized Hebrew was in use to some extent for literary pur- 
poses.2. Perhaps the Hebrew text was consulted by the N. T. 
writers who used it much as a modern minister refers to his Greek 
Testament. The reading of the Hebrew O. T. would give one 
dignity of style and simplicity of expression. The co-ordination 
of clauses so common in the Hebrew is not confined to the Hebrew, 
but is certainly in marked contrast with the highly developed sys- 
tem of subordinate sentences of the Greek. But this paratactic 
construction is partly Hebraic and partly colloquial. The total 
absence of extended indirect discourse is a case in point also. 
Compare the historical books of the N. T. with Xenophon and 
Thucydides. Likewise the frequent use of cai and the sparing 
use of particles may be mentioned. The pleonastic use of pro- 
nouns like jy ovdels Stvarar KXetoa ad’tny (Rev. 3 : 8) finds an occa- 
sional parallel (Moulton) in the papyri, but none the less its 
frequency in the N. T. is due to the Hebrew. The same remark 
applies to the effort to express in Greek the Hebrew infinitive ab- 
solute by the participle, as BdXémovres BXeWere (Mt. 13 : 14), or the 
instrumental, as xapd xaipe (Jo. 3:29). Both of these construc- 
tions are found in the Greek, but with far less frequency. The 
use of zpoori#nuc with an infinitive for repetition, as tpocéfero rpirov 
meuwar (Lu. 20:12) is in evident imitation of the Hebrew 40>. 
Ei= ts does not mean ov as in ei dodjoerar onuetov (Mk. 8 : 12), but 
is aposiopesis, the apodosis not being expressed. This use is in 
the papyri. Ov-ds in the sense of ovdeis is due to the LXX trans- 
lation of 52-85, though Moulton (p. 246) has found in the papyri 
dvev and ywpis so used with was. 

The use of ffjua, in the sense of 125 ‘thing’ is a Hebraism after 
the LXX. The classic Greek already has \éyos in this sense. IIpé- 
cwrov AapBavey DID ND? is a clear Hebraism. TpoowroAnurréw 
first appears in the N. T. So also is apéoxew &vwrrdv Twos rather than 
apéoxew twit a Hebraism. Cf. the circumlocutions pd rpocwrov ris 
eladdov avrod (Acts 13 : 24) rather than the simple zp6 airod. The 
frequent use of the article in address, though occasional in Greek, 


1 Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., 1900, pp. 381-405. 

2 Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in Times of Ch., div. II, vol. I, p. 10. ‘Hebrew also 
continued to be the language of the learned, in which even the legal discus- 
sions of the scribes were carried on.” 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 95 


is like the Hebrew and Aramaic vocative. The common use of 
qv or éori and the participle suits both the Hebrew and the analy- 
tic tendency of the xow7y. Cf. the more frequent use of the instru- 
mental é. So the frequent construction efva: eis is due to 7 in 
Hebrew, though in itself not out of harmony with the Greek 
genius. It occurs in the papyri. ’Azo zpoowrov="25"2 and mpd 
rpoowmrov= 7292 are both Hebraisms. The use of écddvac in the 
sense of riévac is due to {52 having both senses (Thackeray, Gr. 
of the O. T. in Gk., p. 39); cf. Deut. 28 : 1, dace oe trepavw. So 
juepar takes the flavour of the Hebrew ©7727 and epjvn is used in 
salutation like pi5w. The superfluous pronoun calls for notice 
also. The frequency of é 74 with the infinitive is due to 2. So 
also vids occurs in some Hebraistic senses like }2, but the papyri 
have some examples of vids for ‘quality,’ ‘characteristic.’ Thack- 
eray (p. 42) notes the Hebrew fondness for “physiognomical 
expressions” like 6@@adpos, tpdcwrov, ordua, xeip, Tovs, etc. The in- 
creased use of avjp and avOpwros like &7"8 rather than tis, ras, xaoros 
must be observed. The very extensive use of prepositions is ac- 
cented by the Hebrew. Kai éyévero translates "471. The use of 
a question to express wish is like the Hebrew idiom (cf. 2 Kgs. 
18: 33). But these constructions are doubtless due to the LXX 
rather than to Hebrew itself. It is-not possible to give in clear 
outline the influence of the Hebrew Bible on the N. T. apart 
from the LXX and the Aramaic, though there was a little of just 
that kind. Kennedy! gives thirteen words common to the LXX 
and the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 31 ff., gives a list of “ Hebra- 
isms in Vocabulary’) and counts “twenty Hebrew and Aramaic 
words which do not occur in the LXX, e.g. fifariov, wauwrads, Paka, 
woavva.”’ The words in the N. T. known to be Hebrew and not 
Aramaic are as follows: éGaddav= i728; addAnNoud=F771590; aunv 
=VAX; dpuayeddwv = 1992. 3; appaBwv=V2I29; Baros=N2B; BeedfeBobvB 
=2721 592; Boaynpyés= U9 “22 (cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 
49); Bbocos= 712 (cf. also Bicowos); é€Bpatori from 729; 7rel= "D8 
(MSS. Mt. 27 : 46); kaundos=923; lovdattw, lovdaicuds, tovdaikés, 
iovdatos= i717; KopBav= 27D; Kbuwov= 22; NiBavos=NI22; pdavva 
=A; wwpé=; racxa=no0 (LXX, but same for Aramaic 8702); 
paBBi(el)="22; caBawO=NiIN2X; cdBBarov=N2L; caravas= OV; odr- 
detpos =""BO; LDirwdw from 3H; cvxdpwos=N2NV; toowmos = 2i3¥; 
XepovBiw=D°AIND; woavva=N) DIN (Dalman, Words of Jesus, 
p. 222). Some of these were already in classical Greek (Biccos, 


1 Sour. of the N. T. Gk., p. 110f. Cf. Gregory, Prol., etc., p. 102 f., for 
foreign words in the N. T. 


96 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


AiBavos, cdmecpos). Of doubtful origin are vapédos, vitpov (Jer. 2: 22), 
cuxauwos. This is a fairly complete list of the Hebrew words in 
the N. T. The Aramaic words will be given later. There are to 
be added, however, the very numerous Hebrew proper names, 
only a few samples of which can be given, as Mapiau= 77/2; 
Medxioedéx= PIZ-7399; DaovA= DXB; LayouyA= dW; crv. Deiss- 
mann is correct in saying (“Papyri,” Hnceyc. Bibl.) that lexical 
Hebraisms “must be subjected to careful revision,’ but these 
remain. 

Certain it is that the bulk of the examples of Hebraisms given 
by Guillemard vanish in the light of the papyri and inscriptions. 
He feared indeed that his book was “a return to old exploded 
methods.” It is indeed “exploded” now, for the N. T. is not 
“unlike any other Greek, with one single exception, and abso- 
lutely unique in its peculiarities.” There are three ways of giv- 
ing these Semitic words: mere transliteration and indeclinable, 
transliteration and declinable, Greek endings to Aramaic words. 

(d) A DrnrrR Impress BY THE LXX. It is true that the 
N. T. at many points has affinities with the LXX, the “single 
exception” of Guillemard, but the LXX is not “the basis of the 
Christian Greek.”? In his second volume Viteau began to see 
that he had been too extreme in his notion that the N. T. was 
Hebraized Greek: “The language of the N. T. is not derived from 
that of the LXX; it is its sister. It is the same familiar Greek 
language which one finds employed in the one or the other. But 
the Greek of the LX X has exercised a considerable influence upon 
that of the N. T.”? But even in this volume Viteau overestimates 
the influence of the LXX on the N. T. Westcott‘ had the old 
idea that the N. T. language, “both as to its lexicography and 
as to its grammar, is based on the language of the LXX.” It is 
undoubtedly true® that a very large proportion of the N. T. 


1 Hebr. in the N. T., 1879, p. ixf. 2 Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. Test., p. 23. 

3 Sujet, Compl. et Attr., 1896, p. 11. 

4 Art. N. T., Smith’s B. D. Helbing in his Gr. der LX X (1907) promises 
to investigate the Hebraisms in the second volume (p. iv). But he already 
sees that mpoorévac occurs in the papyri as well as constructions like é& dy... 
é£ airGv. In general (p. vil) the LX X shows the same tendency as the rest of 
the xow# towards uniformity (the disappearance of the opt., the superl., the 
2d aorist, the middle, etc.). Cf. also Sel. from the LXX by C.S. (1905) 
with a brief Gr. of the LXX; Deissmann, Die Anf. der Sept.-Gr., Intern. | 
Wochenschr., Sept. 26, 1908. ‘ 

5 Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 142f. Cf. Brockelmann, Grundr. der 
vergl. Gr. der semit. Spr. (1907). 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 97 


words are found in the LXX, but there are very few words that 
are found in the N. T. and the LXX and nowhere else.!. Both 
the LXX and the N. T. use the current vocabulary. There are 
indeed numerous theological terms that have a new meaning in 
the LXX, and so in the N. T., like ayiafew, adeois, yeevva, exxAnoia, 
KUpios, NOYos, AUTPOW, povoYeErS, TVEDUA, TwWTHpla, xpioTos, KTA. (See 
longer list in Swete, Introduction to O. T. in Greek, p. 454.) So 
also many N. T. phrases are found in the LXX, like exap 
feov, don evwdias, Tpocwrov pos Tpbawrov, auBavery Tpdcwror, 
 dvacropa, kTr. (2b.). The O. T. apocryphal books also are of 
interest on this point. We have a splendid treatment of the 
LXX Greek by Thackeray. He shows “the xow7y basis of LXX 
Greek,” as to vocabulary, orthography, accidence and syntax 
(pp. 16-25). He notes oc, reccepaxovra, finds v movable before 
consonants, vads, vikrav, tAnpns indeclinable, adceBqv, disappearance 
of w-verbs, 7Aocay, HOa, avEeBawvav, éwpaxay, ds éav, ovbeis, NOMInNA- 
tivus pendens, even in apposition with genitive (cf. Apocalypse), 
constructio ad sensum, N\eywy and deyorres with construction like 
amnyyeAn NeyorTes, recitative 671, neuter plurals with plural verb, 
partial disappearance of the superlative and usually in elative sense, 
mpatos instead of mporepos, éavrovs, —Gv, —ots for all three persons, 
disappearance of the optative, great increase of 7od and the 
infinitive, co-ordination of sentences with kai, genitive absolute 
when noun in another case is present, blending of cases, in- 
crease of adverbial phrases and prepositions, eiul eis, interchange 
between & and eis (increase of eis), etc. See also Psichari 
(Revue des études juives, 1908, pp. 173-208) for a discussion of 
the Semitic influence on the N. T. Greek. The use of etul eis 
occurs occasionally in the papyri, the inscriptions and xow7 
writers, but it is extremely common in the LXX because of the 
Hebrew >. In the realm of syntax the LX X is far more Hebra- 
istic than the N. T., for it is a translation by Jews who at 
many points slavishly follow the Hebrew either from ignorance 
of the Hebrew or the Greek, perhaps sometimes a little of both. 
~B in Judges, Ruth, 2-4 Kings, has éy# eiw with indicative, as 
éym eiue kabicoua (Judges 6:18).2 BA in Tobit 5:15 have écouar 
ddovare B in Eccl. 2:17 has éuicnoa ov tiv Sony = BTR, 


1 The 150 words out of over (?) 4800 (not counting proper names) in the 
N. T. which Kennedy (Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 88) gives as “‘strictly peculiar to 
the LXX and N. T.’’ cut a much smaller figure now. New pap. may remove 
many from the list that are still left. 

2 Cf. Swete, Intr. to O, T, in Gk., p. 308, 


98 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ~* 


Swete! finds this misunderstanding of 58 common in A in Ec- 
clesiastes and six times in 3 Kings. It is the characteristic of 
Aquila.2- No such barbarisms as these occur in the N. T., though 
the “wearisome iteration of the oblique cases of personal prc- 
nouns answering to the Hebrew suffixes” finds illustration to 
some extent in the N. T. books, and the pleonastic use of the pro- 
noun after the Greek relative is due to the fact that the Hebrew 
relative is indeclinable.? The N. T. does not have such a con- 
struction as #péaro Tod olxodouety (2 Chron. 3:1), though rod éced- 
Oety with éyévero (Ac. 10: 25) is as awkward an imitation of the 
Hebrew infinitive construct. The LXX translators had great 
difficulty in rendering the Hebrew tenses into Greek and were 
often whimsical about it. It was indeed a difficult matter to put 
the two simple Hebrew timeless tenses into the. complicated and 
highly developed Greek system, and ‘‘ Vav conversive”’ added to 
the complexity of the problem. Conybeare and Stock, Selections 
from the LXX, p. 23, doubt if the LXX Greek always had a 
meaning to the translators, as in Num. 9:10; Deut. 33: 10. 
The LXX Greek is indeed “abnormal Greek,’’4 but it can be un- 
derstood. Schtirer® is wrong when he calls it “quite a new lan- 
guage, swarming with such strong Hebraisms that a Greek could 
not understand it.’’ It is indeed in places “‘ barbarous Greek,”’ but 
the people who spoke the vernacular xo.wy could and did make it 
out. Many of the Hellenistic Jews knew no Hebrew or Ara- 
maic but only the xow7. The Greek proselyte, like the Ethiopian 
eunuch, could read it, if he did need a spiritual interpreter. Schii- 
rer,° who credits the Palestinian Jews with very little knowledge 
of the current Greek, considers “the ancient anonymous Greek 
translation of the Scriptures”? to be “the foundation of all Ju- 
ueo-Hellenistic culture.” He is indeed right in contrasting the 
hardness of Palestinian Pharisaism with the pliable Hellenistic 
Judaism on the soil of Hellenism.’ But the Jews felt the Greek 
spirit (even if they could not handle easily oratio obliqua) not 
only in the Diaspora, but to a large extent in the cities of Pales- 
tine, especially along the coast, in Galilee and in the Decapolis. — 


leIntrsto-O Me insG pe ous 

2 Use should be made of the transl. of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, 
though they are of much less importance. Cf. Swete, p. 457 f. 

3 Swete, ib., p. 307. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 13. 

5 Hist. of Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. ITI, p. 163. 

6 Ib., vol. I, p. 47 f., and div. II, vol. III, p. 159. 

Ib. pe loss 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 99 


On the spread of Greek in Palestine see Milligan, NV. 7. Documents, 
pp. 39 ff. The prohibition,! about the time of the siege of Jerusa- 
lem, against a Jew teaching his son Greek, shows that it had previ- 
ously been done. The quotations in the N. T. from the O. T. show 
the use of the LX X more frequently than the Hebrew, sometimes 
the text quoted in the Synoptics is more like that of A than B, 
sometimes more like Theodotion than the LXX.?_ In the Synoptic 
Gospels the quotations, with the exception of five in Matthew 
which are more like the Hebrew, closely follow the LXX. In 
John the LXX is either quoted or a free rendering of the Hebrew 
is made. The Acts quotes from the LXX exclusively. The 
Catholic Epistles use the LX X. The Epistle to the Hebrews “is 
in great part a catena of quotations from the LXX.’’? In Paul’s 
Kpistles more than half of the direct quotations follow the LXX. 
Here also the text of A is followed more often than the text of B. 
Swete* even thinks that the literary form of the N. T. would 
have been very different but for the LXX. The Apocalypse in- 
deed does not formally quote the O. T., but it is a mass of allu- 
sions to the LXX text. It is not certain® that the LXX was 
used in the synagogues of Galilee and Judea, but it is clear that 
Peter, James, Matthew and Mark, Jewish writers, quote it, and 
that they represent Jesus as using it. In the Hellenistic syna- 
gogues of Jerusalem it would certainly be read. It would greatly 
facilitate a just conclusion on the general relation of the N. T. 
Greek to the LXX Greek if we had a complete grammar and a 
dictionary of the LX X, though we are grateful for the luminous 
chapter of Swete on the Greek of the Septuagint in his Introduc- 
tion to the O. T. in Greek; to Kennedy for his Sources of N. T. 
Greek; to Hatch for his Essays in Biblical Greek; to Deissmann for 
his Bible Studies and his Philology of the Greek Buble (1908); to 
Helbing for his very useful Grammatik, and especially to Thack- 


1 Megilla, I, 8. Cf. Hamburger, Realencyc., art. Griechentum; R. Meister, 
Prol. zu einer Gr. der Sept., (Wiener Stud., xxix, 27). 

2 Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 395. Cf. Deissmann in Exp. Times, 
Mar., 1906, p. 254, who points out that Pap. Heid. (cf. Deissmann, Die Sept. 
Pap., 1905) ‘‘assimilates such passages as are cited in the N.T., or are capa- 
ble of a Christian meaning, as far as possible, to their form in the N. T. 
text, or to the sphere of Christian thought.” Heinrici shows the same thing 
to be true of Die Leip. Pap. frag. der Psalmen, 1903. 

3 Swete, Intr., etc., p. 402. All these facts about LX X quotations come 
from Swete. 

4 Ib., p. 404. See ib., p. 404 f., for bibliography on N. T. quotations. 

5 Ib., pp. 29 ff. 


100° <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


eray for vol. I of his Grammar. It is now possible to make in- 
telligent and, to a degree, adequate use of the LXX in the study 
of N. T. Greek. The completion of Helbing’s Syntax and of 
Thackeray’s Syntax will further enrich N. T. students. The Ox- 
ford Concordance of Hatch and Redpath and the larger Cambridge 
Septuagint are of great value. Swete! laments that the N. T. 
grammars have only “incidental references to the linguistic char- 
acteristics of the Alexandrian version.” 

The translation was not done all at once, and not by men of 
Jerusalem, but by Jews of Alexandria who knew “the patovs of 
the Alexandrian streets and markets.’’? One doubts, however, 
if these translators spoke this mixture of Egyptian xown and 
Hebrew. On this point Swete?’ differs from most scholars and in- 
sists that “the translators write Greek largely as they doubtless 
spoke it.” They could not shake off the Hebrew spell in trans- 
lation. In free Greek like most of the N. T. the Semitic influence 
is far less. Mahaffy was quick to see the likeness between the 
papyri and the LXX.4 But one must not assume that a N. T. 
word necessarily has the same sense that it has either in the LXX 
or the xown. The N. T. has ideas of its own, a point to be con- 
sidered later. We agree with Swete°® that the LXX is “indispen- 
sable to the study of the N. T.”” Nestle® justly remarks that the 
Greek of the LX_X enjoys now a much more favourable judgment 
from philologists than some twenty years ago. Conybeare and 
Stock (Sel. from the LX X, p. 22) observe that, while the vocabu- 
lary of the LXX is that of the market-place of Alexandria, the 
syntax is much more under the influence of the Hebrew original. 
The LXX does, of course, contain a few books like 4 Maccabees, 
written in Greek originally and in the Greek spirit, like Philo’s 
works. Philo represents the Atticistic revival in Alexandria that 
was a real factor with a few. But the “genitivus hebraicus,” like 
6 KpiTis THs aduxias, is paralleled in the papyri and the inscriptions, 
though not so often as in the LXX. Cf. Radermacher, N. T. 
Greek, p. 19. So also (p. 21) rots é& épifetas (Ro. 2 : 8) is like & 
mAnpovs in the papyri and already in the tragic poets. Thumb? 
properly takes the side of Deissmann against Viteau’s exaggerated 


1 Intr., p. 289. 3 Tb., p: 299. 

2 Lbs pao: 4 Exp. Times, iii, p. 291. 

> Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 450 f. Hitzig, of Heidelberg, used to open his 
lectures on O. T. by asking: ‘Gentlemen, have you a LXX? If not, sell 
whatever you have and buy a LXX.’’ Nestle, LXX, in Hast. D. B., p. 438. 

6 LXX, Hast. D. B., p. 451. 7 Griech. Spr. etc., pp. 128-132. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 101 


idea of LXX influence (following Hatch). It is not always easy 
to decide what is due to the use of the LXX and what to the 
development of the xowy vernacular. One must have an open 
mind to light from either direction. Deissmann! is clearly right 
in calling for a scientific investigation of the Hebraisms of the 
LXX. Even the LXX and N. T. use of dpery (Is. 42:8, 12; 1 
Pet. 2:9; 2 Pet. 1:3) is paralleled by an inscription in Caria.? 
We are not then to think of the Jews or the Christians as ever 
using in speech or literature the peculiar Greek used in the trans- 
lation of the Hebrew O. T., which in itself varied much in this 
respect in different parts. The same intense Hebraistic cast 
appears in the O. T. apocryphal books which were originally in 
Hebrew and then translated, as Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Macca- 
bees, etc. Contrast with these the Greek of the Wisdom of Solo- 
mon, 2 Maccabees and the Prologue to the Greek translation of 
Ecclesiasticus, and the difference is at once manifest.? The Wis- 
dom of Solomon is of special interest, for the author, who wrote 
in Greek and revealed knowledge of Greek culture, art, science 
and philosophy, was yet familiar with the LXX and imitated 
some of its Hebraisms, being a Jew himself. Cf. Siegfried, ‘“‘ Book 
of Wisdom,” Hastings’ D. B. It must never be forgotten that 
“by far the greatest contribution of Alexandrian prose to the 
great literature of the world is this very translation of the O. T.’’4 
The name Christ (Xpicrds) is found in the LXX “and so the very 
terms Christian and Christianity arose out of the language em- 
ployed by the Alexandrian interpreters.”> The only Bible known 
to most of the Jews in the world in the first Christian century was 
the LXX. The first complete Bible was the Greek Bible. The 
LXX was the “first Apostle to the Gentiles”? and was freely used 
for many centuries by the Christians. Conybeare and Stock (Sel. 
from the LXX, p. 24) go so far as to say that the N. T. itself 
would not have been but for the LXX. Certainly it would not 


1 Hell.-Griech., Hauck’s Realencyc., p. 638. 

2 Deissmann, B. S., pp. 95f., 360 ff. Cf. Gautzschius, Spec. Exercit. Gr., 
1778, p. 23. H. Anz, Subs. ad cognos. Graec. Serm. etc., 1894, p. 385, points 
out that poetic words are in the LX X also through the common speech. Cf. 
Lipsius, Gr. Unters. tiber die bibl. Griic., 1863, p. vil. 

3 Deissmann, B.S., p. 76f. He rightly calls attention to the fact that 
many of the Ptolemaic pap. are contemporary with the LXX and bristle 
with proof that the LXX on the whole is in the vernac. xown of Egypt 
The Hebraisms came from the Hebrew itself in the act of translating. 

4 Mahaffy, Prog. of Hellen. in Alex. Emp., p. 80. 

’ Churton, Infl. of the LXX Vers., 1861, p. 1. 


102 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


have been what it is. “The Bible whose God is Yahweh is the 
Bible of one people, the Bible whose God is Ktpuos is the Bible of 
the world” (Deissmann, Die Hellen. des Semit. Mon., p. 174). 

Thackeray (Grammar of. the O. T. in Greek, pp. 25-55) gives a 
careful survey of the “Semitic Element in the LX X Greek.” He 
admits that the papyri have greatly reduced the number of the 
Hebraisms heretofore noted in the LXX. He denies, however 
(p. 27), that the Greek of the LXX gives “a true picture of the 
language of ordinary intercourse between Jewish residents in 
the country.”’ He denies also any influence of the Hebrew on the 
vernacular Greek of the Jews in Alexandria outside of the vocabu- 
lary of special Jewish words like axpoBvoria. He thinks (p. 28) 
the Book of Tobit the best representative of the vernacular Greek 
of the Jews. There are more transliterations like yewpas for Ara- 
maic 87173 (Heb. 73) in the later books where the early books had 
mapo.xos OY mpoondvtos. The fact of a translation argues for a 
fading of the Hebrew from the thought of the people. In the 
early books the translation is better done and “the Hebraic 
character of these books consists in the accumulation of a number . 
of just tolerable Greek phrases, which nearly correspond to what 
is normal and idiomatic in Hebrew” (p. 29). But in the later 
books the Hebraisms are more numerous and more marked, due 
to “a growing reverence for the letter of the Hebrew” (p. 30). 
We cannot follow in detail Thackeray’s helpful sketch of the 
transliterations from the Hebrew, the Hellenized Semitic words, 
the use of words of like sound, Hebrew senses in Greek words 
like Siéwpyr=7lOnue after 32, vids dédixias, 6f0aduds, tpdcwrov, ordua, 
xeip, the pleonastic pronoun, extensive use of prepositions, kai 
éyévero, év for accompaniment or instrument, etc. 

(e) ArAMAISMS. N. T. grammars have usually blended the 
Aramaic with the Hebrew influence. Schmiedel! complains that 
the Aramaisms have received too little attention. But Dalman? 
retorts that Schmiedel himself did not do the matter justice, and 
still less did Blass. Moulton® recognizes the distinction as just 
and shows that Aramaisms are found chiefly in Mark and Mat- 
thew, but does not point out the exact character of the Aramaisms 
in question. We take it as proved that Jesus and the Apostles, 
like most of their Jewish contemporaries in Palestine who moved 
in public life, spoke both Aramaic and Greek and read Hebrew 

1 W.-Sch., Gr., §2,1¢. And Dalman (Words of Jesus, p. 18 f.) criticizes 


Schmiedel for not distinguishing Aramaisms from Hebraisms. 
2 Words of Jesus, p. 18. & Prolaepc: 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 103 


(cf. Lu. 4:17). Even Schiirer! admits that the educated classes 
used Greek without difficulty. There is no doubt about the Ara- 
maic. Jerome says that all the Jews of his time knew the He- 
brew O. T. The LXX disproves that, but Hebrew was used in 
the schools and synagogues of Palestine and was clearly read by 
many. The discourses of Jesus do not give the impression that 
he grew up in absolute seclusion, though he undoubtedly used the 
Aramaic in conversation and public address on many occasions 
if not-as a rule.2 The Aramaic tongue is very old and its use as a 
diplomatic tongue (Is. 36:11) implies perhaps a previous Ara- 
maic leadership.2 There was a literary as well as a vernacular 
Aramaic. The Aramaic portions of Daniel, Ezra, the Targum of 
Onkelos are in the literary Aramaic.t| Dalman® suggests that 
Matthew wrote his Gospel originally in the Judean literary Ara- 
maic rather than the Galilean vernacular, but the reason is not 
very apparent. Zahn® doubts the validity of Dalman’s distinction 
between a Judean and a Galilean Aramaic, but Peter was recog- 
nized in Jerusalem by the Galilean pronunciation (Mt. 26: 73). 
The Galileans’ had difficulty with the gutturals and vw. This 
Aramaic is not to be confounded with the later Christian Ara- 
maic or Syriac into which the N. T. was translated. The Ara- 
maic spoken in Palestine was the West Aramaic,* not the East 
Aramaic (Babylonia). So keenly does Dalman® feel the differ- 
ence between Hebraisms and Aramaisms that he avers that “the 
Jewish Aramaic current among the people was considerably freer 
from Hebrew influence than the Greek which the Synoptists 
write.”” Not many can go with him in that statement. But he 
is right in insisting on a real difference, though, as a matter of 
fact, no great point was made about it at the time. With Jo- 
sephus 4 matpios yA@oou was the Aramaic (B. J. pr. § 1; v. 6, § 3; 


1 Hist. of the Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. I, vol. I., p. 48. On the 
of the Mishna see Fiebig, Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 1908, 4. Heft. 

2 Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 9, 11; Ch. I, § IV, (4) 4, for full discussion. 
3 D. S. Margoliouth, Lang. of the O. T., Hast. D. B. 

4 Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 80. Ib. pes. 

6 Hinl. in das N. T., I, 1897, p. 19. 
7 
8 


G 


a 


See Neubauer, Stud. Bibl., 1885, p. 51. 
Meyer, Jesu Mutterspr., 1896, p. 58 f. Some of the Lat. monks actually 
thought that Jesus spoke Lat. and that the N. T. was written in that tongue! 
But Meyer (ib., p. 63 f.) will not allow that Jesus knew Gk. Chase, on the 
other hand, shows that Peter necessarily spoke Gk. on the Day of Pentecost 
(Credibility of the Acts, 1902, p. 114). 
® Words of Jesus, p. 42. 


=a 


104 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


v. 9, § 2). He wrote his War originally in the native tongue for 
rots vw BapBapos. John (5 : 2; 19 : 13, 17, 20; Rev. 9 : 11; 16 : 16) 
uses “EBpatori in the sense of the Aramaic. So Luke has 4 
’EBpats duadexros (Ac. 21:40; 22 :2; 26:14). The people under- 
stood Paul’s Greek, but they gave the more heed when he dropped 
into Aramaic. 4 Mace. (12:7; 16:15) likewise employs ’EBpais 
gwvh7. The two kinds of Jewish Christians are even called (Ac. 
6:1) ‘E\nvorai and ’EGpatou, though ‘EAAnvorai and Lupiotai 
would have been a more exact distinction.! It is beyond contro- 
versy that the gospel message was told largely in Aramaic, which 
to some extent withstood the influx of Greek as the vernacular 
did in Lycaonia? (Ac. 14:11). One cannot at this point discuss 
the Synoptic problem. It is not certain that Luke, probably a 
gentile, knew either Aramaic or Hebrew, though there is a real 
Semitic influence on part of the Gospel and Acts, due, Dalman? 
holds, to the LX X example and a possible Aramaic or Hebrew 
original for the opening chapters of the Gospel, already put in- 
to Greek. Mark was probably written in Rome, not Palestine. 
Hence the Aramaic original of Mark, Bousset argues, cannot be 
considered as proved.‘ He rightly insists, as against Wellhausen,°® 
that the question is not between the classic Greek and Aramaic, 
but between the vernacular xown and Aramaic. But whatever is 
or is not true as to the original language of Mark and of Mat- 
thew, the gospel story was first told largely in Aramaic. The 
translation of the Aramaic expressions in Mark proves this be- 
yond all doubt, as radeda, xobu by ro kopacov, éyepe (Mk. 5:41). 
Dalman® indeed claims that every Semitism in the N. T. should 
first be looked upon as an Aramaism unless it is clear that the 
Aramaic cannot explain it. The Mishna (Neo-Hebraic) was not 
itself unaffected by the Greek, for the Mishna has numerous 


1 Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 7. 2 Schwyzer, Weltspr. etc., p. 27. 

3 Words of Jesus, p. 38. Dalman doubts the Heb. document, but admits 
a “wealth of Hebraisms” in Lu. Vogel (Zur Charac. des Lu., p. 32 f.) argues 
for a “special source” for these opening chapters. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., 
p. 195, denies that Luke knew Hebrew. 

4 Theol. Runds., Jan., 1906, pp. 2-4, 35 f. 

5 Einl. in die drei Evang., §§ 2-4. 

6 Words of Jesus, p. 19; cf. also Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. N. T., p. 28. In 
1877 Dr. John A. Broadus said in lecture (Sum. of the Leading Peculiarities 
of N. T. Gk. Gr., Immer’s Hermen., p. 378) that the N. T. Gk. had a ‘‘ Hebrew 
and Aramaic tinge which arises partly from reading Hebrew and chiefly (so 
his own correction) from speaking Aramaic.’’ If instead of Hebrew he had 
said LXX, or had added LXX to Hebrew, he would not have missed it far. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 105 


Greek words and phrases that were current in the Aramaic.! 
The Aramaisms of vocabulary that one can certainly admit in the 
N. T. are the following words: é684=8a28; ’AxeXOayax=N27T DPN; 
all words beginning with Bap=12 like BapvaBas; BeedfeBobA= 5722, 
Dist; BnOecdad=NI0T 172; BrOfafa, Byfafa=KHw na; TaBBala= 
RDI; yeevva = DIT 8]; Todyola = 82923; dwt, EXwt, Naud caBax- 
Oavet (or probably Heb. "28=7\ei, and the rest Aramaic, Dal- 
man, Words of Jesus, p. 53 f.)="20paw NAD DR WR; éddaba= 
MOBOS; KopBavads=NID7IP; pwaywrds=NIV2AN'2; wapava, OP4=ND NI2?; 
Mecoias=NW2; tacxa=NNIDD; dapicatoc=N WD; faGBBo(ov)ri(et) = 
“7129; paxd=NP"1; oaBBara=NN2W; caravds=NIVD; cdTov=NONO; 
cikepa=N12U; Traded, Kolu= 77) NOV; names of persons like 
Knodds = D723; Tafea=Nnr2d, ete. 

Aramaisms of syntax are seen in the following. The expression 
vyevecOar Oavarov seems to be in imitation of the Aramaic. Well- 
hausen (Einl. in die drei Evang., pp. 31 ff.) suggests that e?s xa’ eis 
(Mk. 14:19) is a hybrid between the Aramaic eis ets (but this is 
an old Greek idiom) and the vernacular (xow7) xa’ ets. He suggests 
also that Aramaic meanings are found in such words as owéeuw, 
Touty KapTov, cuuBotv\.oy rovety (diddvar), elpnvn, elpnvnv diddvat, 650s 
Geod, tAnpwua, etc. As already explained, apart from the question 
of a possible original Aramaic Mark and an original Aramaic 
Matthew and Aramaic sources for the early chapters of Luke and 
the first twelve chapters of Acts,’ many of the discourses of Christ 
were undoubtedly in Aramaic. There was translation then from 
this Aramaic spoken (or written) gospel story into the vernacular 
Kown as we now have it in large portions of the Synoptic Gospels 
and possibly part of Acts. The conjectural efforts to restore this 
Aramaic original of the words of Jesus are suggestive, but not 
always convincing. On the whole subject of Semitic words in 
the Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 40-42. The 
list includes dp(p)aBav, Biaocos, kbuvov, NBavos, cvKauvos, xtTwv. It 
is not a very long list indeed, but shows that the Orient did have 
some little influence on the Greek vocabulary. These words oc- 
cur in older Greek writers. 


1 Schiirer, Hist. of the Jew. Peo., etc., div. II, vol. I, pp. 29-50. Cf. mod. 
Yiddish. 

2 Cf. Bickel, Zeitschr. fiir Cath. Theol., vin, 43. This would then mean, 
“Lord, come.” Cf. Rev. 22:20. W.H. give it papar 464. 

3 See Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., ch. XI; Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 17— 
78; Wellhausen, Einl. in die drei Evang. (Die aram. Grundl. der Evang., pp. 
14-43). 


106 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(f) Varyina Resutts. It is natural that different writers 
in the N. T. should diverge in the amount of Semitic influ- 
ence manifest in their writings. They all used the vernacular 
xown Which in itself may have had a very faint trace of Semitic 
influence. But of the nine authors of the N. T. six were prob- 
ably Palestinian Jews... Now these six writers (Mark, Mat- 
thew, James, Peter, Jude, John) are just the very ones who 
reveal the Semitic mould of thought. It is often merely the 
Hebrew and Aramaic spirit and background. In Mark the 
Aramaic influence appears; in Matthew? the LXX is quoted 
along with the Hebrew, and Aramaisms occur also; in James 
there is the stately dignity of an O. T. prophet with Aramaic 
touches (cf. his address and letter in Ac. 15) but with many 
neat turns of Greek phrase and idiom; Peter’s two letters pre- 
sent quite a problem and suggest at least an amanuensis in one 
case or a different one for each letter (cf. Biggs, Int. and Crit. 
Comm.); Jude is very brief, but is not distinctly Hebraic or 
Grecian; John in his Gospel is free from minor Semitisms be- 
yond the frequent use of «ai like 1, but the tone of the book is 
distinctly that of a noble Jew and the sum total of the impres- 
sion from the book is Semitic, while the Apocalypse has minor 
Hebraisms and many grammatical idiosyncrasies to be discussed 
later, many of which remind one of the LXX. If the absence 
of the optative be taken as a test, even when compared with 
the vernacular xown, Matthew, James and John do not use it 
at all, while Mark has it only once and Jude twice. Peter in- 
deed has it four times and Hebrews only once, but Luke uses the 
optative 28 times and Paul 31. The remaining three writers 
(Paul, Luke, author of Hebrews) were not Palestinian Jews. 
Paul was a Hellenistic Jew who knew his vernacular xow? well 
and spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. His Epistles are addressed 
chiefly to gentile Christians and naturally show little Semitic 
flavour, for he did not have to translate his ideas from Aramaic 
into Greek. In some of his speeches, especially the one delivered 
in Aramaic, as reported by Luke in Ac. 22, a trace of the Semitic 
point of view is retained. In contrast with Ac. 22 note Paul’s 
address on the Areopagus in 17. The author of Hebrews makes 
abundant use of the LXX but exhibits possible Alexandrian 
origin or training, and it is not clear that he knew either 


1 Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., p. 381. 
2 Dalman (Wds. of Jes., p. 42) thinks that the Heb. of Mt. are due to 
the LXX. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 107 


Hebrew or Aramaic.! Luke presents something of a problem, for 
he seems to have had Aramaic sources in Lu. 1 and 2 (possibly 
also Ac. 1-12), while it is uncertain whether he was familiar 
with the Aramaic. There seems little evidence that he knew 
Hebrew. Blass? thinks that he may have read his Aramaic 
sources or had them translated for him. Curiously enough, 
though a gentile and capable of writing almost classic Attic 
(Lu. 1 : 1-4), yet Luke uses Semitisms not common elsewhere 
in the N. T. Dalman® shows that the genuine Hebraisms in 
Luke like doyous in sense of things (9:28 but classical authority 
for this exists), 6ua créuaros (1:70) are due to the LXX, not the 
Hebrew. The use of év 74 with the infinitive occurs 34 times in 
Luke, 8 in Acts, twice in Mark, thrice in Matthew, 4 in Paul, 
4 in Heb.*t See & 76 brocrpédey tov "Incody (Lu. 8:40). Blass 
calls this an Aramaism.’ But it is not a peculiarity of the dis- 
courses of Jesus, as it is found there only in & 76 o7eipew 
(common to all the Synoptics, Mk. 4:4; Mt. 13:4; Lu. 8:5), 
and in Lu. 10:35; 19:15. Hence the idiom is common® in Luke 
from some other cause. The construction occurs in “classical 
historians, in Polybius and in papyri,’’’? but is most common in 
the LXX, and the parallel is wanting in the spoken Aramaic, 
Luke also freely uses kai éyévero (almost peculiar to him in the 
N. T.), which at once suggests "471. He doubtless got this from 
the LXX.* He has three constructions, viz. kal éyévero kal @NOe, 
Kal €yevero nAOe and kal eyévero ENetvy. The first two? are common 
in the LXX, while éyevero éMety is due to the Greek vernacular! 
as the papyri testify. The superfluous dd¢els, #pEaro, etc., are Ara- 
maisms, while e/ui and the participle is Aramaic, like the Hebrew, 
and also in harmony with the analytic vernacular xowy. Nestle! 


1 Biesenthal (Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Paulus an d. Heb., 1878) even 
thinks that the Ep. was written in Aram. or Heb. 

2 Philol. of the Gosp., p. 205. 

3 Wds. of Jes., p. 38 f. Cf. also Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 1138 f., 118; 
Vogel, Zur Charac. des Lukas, p. 27. 4 Dalman, Wds. of Jes., p. 33. 

5 Evang. sec. Lucam, p. xxii. But é 76 with the inf. occurs with great fre- 
quency in the LXX, 555 times in the O. T., Apoc. and N. T. (Votaw, Inf. 
in Bib. Gk., p. 20), chiefly in the LX X (455 times, only 55 in the N. T.). It 
occurs nearly as often in the LXX as all other prepositions with the infinitive 
together. 6 Dalman, Wds. of Jes., p. 34. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 14 (1st ed.). 8 W.-M., p. 760 note. 

9 Cf. Thackeray, Gr.,’pp. 50 ff. We have the type éyévero 7\e 145 times, 
and éyévero cat 7A9e 269 times in the LXX, but éyévero ed\Getv only once (1 Kgs, 
11: 43 B). 10 Moulton, Prol., p. 17. 

11 Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 1906, p. 279 f. 


108 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


agrees with Blass (p. 131) in taking dpodoyety & in Mt. 10:32= 
Lu. 12:8 as a Syrism. 3 with 5755 is not in the Hebrew, nor 
ouod. & in the LXX, but "78 is used with 3 in the Jewish-Ara- 
maic and Christian-Syriac. Nestle refers to éuodoyotvTwy 7G 6v6- 
pare (Heb. 13 : 15) as a Hebraism, for in such a case the Hebrew 
used 9. The LXX and the Aramaic explain all the Semitisms in 
Luke. _Dalman! ventures to call the LXX Hebraisms in Luke 
“Septuagint-Grecisms” and thinks that the same thing is true 
of the other Synoptists. Certainly it is proper to investigate? the 
words of Jesus from the point of view of the peculiarities of style 
in each reporter of them. But, after all is said, the Semitisms in 
the N. T. Greek, while real and fairly numerous in bulk, cut a 
very small figure in comparison with the entire text. One can 
read whole pages in places with little suggestion of Semitic in- 
fluence beyond the general impress of the Jewish genius and point 
of view. 

IV. Latinisms and Other Foreign Words. Moulton? considers 
it “hardly worth while” to discuss Latin influence on the xow7 of 
the N. T. Blass‘ describes the Latin element as “clearly trace- 
able.”’ Swete® indeed alleges that the vulgar Greek of the Em- 
pire “freely adopted Latin words and some Latin phraseology.” 
Thumb® thinks that they are “not noteworthy.” In spite of 
the conservative character of the Greek language, it yet incor- 
porated Latin civil and military terms with freedom. Inas- 
much as Judea was a Roman province, some allusion to Roman 
customs and some use of Latin military and official terms was to 
be expected,’ though certainly not to the extent of Romanizing 
or Latinizing the language. Cicero® himself described Latin as 
provincial in comparison with the Greek. Latin words are fairly 
common in the Mishna.® Latin names were early naturalized 
into the Greek vernacular and in the N. T. we find such Roman 
names as Aquila, Cornelius, Claudia, Clemens, Crescens, Crispus, 
Fortunatus, Julia, Junia, Justus, Linus, Lucius, Luke, Mark, 


1 Wds. of Jes., p. 41. SECT Ol UN Maks tise 

PM eg eb Fe 5 Comm. on Mk., 1898, p. xliv. 
8 Prolizpazo. 6 Griech. Spr. etc., p. 152. 

7 Hoole, Class. Element in the N. T., p. 4. 


8 Pro Archia 10. Cato lamented: dazodotor ‘Pwyator Ta rpdyuata ypapyatwr 
“EAAquixdv avatdnoberes (Plut., Cato Maj. 23. 3). Cf. Colin, Rome et la Gréce 
de 200 4 146 avant Jésus-Christ (1905). 

® Schiirer, Jew. Peo. in Time of Ch., div. II, vol. I, pp. 43 ff. Krauss 
(Griech. und lat. Lehnw. im Tal., Tl. I, p. xxi) says: “One speaks of the lan- 
guage of the Romans with the greatest respect as the speech of the soldiers.” 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 109 


Niger, Paul, Priscilla, Publius, Pudens, Rufus, Sergius, Silvanus 
(Silas), Tertius, Titus among the Christians themselves (Jewish 
and gentile), while Agrippa, Augustus (translated ZeSacrds), 
Cesar, Claudius, Gallio, Felix, Festus, Julius, Nero (Text. Rec.), 
Pilate, Tertullus are typical Roman names. Note the Roman 
cities mentioned in Ac. 28, Ceesarea and Tiberias in Palestine. 
More than forty Latin names of persons and places occur in 
the N. T. The other Latin words, thirty (or thirty-one), are mili- 
tary, judicial, monetary or domestic terms. They come into the 
N. T. through the vernacular xow7, none of them appearing in 
the LXX and but two in Polybius. “Plutarch uses Latin words 
more frequently than Polybius, but for the most part not those 
employed in the N. T.”! Jannaris? observes that “the Roman 
administration, notwithstanding its surrendering to Greek culture 
and education, did not fail to influence the Greek language.” 
But in the N. T. only these Latin words are found: dccdpuoy (as), 
dnvapiov (denarius), €xw=aestimo (exe we tapnrnuevov, Lu. 14 : 18), 
evpaxtAwv, OprauBeverv, KevTupiwy (centurio), Kfvoos (census), Kodpar- 
mys (quadrans), xoAwvia (colonia), xovotwdia (custodia), Aeyuov 
(legio), Aevrov (linteum), ABeprivos (libertinus), itpa (libra), pa- 
xe\dov (macellum), peuBpava (membrana), pidiov (mille), podcros 
(modius), g€o7rns (sextarius), mpactwpiov (praetorium), orKapros (si- 
carius), otuxivOcov (semicinctium), covdapiov (sudarium), o7ekov- 
Natwp (speculator), ai raBéepvac (taberna), ritdos (titlus), deddvns 
(paenula), ddpov (forum), dpayeddvov (flagellum), ¢payedAdw (flagello), 
xaptns (? charta), x@pos (corus). This is at most (81) not a for- 
midable list. A few Latin phrases occur like épyaciay dodvar (ope- 
ram dare), 70 tkavov NayBavev (satis accipere), 76 ikavoy trovety (satis 
facere), cvuGot\.ov AauBave (consilium capere). But Deissmann 
(Light from the Ancient East, p. 117 f.) notes the use of épyaciap 
di6wut in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus letter of the vulgar type in 
- 2d cent. B.c. and also in an inscription in Caria with a decree of 
the Senate. <A lead tablet at Amorgus shows xpivw 76 dixaov (cf. 
Lu. 12:57). So cuvaipw ddyov (Mt. 18: 23 f.) occurs in two pa- 
pyri letters of 2d cent. a.p. (Moulton, The Expositor, April, 1901, 
p. 274f.). Thayer? calls attention also to od dfy (Mt. 27: 4) as 


1 Burton, Notes on N. T. Gr., 1904, p. 15. 

A Hist Gk resp f: 

3 Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B. Cf. also C. Wessely, Die lat. Elem. in 
der Griic. der igyp. Papyrusurk., Wien. Stud., 24 (1902). On the whole sub- 
ject see L. Lafoscade, Infl. du Lat. sur le ee pp. 83-158. To ixavdy rovety is 
as old as Polybius (Moulton, Exp., Feb., 1903, p. 115). 


IFN) A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


being like videris. So also édpecbe airoi (Ac. 18:15). Grimm! 
considers AauBaver in Jo. 5: 34, 41 equal to capto (‘to catch at’). 
The majority of these instances occur in Mark and Matthew, 
Mark using more Latinisms than any other N. T. writer. Too 
much, however, cannot be argued from this point.2 There are 
besides such adjectives as ‘Hpwécavol, Xpucriavoi, Pirrrmjoior, which 
are made after the Latin model. 

Blass’ thinks that the syntax shows a greater Latin influence, 
but admits that it is difficult to tell the difference between native 
development in the Greek and a possible Latin bent. It is in- 
deed difficult to speak with decision on this point. Ultimately 
Greek and Latin had great influence on each other, but at this 
stage the matter is at least too doubtful to appeal to with con- 
fidence.’ Paul indeed may have spoken in Latin at Lystra, ac- 
cording to Prof. Ramsay.’ Thayer® indeed gives a longer list of 
Latin syntactical influences on N. T. Greek, but not all of them 
are certain. The anticipatory position of a7é and zpé in expres- 
sions of time and place, as mpd e& juepSv (Jo. 12:1), is a possible 
Latinism, though only of the secondary sort, since the Doric and 
the Ionic use this construction occasionally and the xow7 frequently 
(cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 101). Cf. also pera roddas rabras 
juepas (Ac. 1:5).7 The increased use of the subjunctive rather 
than the optative after a past tense of the indicative is a necessary 
result of the disappearance of the optative rather than a Latin- 
ism. The alleged blending of present perfect and aorist might 


1 Gk.-Eng. Lex. of the N. T. 

2 Swete, Comm. on Mk., p. xliii. Cf. Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., p. 211 f. 

2 Gre ot eN. cb aGke spac, 

4 Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 1888, pp. 60, 66. Thumb (Griech. Spr., p. 152) 
considers the matter inconclusive, as does Moulton (Prol., p. 21). For the 
later Latinisms see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 13 f. See also W. Schulze, Graeca 
Lat., 1891; Schwyzer, Weltspr. des Altert., p. 20. Cf. Sophocles, Lex., pp. - 
25-30 for Latinisms in Gk. 

5 EXxp., Sept., 1905, and March, 1906. ‘As his father, and possibly also 
his grandfather, had possessed the Roman citizenship, the use of Latin speech 
and names was an inheritance in the family’ (Ramsay, Exp., Aug., 1906, 
p. 160). Cf. also Ramsay, Pauline and Other Studies (1906, p. 65), where 
he says it is ‘‘certain” that he spoke the Latin language. So holds Alex. 
Souter (Did Paul Speak Latin?, Exp., April, 1911). At Iconium ‘‘a certain 
affectation of speaking Latin was fashionable.’”’? Moulton also thinks that 
Paul preached in Lat. at Lystra, since the earliest inscriptions there are Lat. 
(Prol., p. 233). 

6 Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B. 

7 On this matter of time see Schulze, Graeca Lat., pp. 13 ff. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 111 


be a Latinism, but it is at least doubtful if that is found in the 
N. T. The use of 67e and va rather than the infinitive follows 
naturally as the infinitive vanishes, but it is parallel to the grow- 
ing use of ut with rogo, etc. ’Amé and the ablative after duAdccev 
may be due to cavere ab or to the general analytic tendency to 
express the preposition with the case (cf. the Hebrew also). 
Other smaller details are the absence of @ with the vocative, city 
as equal to kat, és=xal otros (qui=et hic), yauéw with dative=nu- 
bere alicui, infinitive alone with xeXebw. There is no evidence that 
the absence of the article in Latin had any influence on the ver- 
nacular xown, though Schmid! thinks he sees it in the irregular 
use of the article in Atlian. It is interesting in this connection 
to note the development in the vernacular Latin as represented 
in the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions. Unusual cases are 
used with many verbs; prepositions are much more frequent; the 
indicative with final ut and in indirect questions; common use of 
quia and quoniam like quod with verb rather than the accusative 
and infinitive; zlle, apse, hic, is, more like the article, as the later 
Italian 71, Spanish el, French le.” 

Other foreign words had, of course, entered the xowy or the 
earlier Greek, like Bovvos (Cyrenaic and Sicilian); 66, (Gallic or 
Celtic); ayyapebw (even Aischylus), yafa, rapadercos, cavdadov (Per- 
sian); xerwv (Oriental); xpaBarros (cf. Latin grabatus), tapeuBonrn, 
puun (Macedonian); appa8av, Kwvauwpor, kbu.vov, uvd (Phoenician) ; 
Batov, BiBdos, Biacos, civart, owdav (Egyptian or Semitic?); ¢ca- 
vov (Arabic?). On the Egyptian words in the Ptolemaic papyri 
see Mayser, Grammatik, pp. 35-40; on the Persian words, 1b., 
p. 42 f., including yafa and rapddecos. Livare is of uncertain origin. 
But Greek was known in all parts of the Roman Empire except 
parts of North Africa and the extreme west of Europe. There were 
great libraries in Alexandria, Pergamum and elsewhere. Schools 
were numerous and excellent. But none the less the mass of the 
people were BapBapo. to the real Greeks and inevitably brought 
laxities into the vernacular. Cf. Radermacher, NV. T. Gr., pp. 

9 ff., who gives a good discussion of the Latinisms in xow7 writers. 
1 Atticismus etc., p. 64. Cf. Georgi, De Latinismis N. T., iii, Vita, 1733. 

2 On this whole subject see Rénsch, Itala und Vulgata. Das Sprachid. der 
urchristl. Itala und der Kath. Vulg. unter Beriicks. der rém. Volksspr., 1875, 
p. 480f. Cf. also The Holy Lat. Tongue, W. Barry, in Dublin Rev., April, 
1906, and Our Lat. Bible, ib., July, 1906. ‘‘The common dialect, spoken 
with local differences in every part of Italy, in Gaul, Spain and Africa, saw 


its happy moment arrive when Christianity spread over those shores” (Dub- 
lin Rev., April, 1906, p. 293). 


112 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


V. The Christian Addition. But was there a Christian ad- 
dition if there was no separate biblical Greek, not to say a special 
Christian Greek? Winer! admitted “religious technical terms” 
in the Christian sense, but thought that “the subject scarcely 
lies within the limits of philological inquiry.” Blass has nothing 
to say on the subject. But even Deissmann? insisted that “the 
language of the early Christians contained a series of religious 
terms peculiar to itself, some of which it formed for the first 
time,” but he added that this enrichment did not extend to the 
“syntax.”? Once more hear Deissmann?: “Christianity, like any 
other new movement affecting civilization, must have produced 
an effect upon language by the formation of new ideas and the 
modification of old ones.’”’ Moulton* sounds a note of warning 
when he says that “it does not follow that we must promptly 
obliterate every grammatical distinction that proves to have 
been unfamiliar to the daily conversation of the first century 
Egyptian farmer... The N. T. must still be studied largely by 
light drawn from itself.” Westcott® indeed thinks the subject 
ealls for. “the most careful handling” in order to avoid Jewish 
usage on the one hand and the later ecclesiastical ideas on 
the other. This is obviously true. Connect the discussion of the 
Semitic influence on the N. T. with this point and recall the 
revolutionary effect that Christianity had upon the Greek lan- 
guage in the ecclesiastical Greek of the Byzantine period, and 
the difficulty will be appreciated. Mahaffy*® does not hesitate to 
say that the main cause of the persistence of Greek studies to-day 
is due to the fact that the Gospels are written in Greek. “Greek 
conquered Jew and Jew conquered Greek and the world inherited 
the legacy of their struggle through Roman hands.”’ Under the 
influence of Christianity some of the old heathen vocabulary 
vanished and the remaining stock “was now considerably re- 
duced and modified in a Christian and modern spirit.”” The 


1 W.-M., p. 36. 

2 B.S., p. 65 (note). 

® Encyc. Bib., art. Papyri, p. 3562. 

4 Prol., p. 20. Cf. Thumb, Griech. Spr., p. 182 f. 

5 Smith’s D. B., art. N. T. 

6 The Gk. World under Rom. Sway, 1890, p. 389 f. Butcher, Harv. Lect. 
on Gk. Subj., 1894, p. 2 f., calls the power of Jew and Gk. on modern life 
one of ‘‘the mysterious forces of the spirit.’”? ‘‘Each entered on a career of 
world-wide empire, till at length the principles of Hellenism became those 
of civilization itself, and the religion of Judea that of civilized humanity.” 

7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 10f. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 113 


N. T. Greek became the standard for ecclesiastical Greek as the 
Attic had been for the ancient world. 

Winer! indeed curtly says: “To attempt to explain such ex- 
pressions of the apostolical terminology by quotations from Greek 
authors is highly absurd.” Rutherford? almost despairs of un- 
derstanding N. T. Greek as well as “classical Greek,” since it con- 
tains so many alien elements, “but it has at least begun to be 
studied from the proper point of view,” though he overestimates 
the difficulty and the difference when he speaks of “the singular 
speech in which the oracles of God are enshrined.”’ On the other 
hand? we must not let the papyri make us swing so far away 
from the old “biblical”? Greek idea as to imagine that we can 
find in the vernacular xow7 all that Christianity has to offer. The 
Christian spirit put a new flavour into this vernacular xow) and 
lifted it to a new elevation of thought and dignity of style that 
unify and glorify the language. This new and victorious spirit, 
which seized the best in Jew and Greek, knew how to use the 
Greek language with freedom and power.‘ If the beauty of the 
N. T. writings is different from the ancient standard, there is 
none the less undoubted charm. Matthew Arnold put the Gospels 
at the acme of simplicity and winsomeness, and Renan spoke of 
Luke’s Gospel as the most beautiful book in the world. Norden® 
admits that the N. T. style is less exclusive and more universal. 
There was indeed a compromise between the old and the new. 
The victory of the new brought rhythm (not the technical sort) 
and unity as the chief characteristics. In Christianity Hellenism 
~ becomes really cosmopolitan.” If Christianity had merely used 
the Greek language and had been entirely alien to Hellenism, the 


1 W.-M., p. 36, n. 3. 2 Epis. to the Rom., p. xf. 

8 Cf. Zezschwitz, Profangriic. und bibl. Sprachg., 1859, p. 4, where he 
speaks of “dieses neue geistige Princip an der Sprache.” Deissmann (Die 
sprachl. Erforsch. der griech. Bibel, p. 8) accents the difference between the 
Christian ideas and the Greeco-Rom. heathen words that express them. 

4 Ib., p. 12. Norden (Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. II, pp. 453 ff.) indeed 
thinks that the N. T. wants the ‘‘freedom”’ (Fretheit) and ‘‘serenity”’ (Hei- 
terkeit) of the ancient literature. This is true in part of Paul’s writing, 
where passion rages fiercely, and in Rey. and other apocalyptic passages. 
But what can excel Lu. and Jo. in lucidity and beauty?  ‘‘ Heiterkeit — 
blitheness or repose, and Allgemeinheit — generality or breadth, are the 
supreme characteristics of the Hellenic ideal.” Walter Pater, The Renais- 
sance, 1904, p. 225. 

6 Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. II, p. 456. 

¢ Tb., Bd. I, p. 290. 7 Tb., Bd. II, p. 463. 


114 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


N. T. would not have belonged to Greek literature, but this 
sympathy with the best in the world must not be overworked.! 
The N. T. language is real Greek, though with the Christian 
spirit supreme in it because Christianity seized the Hellenic 
spirit and transformed it. W. Christ? rightly calls attention to 
the fact that Christianity brought “a renewal of the human 
race,’ “the moral worth of man and a purer view of God.” So 
“this ethical new birth of mankind” found expression in the 
N. T. The touch of life is what distinguishes the N. T. writings 
from the philosophical, historical, religious and ethical writings of 
the time.* In the Synoptic Gospels this quality reaches its height. 
“Far above these details is the spirit, the literary conception of 
a life to be written without ornament, without reflection, without 
the writer’s personality.”4 This fact constitutes a literary phe- 
nomenon amounting almost to a miracle. This vital spirit dis- 
closes itself on every page and baffles analysis. It is the essence 
of the N. T. language, but “is as pervasive as the atmosphere,” 
“as intangible as a perfume.’>® If some concentration and 
strength are lost, there is great adaptability. Thayer’ does not 
hesitate to speak of the fitness of N. T. Greek for its providential 
office. It is the language of men’s business and bosoms. It is 
the language of life, not of the study nor the cloister. It is not the 
language of a bygone age, but the speech of the men of the time. 
“The Book of the people has become, in the course of centuries, 
the Book of all mankind” (Deissmann, Light, p. 142). Chris- 
tianity “began without any written book at all” except the Old 
Testament. ‘‘There was only the living word — the gospel, but 
no Gospels. Instead of the letter was the spirit. The beginning, 
in fact, was Jesus Himself” (7b., p. 245). The N. T. is in close 
sympathy with both Jew and Greek, in a sense has both languages 
to draw on, can reach both the Semitic and the gentile mind, 
becomes a bond of union, in a word (as Broadus used to say) it 
is better suited to be the vehicle of truth conveyed by Jewish 
minds than classical Greek would have been. And a grammarian 
must admit that, however necessary and fundamental grammat- 


1 Cf. Hatch, Infl. of Hellen. on Christ. 

2 Gesch. der griech. Lit., 1905, p. 912. 

3 Hicks, Gk. Phil. and Rom. Law in the N. T., 1896, p. 12. 

4 Mahaffy, Surv. of Gk. Civiliz., 1897, p. 309. 

5 Thayer, Hast. D. B., art. Lang. of the N. T., p. 40°. 

6 Rodwell, N. T. Gk., 1899, p. 2. 

7 Hast. D. B., ib. Cf. Schaff, Comp. to the Gk. N. T., p. 26. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 115 


ical exegesis is, it forms only the basis for the spiritual exposition 
which should follow. 

When one comes to details, he notes that the influence of 
Christianity is chiefly lexical, not grammatical.1_ But a few points 
in syntax are to be observed, as in expressions like é& XpicrG2; & 
Kupiw; mucrebw* ev with locative, eis with accusative, éri with the 
locative or the accusative, mictetw with the dative, with the accu- 
sative or absolutely. As to the lexical element the lists of drat 
evpnuéva require severe sifting.* It is too soon to pass a final verdict, 
but in the nature of the case the number would be small. Such 
words as avtixpiotos, érepodrdacKkaew, EeVaYYENLOTHS, TUVGTALpOW, Wev- 
dadedpos, YevdardaToXos, etc., naturally spring out of the Christian 
enterprise. The vocabulary of the N. T. Greek is not very ex- 
tensive, somewhere near 5600 words, including proper names.® 
But the main point to note is the distinctive ideas given to words 
already in use, like ayamn, ayidfw, dywos, ddeAdds, avTituTos, dvTipm- 
c0ia, aTodUTpwors, ATwAELA, ATOTTONOS, AToTTOAH, Aptos, Bacirela, BaT- 
Tifw, Bawtiopa (—uds), yAOooa, SidKovos, dikarow, eiphvn, é&xxAnola, 
éexdexTos, EATifw, EXrls, EwloKoTos, emiaTpEepoma, Epya, evaryyédwov, evay- 
yedifw, e€ovcia, fwn, Oavaros, lepeis, Kadé€w, KaTaddayH, KaTadAdcow, 
knpvacw, KAynTOs, KOopOoS, KoLVwYia, AUTpPOY, AUTPOW, METaVOLA, 660s, TaA- 
pakdynTos, TioTis, TloTds, TLoTEbW, TVEDUA, TVEVMATLKOs, mpEcBUTEpoS, 
Tpockopua, capt, otavpds, auveldnows, cwfw, TwTHp, swTypla, TaTeELVOs, 
TaTevvoppodtyn, 6 vids Tov Beovd, 6 vids TOD avOpwrov, viobevia, xapis, Xpt- 
oTos, Wuxn, Wuxixds. When one considers the new connotations 
that these words bear in the N. T., it is not too much “to say that 
in the history of these and such like words lies the history of 
Christianity.” ® The fact that these and other terms were used 


1 Cf. Thumb, griech. Spr., pp. 162-201. 

2 Cf. Deiss., Die neutest. Formel ‘in Christo Jesu’’ untersucht, 1892. 

3 Cf. Abb., Joh. Vocab., 1905, pp. 19-80. On the whole question see 
Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 173 ff.; Moulton, Prol., p. 67 f. 

4 Cf. Deiss., Hell.-Griech., Hauck’s Realencyc., p. 636. Not 550 (as Ken- 
nedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 93) bibl. words, but only 50 N. T. formations 
(Deissmann, Exp., Jan., 1908; Light, p. 73). 

5 Kennedy, Sour. of N. T. Gk., p. 88. The Eng. of the King James Vers. 
(O. T. and N. T.) contains only about 6000 words (Adey, The Eng. of the 
King James Vers.). Max Miiller (Sci. of Lang., p. 16) says that we use only 
about 4000 words in ordinary Eng. 

6 Westcott, Smith’s B. D., N. T. Cf. also Hatch, Ess. in Bibl. Gk., p. 11. 
“Though Greek words were used they were the symbols of quite other than 
Greek ideas.” That is, when the distinctively Christian ideas are given. 
On the influence of Gk. on other languages see Wack., Die Kult. der Gegenw., 
Tiel Abt. 8,pp. 310. 


116 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in the popular language of the day gives a sharper point to the 
new turn in the gospel message. The deification of the emperor 
made Christians sensitive about the words 0eds, vids Oeod, Oevos, 
kbp.os, Kuplakds, owTNp, Xapayyua, Baoidrels, Baorreia. See the lumi- 
nous discussion of Deissmann (Light, pp. 348-384). The papyri 
and the inscriptions throw almost a lurid light on these words. 
Cf. Ktpios Katcap and Kipuios *Inoods (Martyrium Polycarpt, viii, 2) 
with 1 Cor. 12 :1-8. The Christians did not shrink from using 
these words in spite of the debased ideas due to the emperor- 
cult, Mithraism, or other popular superstitions. Indeed, Paul (cf. 
Col. 2: 1f.) often took the very words of Gnostic or Mithra cult 
and filled them with the riches of Christ. Cf. The Expositor for 
April, 1912, ‘“‘Paul and the Mystery Religions,” by H. A. A. 
Kennedy. For the stimuli that Christianity derived from popu- 
lar notions of law, religion and morality see Deissmann, Light, 
pp. 283-290. The mass of the N. T. vocabulary has been trans- 
figured. The worshippers of a Csesar would indeed call him 
gwrip Tod Kocpov or vids Oeod, but the words were empty flattery. 
Deissmann! well shows that a LXX word, for instance, in the 
mouth of a citizen of Ephesus, did not mean what it did in the 
LXX, as apxvepets, dtabnkn, Oeds, tpopynrns, cwrnpia. Much more is 
this true of the N. T. The new message glorified the current xov7, 
took the words from the street and made them bear a new con- 
tent, linked heaven with earth in a new sense. In particular the 
N. T. writers took and greatly enriched the religious vocabulary 
of the LXX. | 

VI. Individual Peculiarities. The language of Christianity 
was not stereotyped at first and there was more play for indi- 
vidualism. If the style is not all of the man, certainly each 
writer has his own style. But style varies with the same man also 
at different stages of his own development, with varying moods 
and when discussing different themes. Style is thus a function 
of the subject. All these points of view must be kept in mind 
with several of the N. T. writers, as Paul, Luke, Peter and John, 
whose writings show marked variations. Simcox? notes that in 
the Thessalonian and Corinthian letters Paul uses év ravri twelve 


1 B.S8., p. 83. Cf. Schleierm., Hermen., pp. 66 ff., 138 ff., who early called 
attention to the Christian element in the N. T. Cf. also Viteau, Le Verbe; 
Synt. des Prop., p. xl f. 

2 Writers of the N. T., p. 37. A. Souter (The Exp., 1904, Some Thoughts 
on the Study of the Gk. N. T., p. 145) says: ‘‘We must take each writer’s 
grammar by itself,’’ 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 117 


times, in the Pastoral Epistles é& mao: five (or six) times, while in 
Ph. 4:12 he has both. In thus accenting the individuality of the 
N. T. writers one must not forget that each writer had access to 
the common religious terminology of early Christianity. There was 
‘a common substratum of ideas and expressions that reappear in 
them all, though in certain cases there may have been actual use 
of documents. But one can never be sure whether Peter had 
James, or the author of Hebrews Luke’s writings. Peter probably 
had some of Paul’s letters when he wrote 1 Peter, and 2 Peter 
3:15f. expressly refers to them. The grammarian cannot be 
expected to settle questions of authorship and genuineness, but he 
has a right to call attention to the common facts of linguistic 
usage. Immer! indeed complains that the linguistic peculiarities 
of the N. T. writers have been worked more in the interest of 
criticism than of exegesis. The modern method of biblical 
_theology is designed to correct this fault, but there is a work 
here for the grammarian also. Winer? declines to discuss this 
question and is horrified at the idea of grammars of each writer 
of the N. T.2 Language is rightly viewed from the point of view 
of the speaker or writer. The rapid and continued changes in 
the individual mind during the mental process of expressing 
thought find a parallel in the syntactical relations in the sentence.* 
One cannot protest too strongly against the levelling process of 
an unsympathetic and unimaginative linguistic method that puts 
all the books of the N. T. through the same syntactical mill and 
tags this tense as “regular” and that one as “irregular.” It is 
not too much to say that the characteristic of the Greek litera- 
ture of this time was precisely that of individuality (cf. Plutarch’s 
Lives). Viteau® has a brief discussion of “The Psychological 
Character of the Syntax of the N. T.,” for, added to all other 
things, there is “the influence of the moment.” Differences in 


1 Hermen. of the N. T., 1877, p. 182. Thayer (Lex. of N. T. Gk., p. 689) 
speaks of “the monumental misjudgments committed by some who have 
made questions of authorship turn on vocabulary alone.” 

2 W.-M., p. 1f., remands this whole matter to the realm of N. T. rhetoric 
(cf. Wilke, 1843, N. T. Rhet.; Schleierm., Hermen.; Gersdorf, Beitr. zur 
Sprachchar. d. N. T.), but some discussion is demanded here. Schmiedel 
abbreviates Winer’s comments. 

3 W.-M., p. 4. He did not live to see Dr. Abbott’s two stout volumes, 
Joh. Vocab. (1905) and Joh. Gr. (1906). 

4 Cf. Steinthal, Intr. to the Psych. and Sci. of Lang. 

5 Cf. Norden, Die griech. Kunstpr., Bd. I, p. 243. Cf. also Blass, Hermen. 
und Krit., p. 206. 6 Le Verbe; Synt. des Prop.,-pp. xi ff. 


118 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


culture, in environment, in gifts, in temperament inevitably af- 
fect style, but this fact is not to be stressed so as to make a new 
dialect for each writer.! In the following discussions some lexical 
comments are given besides the grammatical to give a better idea 
of the writer’s style as a whole. 

(a2) Mark. Certainly Blass’ theory? of an original Aramaic 
Mark is not proven, but Peter often spoke in Aramaic, and Mark 
was bilingual like Peter. For the Aramaisms and Hebraisms of 
Mark see previous discussion (Semitic Influence). The idea that 
Mark first wrote in Latin need not be seriously discussed. Mat- 
thew and Luke have also nearly as many Latinisms as Mark. 
It is not in his vocabulary that Mark is most distinctive, for of 
the 1270 words in Mark (besides 60 proper names) only 80 are 
peculiar to him among the N. T. writers. He has 150 in common 
with Matthew and Luke alone, while only 15 belong to Mark and 
John and nowhere else in the N. T.4. About 40 words belong 
only to Mark and the LXX in the Greek Bible, while Mark has 
38 (besides proper names) occurring nowhere else in the N. T. or 
the LX X; but these are not all real drat Neyoueva, for there are 
the papyri! Mark seems fond of diminutives like the vernacular 
Kown in general (Ovyarpiov, Kopac.ov, Kuvapiov, etc.); eiut and épxouar 
with the participle are common, as in Luke (cf. 1:6, qv... &- 
deduyevos; 1:39, AAOev Knpvoowv); in fact he multiplies pictorial 
participles (cf. 14 : 67, idotca ... éuGdelaca deve); dv Occurs with 
past tenses of the indicative (3 : 11, érav airov ewpovr); he loves 
the double negative (1 : 44, undevit undev eirns); the article is com- 
mon (as in N. T. generally) with the infinitive and sentences 
(9 : 23, 76 ef dbvy); broken and parenthetic clauses are frequent 
(cf. 7:19, xaOapifwy); at times he is pleonastic (2:20, tore & 
éxelvn TH Nueépa); he uses e’Ois (W. H. text) 41 times; he is emo- © 
tional and vivid, as shown by descriptive adjectives, questions 
and exclamations (cf. 1 :24; 2:7); the intermingling of tenses 
(9 : 33 ff., emnpwra ... Neyer... eczev) is not due to ignorance of 
Greek or to artificiality, as Swete well says, but to “a keen sense 

1 As Simcox does in Writers of the N. T., p. 1. 

2 Philol. of the Gosp., pp. 196 ff. Cf. Marshall, Exp., ser. 4, vi, pp. 81 ff.; 
Allen, ib., ser. 6, vi, pp. 486-443. 

3 Swete, Comm. on Mk., 1898, p. xl. Thayer (Lex. of N. T. Gk., App., 
p. 699) gives 102, but the text of some 32 is in dispute. Hawkins, Hor. Syn. ?, 
p. 200, gives 71. Swete gives interesting lists of Mark’s vocabulary from 
various points of view. Cf. also Salmond, Mark (Gosp. of), in Hast. D. B. 


4 Swete, Comm. on Mk., p. xliit. Thieme (Die Inschr. von Magn. am 
Miiander und das N. T., 1906, p. 4) says: “Die Gruppe der sogenannten Ha- 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KoInNH 119 


of the reality and living interest of the facts; there are 151 his- 
toric presents in the W. H. text against 78 in Matthew and 4 
in Luke; there is frequent and discriminating use of prepositions 
(2:1, 2, 10, 13); the connective is usually xai rather than 6é, sel- 
dom oiv; there is little artistic effect, but much simplicity and great 
vividness of detail; the vernacular xow/ is dominant with little 
literary influence, though ef7ev, ravd.d0ev and oyia are held so by 
Norden.! IlerAnpwrac (Mk. 1:15) is paralleled by érAnpwyn in a 
Faytim papyrus and? cuurdcta cvprocta, tpacial rpaciat by réyyara 
Tayuata in the “Shepherd of Hermas”’ (Goodspeed, -Bibl. World, 
1906, p. 311 f.).. In general Mark is not to be considered illiterate, 
though more Semitic in his culture than Greek. Wellhausen has 
noted that D has more Aramaisms in Mark’s text than B. But 
Mark’s Semitisms are not really barbarous Greek, “though 
Mark’s extremely vernacular language often makes us think so, 
until we read the less educated papyri”’ (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. 
Essays, p. 492). Even his fondness for compound (even double 
compound) verbs is like the vernacular cow. If the influence of 
Peter is seen in the Gospel of Mark, it was thoroughly congenial 
as to language and temperament.* He gives an objective picture 
of Jesus and a realistic one. 

(b) MatrtHew. The writer quotes both the Hebrew and the 
LXX and represents Jesus as doing the same. He has 65 allusions 
to the O. T., 43 of them being verbal quotations. And yet the 
book is not intensely Hebraistic. He has the instinct for Hebrew 
parallelism and the Hebrew elaboration, and his thought and gen- 
eral outlook are Hebraistic, though his language is “colourless Hel- 
lenistic of the average type”’ (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 484). 
We need not enter into the linguistic peculiarities of Q as distinct 
from our Greek Matthew if that hypothesis be correct. In Mt. 9 :6 
we see xdivn rather than the vulgar xkpadBarros of Mark. In 12:14 
Matthew has cvuBotd\ov €\aBov for o. édidovv of Mark (Moulton, 
op. cit., p. 485). He can use paronomasia as in kakobs kak&s dmo- 
héecer avrovs (21:41). He uses tore 91 times against 6 in Mark 
and 14 in Luke; he has 7 Baowdeia T&v obpavGy 32 times, while he 


paxlegomena ist bedenklich zusammengeschrumpft; es handelt sich im Neuen 
Testament meistens um azaé ebpnuéva, nicht araé eipnuéva.”’ 

1 Die Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, p. 488. NEES Oe 591. 

® Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 51. Cf. on Mark, Schulze, Der schrift- 
steller. Charakter und Wert des Marcus (Keil and Tzschirner’s Analecta, II, 
2,3). See Hawkins, Hor. Syn.?, pp. 114-153. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 
203, 261, 276, 278, 302) has comments on the narrative style of Mark. 


120 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


has 7 Bacwdela Tod Oeod 4 times (Mk. 14; Lu. 32); he uses 6 zrarip 6 
ovpavios 7 times and 6 rarip 6 & Tots o’pavots 13 times; he 12 times 
quotes the O. T. with the formula tva (érws) rAnpwOh ro pnOe or 
TOTE ETANPwOn TO pnOev, Whereas Luke does not have it at all, Mark 
only once and John 7 times; xar’ dvap occurs 6 times and no- 
where else in N. T.; like Luke he uses kal ido’b often (27 times) 
and idov after the genitive absolute 11 times; he alone speaks of 
h ayia modus and wots ToD weyadou Baoitéws; like Mark he uses 
‘lepood\vpa always save once (23 : 37), whereas Luke usually has 
Tepovoadnu; ouviw év or eis, common in Matthew, does not occur 
in the other Gospels; tados, not in the other Gospels, is found 
6 times; cvvréXeca Tod aiévos occurs 5 times, and only once more 
in the N. T. (Heb.); note the pleonastic use of avOpwros as cvOpu- 
mos Baotde’s; he twice uses eis 76 dvoua, but the other Gospels év 7d 
évouare or éri; the oriental particularity is seen in using rpocépxouat 
51 times while Mark has it only 5 and Luke 10 times; ovvayew 
is used by Matthew 24 times; the vernacular xow7 is manifest in 
many ways as in the use of yovddbaduos (like Mark), xcoddvBioTal. 
Thayer in his list (Lexicon, p. 698 f.) gives 137 words occurring 
in Matthew alone in the N. T., but 21 are doubtful readings. 
Matthew has fewer compound verbs than Mark.- Matthew does 
not use adverbial zoA\a, while Mark has it 9 times. He has 6e 
where Mark has xai about 60 times. Matthew has é7 after 
verbs of saying 38 times, while Mark has it 50 times. Of 
the 151 historic presents in Mark only 21 appear in Matthew, 
though Matthew has 93 historic presents in all. See Hawkins, 
Horae Synopt., p. 144 f. Matthew frequently has aorist when 
Mark has imperfect (see Allen, Matthew, p. xxf.).. The periphras- 
tic tenses are less common in Matthew than in Mark and Luke 
(op. cit., p. xxil). Matthew is less fond than Mark of redundant 
phrases (op. cit., p. xxvi). The Gospel is largely in the form of 
discourses with less narrative element than Mark. The style is 
more uniform and less graphic than either Mark or Luke and so 
less individual.! 

(c) Luxe. Whether Luke knew Hebrew or Aramaic or both, 
cannot be stated with certainty. He did make use of eine 
documents or sayings in Lu. 1 and 2, and in the early part of 
the Acts. He was also quite familiar with the LXX, as his quo- 


1 Cf. Dalman, Wds. of Jes., 1902; Gla, Die Originalspr. des Mt., 1887; See 
Hawkins, Hor. Syn.?, pp. 154-173; Allen, Mt., pp. xix—xxxi; Plummer, Mt., 
p. xiiif.; Zahn, Einl. in d. N. T., Bd. II, 1898. On Matthew’s style see 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 203, 276, 278, 300, 302, 305. 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 121 


tations from it show. The Semitic influence in his writings has 
already been discussed. “He consciously imitates the Greck 
Bible, and in the parts of his narrative which have their scene 
in Palestine he feels it congruous to retain the rough diction of 
his sources” (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 479). One thing 
is certain about him. He had a good command of the vernacular 
KON and even attains the literary cow? in Lu. 1:1—-4 and Ac. 
1: 1-5; '17 :16-34. The preface to his Gospel has often been 
Peripared to those of Thucydides and Herodotus, and it does not 
suffer by the comparison, for his modesty is an offset to their vain- 
glory.!. Selwyn? thinks that Luke was a Roman citizen, and he 
was a fit companion for Paul. He exhibits the spirit of Paul in 
his comprehensive sympathy and in his general doctrinal position.’ 
Renan‘ calls Luke’s Gospel the most literary of the Gospels. He 
writes more like an historian and makes skilful use of his mate- 
rials> and with minute accuracy.® His pictures in the Gospel have 
given him the title of ‘“‘the painter.”’ Norden indeed thinks that 
Luke alone among the N. T. writers received Atticistic influence 
(Kunstprosa, II, pp. 485 ff. Cf. Blass, Die Rhythmen der asianischen 
und rémischen Kunstprosa, p. 42). But we need not go so far. 
His versatility is apparent in many ways, but withal he makes 
a faithful use of his materials.’ His vocabulary illustrates his 
breadth of culture, for he uses 750 (851 counting doubtful readings) 
words not occurring elsewhere in the N. T.® Some of them are 
still dat Neyduera. One special item in his vocabulary is the large 
number of medical terms in his writings, as is natural, since he 
was a physician.? His command of nautical phraseology is abun- 


1 Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 55. He calls attention to the fact that 
the intrs. of Herodotus and Luke are about equal in length. Cf. Blass, Philol. 
of the Gosp., pp. 7 ff. 

2 St. Luke the Prophet, 1901, p. 81. 

3 Davidson, Intr. to N. T., i, p. 17. 

4 Les Evang., pp. 232, 283. 

5 Plummer, Comm. on Luke, 1896, p. xlvii. 

6 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 1895; Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?; 
Chase, Credibility of Acts, 1902. 

7 Vogel (Zur Charak. des Lukas, 1899, p. 19) calls attention to differences 
in the speeches of Stephen, Peter and Paul in the Acts. 

8 See the lists of Thayer (Lex., pp. 699 ff.), Plummer (Comm., pp. lii ff.), 
Hawkins (Hor. Syn.?, pp. 201-207). Of the 851 some 312 occur in the Gospel 
and 478 in the Acts. 

9 Hobart, Medical Lang. of St. Luke, 1882. Many of these occur in the 
LXX also, but plenty remain to show his knowledge of the medical phra- 
seology of the time. 


122 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dantly shown in Ac. 27 and 28.1. The question of a double edi- 
tion of the Gospel and Acts does not belong here.? His language 
is that of a man of culture with a cosmopolite tone, who yet knows 
how to be popular also (Deissmann, Light, p. 241 f.). He not 
only has a rich vocabulary, but also fine command of the xow7 
diction. ‘ In particular his style is more like that of Paul and 
the writer to the Hebrews. Among matters of detail in Luke one 
will note his use of the infinitives with & 7 (34 times) and of 
tod with the infinitive (24 instances); ctv (23 times) is frequent, 
though seldom in the other Gospels; kat airos (airn) he has 28 
times, and often constructions like atros 6 xpdvos; kal éyevero or 
évyevero 6€ he uses 43 times; he has 6€ cai 29 times; he loves zropeto- 
pac (88 examples); he uses e like an interrogative 19 times; 7é 
occurs often before a clause, especialiy an indirect question; he 
makes frequent use of kal idov; ixavds 1s common with him; jy 
with present participle occurs 55 times; the descriptive genitive 
is common; zpds with the accusative occurs 296 times with him 
and very often in the rest of the N.T.; he is fond of évwmov; re (and 
Te kal) is almost confined to him in the N.T.; the optative is alone 
used by Luke in indirect questions and more often otherwise than 
by any other N. T. writer save Paul. This is a literary touch 
but not Atticistic. He alone makes any special use of the future 
participle; he is fond of raés and das; ws in temporal sense is com- 
mon in Luke, once in Mark, not in Matthew; a good many ana- 
colutha occur in Acts, and the change from direct to indirect 
discourse is frequent; the relative is often attracted to the case of 
the antecedent and often begins a sentence (Ac. 2 : 24); émardra 
is used 7 times (peculiar to Luke) rather than xipie or paGBBel; the 
syntax is throughout in general that of the xown of the time.® 


1 Smith, Voy. and Shipw. of St. Paul, 1882. 

* Blass, Philol. of the Gosp., and Acta Apostol. Bacon (Story of St. Paul, 
1905, p. 156, note) actually urges xai éyévero in the ‘“‘we”’ sections of Acts as a 
“pronounced Septuagintism improbable for a Greek”! Cf. Moulton, Prol., 
p. 16f. On Luke’s style see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 3, 5, 203, 250 f,, 
261, 276, 278, 280, 300, 305. 

§ Cf. Vogel, Zur Charak. des Lukas, pp. 21-37, for criticism of the Syntax of 
Luke; Plummer, Comm. on Luke, has many sensible remarks; Wright, Gosp. 
ace. to Luke, 1900, p. x1, on Luke’s literary habits, and see also Hawkins, Hor. 
Syn.*, pp. 174-193. On relation of Luke to Josephus, cf. Bebb, Luke’s 
Gosp. in Hast. D. B. On Luke’s Hebraisms cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 13 f. Cf. 
Norden, Ant. Kunstpr., II, pp. 486 ff., for differences between Luke and Mark 
and Matthew. See also Harnack, Lukas der Arzt der Verfasser des dritten 
Evang. und der Apostelgesch. (1906). On p. 15 he gives a list of 84 words 





THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 123 


Luke is also fond of 6 pév oty (Acts). The historic present is rare 
in Luke (4 or 6 times). Luke uses the conjunctions and sub- 
ordinate clauses with more literary skill than the other N. T. 
writers. He makes choice use of words and idioms. Cf. his report 
of Paul’s speech on Mars Hill. He accumulates participles, espe- 
cially in the Acts, but not without stylistic refinement. In the 
Acts he is fond of es when év would ordinarily be used. 

(d) James. It is at first surprising that one recognized as 
such a thorough Jew as James, the brother of our Lord, and who 
used Aramaic, should have written in such idiomatic Greek. “In 
the skilful use of the Greek language its [Epistle of James] author 
is inferior to no N. T. writer.”! There are very few Hebraisms 
in the Hpistle, though the tone is distinctly Jewish, perhaps the 
earliest Christian document in the N. T. But one cannot 
think that James wrote the book in Aramaic, for the indications 

of translation are not present, as Bishop John Wordsworth once 

argued.” There is not, however, in James studied rhetoric or 
keen dialectics. The author of Hebrews, Luke and Paul far 
surpass him in formal rhetoric. “The Epistle of James is from 
the beginning a little work of literature,” “a product of popular 
literature” (Deissmann, Light, p. 235). The writer uses asyn- 
deton very often and many crisp aphorisms. Just as the 
Synoptic Gospels preserve the local colour of the country- 
side, so the Epistle of James is best understood in the open air 
of the harvest-field (¢b., p. 241). The incongruity of such a 
smooth piece of Greek as this Epistle being written by a Pales- 
tinian Jew like James vanishes when we consider the bilingual 
character of the people of Palestine (cf. Moulton, Camb. Biblical 
Essays, p. 487). Nevertheless, the author has a Hebrew mould 
of thought reminiscent of O. T. phrases. The atmosphere is 
Jewish and ‘international vulgarisms” do not explain it all. 
The pleonasms are just those seen in the LX X, and the book has 
the fondness for assonance so common in the O. T. Cf. Oester- 
ley, Exp. Gk. Test., p. 394. He uses many examples that re- 
peculiar in the N. T. to Luke and Paul. On p. 15 of Luke the Physician 
(trans., 1907) Harnack considers the Gk. of Luke’s Gospel ‘‘excellent.” ‘It 
occupies a middle position between the xowy and Attic Gk. (the language of 
literature).””’ This is not a very exact description, for Harnack here uses 
xown for vernac. xow?h and Attic was not the language of literature in Luke’s 
time (save the Atticists), but the literary xow7. 


1 Thayer, Lang. of N. T., Hast. D. B. 
2 First series of Stud. Bibl., pp. 144 ff. Cf. Mayor, Comm. on James, 


pp. cev ff. 


124 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mind one vividly of the parables of Jesus and many of the ideas 
and phrases of the Sermon on the Mount are here. There is 
also a marked similarity between this Epistle and the speech of 
James in Ac. 15 and the letter there given, which was probably 
written by him.! He is fond of repeating the same word or root, 
as Opnoxds, Opnoxeia (1: 26f.)?; his sentences, though short, are 
rhythmical’; he is crisp, vivid, energetic; there is little in the 
forms or the syntax to mark it off from the current xow7 or 
the N. T. representatives of it, though his idiomatic use of the 
pronouns is worth mentioning, as is also that of dye as an in- 
terjection, the gnomic aorist, the possible nominative meory in 
apposition with yAéocav (8:8). But it is in the vocabulary 
that James shows his individuality, for in this short epistle there 
are 73 (9 doubtful) words not appearing elsewhere in the N. T., 
some of which are found in the LXX,! like zapadd\ayn. The 
use of ovvaywyn (2:2) of a Christian assembly is noteworthy 
(cf. &kxAnoia in 5:14 and émovvaywyn in Heb. 10:25). He has 
many compound words like aécaxpitos, bookish words like éuduzos, 
philosophical terms like An, picturesque words like édoA\vfw, some 
of a technical nature like ryddd\v0v, some strictly classical like 
. EOLKE, XPN. . 

(e) JupE. It is here assumed against Spitta® and Bigg® that 
Jude is prior to 2 Peter, the second chapter of which is so much 
like Jude. There is not in Jude the epigram of James, but he has 
a rugged rotundity of style that is impressive and vigorous, if a 
bit harsh. His style is marked by metaphor and the use of trip- 
lets. He cannot be said to be “steeped'in the language of the 
LXX” with Chase,’ but there is a more Hebraistic flavour than 
is observed in James, his brother. He has literary affinities with 
some of. the apocryphal books and with some of Paul’s writings. 
If he shows a better command of Greek than 2 Peter, yet his 


1 See this point well worked out by Mayor, James (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. 
Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 279. 

2 Cf. Mayor, Comm., pp. exev ff., for exx. 

3 Ib., p. ccif. Mayor, ch. viii, has also a luminous discussion of the ‘‘Gram- 
mar of St. James,’ which shows conclusively that he has little that is distinc- 
tive in his grammar. Cf. Thayer (Lex., p. 708) for list of words peculiar 
to James. 

4 Cf. Mayor, Comm., p. excif. On ovwaywyn cf. Hort, Judaistic Christian- 
ity, p. 150. 

5 Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas, 1885. 

6 Comm. on St. Peter and St. Jude, 1901. 

7 Jude (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 125 


“Greek is a strong and weighty weapon over which, however, he 
has not a ready command.”! Per contra, there is little that is 
peculiar in his grammar, for he shows a normal use of the Greek 
idiom. The optative occurs twice (rAnOurbein, verse 2, and émitiuhoar 
in 9) and the article is used skilfully with the participle. Cases, 
pronouns, tenses, free use of participles, indicate a real mastery 
of current Greek. The true superlative occurs in 79 dywrdrn 
miore. The idiomatic use of éBdou0s without article is seen in 
Jude 14. The adverbial accusative is seen in 76 debrepov 5 and roy 
duoov tporov 7. For further details see Mayor on “Grammar of 
Jude and of Peter” (Comm., pp. xxvi-lv). He has 20 words 
(one doubtful) not found elsewhere in the N. T2. A few of them 
like wAavnrns occur in the LXX. Some of them have a stately 
ring like kiuara a@ypia, and a number occur which are found in 
writers of the literary xowy. He uses 7 cow cwrnpia (“the safety 
of the state’’) in a Christian sense, and so of rpoyeypaupévor (“the 
proscribed”’). But he has also command of technical Christian 
terms like ay.or, kAyTol, iors, veda, YuxiKds aS Paul used them. 
The vividness of his style hardly justifies the term “poetic.’’® 
Deissmann (light, p. 235) considers Jude a literary epistle in 
popular style and “cosmopolite” in tone (p. 242), with a certain 
degree of artistic expression. The correctness of the Greek is 
quite consonant with the authorship of the brother of Jesus, since 
Palestine was a bilingual country (Moulton, Camb. Bibl. Essays, 
p. 488). Besides, the Epistle has only 25 verses. 

(f) Peter. As Peter was full of impulses and emotions and ap- 
parent inconsistencies, the same heritage falls to his Epistles. 
The most outstanding difference between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is 
in the vocabulary. 1 Peter has 361 words not found in 2 Peter, 
while 2 Peter has 231 not in 1 Peter.t| Many in each case are 
common words like ayiatw, édrifw, ebayyedifw, etc., in 1 Peter, and 
Baowrela, érayyerla, érvywwoxw, etc.,in 2 Peter. 1 Peter has 63 
words not in the rest of the N. T., while 2 Peter has 57 (5 doubt- 
ful); but of these 120 words only one (a7deo.s) occurs in both.® 
This is surely a remarkable situation. But both of them have a 


1 Chase, Jude (Epis. of), Hast. D. B. 

2 See Thayer’s list (Lex., p. 709). For fresh discussion of the gram. aspects 
of Jude and 2 Pet. see Mayor’s Comm. (1908). He accepts the genuineness 
of Jude, but rejects 2 Peter. 

3 Maier, Der Judasbrief, 1906, p. 169. 

4 Bigg, Comm. on St. Peter and St. Jude, p. 225. 

6 Thayer, Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B., p. 42*. 


126 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


number of words in common that occur elsewhere also in the 
N. T., like avacrpodn, Yux7, etc. Both use the plural of abstract 
nouns; both have the habit, like James, of repeating words,? 
while Jude avoids repetitions; both make idiomatic use of the 
article; both make scant use of particles, and there are very few 
Hebraisms; both use words only known from the vernacular 
xown; both use a number of classical words like avayxaoras (1 
Peter, Plato), wAacrés (Her., Eur., Xen., 2 Peter)’; both use pic- 
ture-words‘; both seem to know the Apocrypha; both refer to 
events in the life of Christ; both show acquaintance with Paul’s 
Epistles, and use many technical Christian terms. But, on the 
other hand, 1 Peter is deeply influenced by the LXX, while 2 
Peter shows little use of it; 1 Peter is more stately and ele- 
vated without affectation, while 2 Peter has grandeur, though it 
is, perhaps, somewhat ‘‘grandiose” (Bigg) and uses a number 
of rare words like raprapow; 1 Peter makes clear distinctions be- 
tween the tenses, prepositions, and uses smooth Greek generally, 
while 2 Peter has a certain roughness of style and even apparent 
solecisms like Bd\euua (2:8), though it is not “baboo Greek”’ 
(Abbott)* nor like modern “pigeon English”’; 1 Peter shows little 
originality and rhetorical power, while 2 Peter, though not so 
original as Jude, yet has more individuality than 1 Peter. 
Deissmann (Light, p. 235) says: “The Epistles of Peter and 
Jude have also quite unreal addresses; the letter-like touches are 
purely decorative. Here we have the beginnings of a Christian 
literature; the Epistles of Jude and Peter, though still possessing 
as a whole many popular features, already endeavour here and 
there after a certain degree of artistic expression.” It is not for 
a grammarian to settle, if anybody can, the controversy about 
those two Epistles, but Simcox® is not far wrong when he says 
of 2 Peter that “a superficial student is likelier than a thorough 
student to be certain that it is spurious.” Spitta,’ Bigg® and 


1 Cf. Zahn, Emi, in d: N. Ty, Bd Li p.31035)B- Weiss, unl invda Nee i 
p. 445. 

2 Bigg, Comm., p. 225f. Cf. also Schulze, Der schriftsteller. Charakter 
und Wert des Petrus, Judas und Jacobus, 1802. 

3 Cf. excellent lists by Chase, Hast. D. B., 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Many of 
these words are cleared up by the pap., like doxiyrov and dper?. 

4 Vincent, Word-Studies, vol. I, p. 621. 

5 Exp., ser. 2, v. III. Chase, Hast. D. B., p. 808", finds needless difficulty 
with wapevopépery (2 Pet. 1:5), for rapa is ‘alongside,’ ‘in addition.’ 

6 Writers of the N. T., p. 64. 

7 Der Zweite Brief des Petrus. 8 Comm. on St. Peter and Jude. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 127 


Zahn! among recent writers suggest that in 2 Peter we have Peter’s 
own composition, while in 1 Peter we have the Greek of an aman- 
uensis who either wrote out Peter’s ideas, revised them or trans- 
lated Peter’s Aramaic into Greek. We know that Peter had 
interpreters (Mark, for instance), and Josephus used such literary 
help and Paul had amanuenses. On the other hand Chase (Hast- 
ings’ D. B.) and others reject 2 Peter entirely. It is worth men- 
tioning that 2 Peter and the Apocalypse, which are the two books 
that furnish most of the linguistic anomalies in the N. T., both 
have abundant parallels among the less well-educated papyri 
writers, and it is of Peter and John that the terms aypduparor 
and ié:@rac are used (Ac. 4:13). As we have a problem con- 
cerning 1 Peter and 2 Peter on the linguistic side, so we have 
one concerning John’s Gospel and Epistles on the one hand and 
Revelation on the other. The use of the article in 1 Peter is 
quite Thucydidean in 3: 3 (Bigg), and eight times he uses the 
idiom like rov rhs mapoxias tudv xpovov (1:17) and once that 
seen in 76 BotAnua trav &vev (4:3), the rule in the N. T. The 
article is generally absent with the attributive genitive and with 
prepositions as eis payticudv aiuaros (1:2). There is a refined 
accuracy in 1 Peter’s use of ws (Bigg), cf. 1:19; 2:16, etc. A 
distinction is drawn between uj and ot with the participle in 1: 8. 
Once wa occurs with the future indicative (8:1). The absence 
of dy and the particles dpa, ye, émet, érevdn, Te, 69, Tov, Tws 1S notice- 
able. 1 Peter makes idiomatic use of vey, while 2 Peter does not 
have it. 2 Peter uses the “compact” structure of article, attribu- 
tive and noun, like 1 Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 2:1, 10, 16, 21), but the 
“uncompact” occurs also (cf. 2 Pet. 1:3, 9, 11, 14). In Jude 
and 2 Peter the commonest order is the uncompact (Mayor, Jude 
and Second Peter, p. xxii). The single article in 2 Pet. 1:1, 111s 
used of two names for the same object. Cf. also Jude 4. The 
article with the infinitive does not occur in 2 Peter (nor Jude). 
2 Peter has some unusual uses of the infinitive after éw (2 Pet. 
1:15) and as result (2 Pet. 3:1f.). 1 Peter has the article and 
future participle once (3 :13) 6 xaxwowv. Both 1 Pet. (1:2) and 
2 Pet. (1:2) have the optative mdnfurOein (like Jude). 1 Peter 
twice (3 : 14, 17) has ei and the optative. See further Mayor on 
“Grammar of Jude and 2 Peter” (Comm., pp. xxvi-ly). 

(g) Pauu. There was a Christian terminology apart from 
Paul, but many of the terms most familiar to us received their 

1 Winl. ind. N. T. Mayor in his Comm. on Jude and 2 Peter (1907) re- 
jects 2 Peter partly on linguistic grounds. 


128 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


interpretation from him. He was a pathfinder, but had inex- 
haustible resources for such a task. Resch! has done good ser- 
vice in putting together the words of Paul and the words of 
Jesus. Paul’s rabbinical training and Jewish cast of mind led Far- 
rar” to call him a Haggadist. Simcox® says that “there is hardly 
a line in his writings that a non-Jewish author of his day would 
have written.” Harnack* points out that Paul was wholly un- 
intelligible to such a Hellenist as Porphyry, but Ramsay’® replies 
that Porphyry resented Paul’s use of Hellenism in favour of Chris- 
tianity. But Hicks® is certainly right in seeing a Hellenistic side 
to Paul, though Pfleiderer’ goes too far in finding in Paul merely 
“a Christianized Pharisaism”’ and a “Christianized Hellenism.” 
Paul and Seneca have often been compared as to style and ideas, 
but a more pertinent linguistic parallel is Arrian’s report of the 
lectures of Epictetus. Here we have the vernacular xown of an 
educated man in the second century A.D. The style of Paul, 
like his theology, has challenged the attention of the greatest 
minds.® Farrar’ calls his language “the style of genius, if 
not the genius of style.’ There is no doubt about its indi- 
viduality. While in the four groups of his letters each group 
has a style and to some extent a vocabulary of its own, yet, as in 
Shakespeare’s plays, there is the stamp of the same tremendous 
mind. ‘These differences of language lead some to doubt the 
genuineness of certain of the Pauline Epistles, especially the Pas- 

toral Group, but criticism is coming more to the acceptance of 
all of them as genuine. Longinus ranks Paul as master of the 
dogmatic style (Ilad\os 6 Tapoeds ovtwa Kal tp&rov dnur mporcTapevov 


1 Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu, 1904. 

2 Life and Work of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 638. 

8 Writers of the N. T., p. 27. 

4 Miss. und Ausbr. des Christent., p. 354. Cf. Moffatt’s transl., vol. II, 
_ ip. 187. 

5 Exp., 1906, p. 263. 

6 St. Paul and Hellen., Stud. Bib., IV, i. 

7 Urchristentum, pp. 174-178. 

8 See Excursus I to vol. I of Farrar’s Life of Paul. 

° Ib., p. 623." On Paul's style. cf.) Blass=Gr. of N. T. Gk. pps Pebe25ts 
276, 279, 281 f., 284 f., 289, 300-805. As to the Pastoral Epistles it has been 
pointed out that there is nothing in Paul’s vocabulary inconsistent with the 
time (James, Genuin. and Author. of the Past. Epis., 1906). It is natural 
for one’s style to be enriched with age. The Church Quart. Rev. (Jan., 
1907) shows that all the new words in the Past. Epis. come from the LXX, 
Aristotle, xowy writers before or during Paul’s time. Cf. Exp. Times, 1907, 
p. 245 f. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 129 


Goyuatos avuTodeixrov). Baur! says that he has “the true ring of 
Thucydides.”” Erasmus (ad Col. 4 : 16) says: “Tonat, fulgurat, 
meras flammas loquitur Paulus.’ Hausrath? correctly says that 
“it is hard to characterize this individuality in whom Christian 
fulness of love, rabbinic keenness of perception and ancient will- 
power so wonderfully mingle.” It is indeed the most personal? 
and the most powerful writing of antiquity. He disclaims classic 
elegance and calls himself idiwrns 73 Adyw (2 Cor. 11 : 6), yet this 
was in contrast with the false taste of the Corinthians. But 
Deissmann (St. Paul, p. 6) goes too far in making Paul a mere 
tentmaker, devoid of culture. He is abrupt, paradoxical, bold, 
antithetical, now like a torrent, now like a summer brook. But 
it is passion, not ignorance nor carelessness. He was indeed no 
Atticist. He used the vernacular xowy of the time with some 
touch of the literary flavour, though his quotation of three 
heathen poets does not show an extended acquaintance with Greek 
literature.4 The difference between the vernacular and the liter- 
ary xow7 is often a vanishing point. Paul’s style is unhellenic in 
arrangement, but in Ro. 8 and 1 Cor. 13 he reaches the eleva- 
tion and dignity of Plato.’ Certainly his ethical teaching has 
quite a Hellenic ring, being both philosophical and _logical.® 
Hatch’ considers Paul to be the foremost representative of the 
Hellenic influence on early Christianity. He shows some knowl- 
edge of Roman legal terms® and uses arguments calling for edu- 
cated minds of a high order. The grammar shows little Semitic 
influence. He uses many rhetorical figures such as paronomasia, 
paradox, etc., which will be discussed in the chapter on that sub- 


1 Paul, vol. II, p. 281. Cf. K. L. Bauer, Philol. Thucyd.-Paul., 1773; also 
his Rhet. Paul., 1782. Cf. Tzschirner, Observ. Pauli ap. epist., 1800; La- 
sonder, De ling. paul. idiom., 1866. 

2 Der Apost. Paulus, p. 502. 

3 Renan, St. Paul, p. 232. Cf. also Jacquier, Hist. des Livres du N. T., 
tome 1°T, 1906, p. 37: “‘Son grec, nous le verrons, n’est pas le grec littéraire, 
mais celui de la conversation.’’ Cf. also pp. 61-70 for discussion of ‘‘ Langue 
de Saint Paul.” Cf. also Adams, St. Paul’s Vocab. St. Paul as a Former of 
Words, 1895. 

4 Cf. Farrar, Exc. III, vol. I of Life of St. Paul. 

5 Norden, Die Ant. Kunstpr., Bd. II, 1898, pp. 499, 509. 

6 Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen., 1896, p. 9. 

7 Hibbert Lect. (Infl. of Hellen. on Chris., p. 12). 

8 Ball, St. Paul and the Rom. Law (1901). Cf. Thack., Rela. of St. Paul to 
Contemp. Thought (1900). Paul’s use of véuos shows knowledge of the Roman 
lex as well the Jewish Torah. 

9 Mahaffy, Surv. of Gk. Civiliz., p. 310. 


130 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ject, some thirty kinds occurring in his writings. Farrar! sug- 
gests that Paul had a teacher of rhetoric in Tarsus. He is noted 
for his varied use of the particles and writes with freedom and 
accuracy, though his anacolutha are numerous, as in Gal. 2 : 6-9. 
He uses prepositions with great frequency and discrimination. 
The genitive is employed by Paul with every variety of applica- 
tion. The participle appears with great luxuriance and in all 
sorts of ways, as imperative or indicative or genitive absolute, ar- 
ticular, anarthrous, etc. He is ’E8patos é& ’EBpaiwv, but he handles 
his Greek with all the freedom of a Hellenist. He thinks in Greek 
and it is the vernacular xowy of a brilliant and well-educated man 
in touch with the Greek culture of his time, though remaining 
thoroughly Jewish in his mental fibre. The peculiar turns in 
Paul’s language are not due to Hebraisms, but to the passion of 
his nature which occasionally (cf. 2 Cor.) bursts all bounds and 
piles parenthesis and anacoluthon on each other in a heap. But 
even in a riot of language his thought is clear, and Paul often 
draws a fine point on the turn of a word or a tense or a case. To 
go into detail with Paul’s writings would be largely to give the 
grammar of the N. T. In Phil. 2:1 we have a solecism in é& tis 
ordayxva. His vocabulary is very rich and expressive. Thayer 
(Lexicon, pp. 704 ff.) gives 895 (44 doubtful) words that are found 
nowhere else in the N. T., 168 of them being in the Pastoral 
Epistles. Nageli? has published the first part of a Pauline lexicon 
(from a to e) which is very helpful and makes use of the papyri 
and inscriptions. The most striking thing in this study is the 
cosmopolitan character of Paul’s vocabulary. ‘There are very 
few words which are found only in the Attic writers, like 
aioxporns, and no cases of Atticism, though even in the letters a to 
e he finds some 85 that belong to the literary xowyn as shown by 
books, papyri and inscriptions, words like d@avacia, aberéw, etc. In 
some 50 more the meaning corresponds to that of the literary 
“ xown, as in dvadiw (Ph. 1:23). To these he adds words which 
appear in the literary xowy, papyri and inscriptions after Paul’s 
time, words like dprayyos, avatqv, ete. Then there are words 
that, so far- as known, occur first in the N. T. in the 
Christian sense, like ékxAncia. But the vernacular kown as set 


1 Life of St. Paul, vol. I, p. 630. 

2 Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, 1905. He says (p. 86): ‘‘Es tiberrascht 
uns nicht mehr, da jeder paulinische Brief eine Reihe von Wortern enthilt, 
die den wbrigen unbekannt sind.”’ This is well said. Each letter ought to 
have words not in the others. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 131 


forth in the papyri and inscriptions furnishes the ground-work 
of his vocabulary, when to this is added the use of the LXX 
(including the Apocrypha) as in dy7iAapBavoua, ayritw. Espe- 
cially noteworthy are some nice Greek points that are wanting 
in Paul (as well as in the rest of the N. T.) and in the papyri and 
inscriptions, as olds ré eiut, aicbdvouat, Tavu, udda, Exouae (seldom in 
the inscriptions), etc. Nageli sums up by saying that no one 
would think that Paul made direct use of Plato or Demosthenes 
and that his diligent use of the LXX explains all his Hebraisms 
besides a few Hebrew words like dufv or when he translated He- 
brew. His Aramaisms (like 4684) are few, as are his Latinisms 
(like mpattwpiov). “The Apostle writes in the style natural to a 
Greek of Asia Minor adopting the current Greek of the time, 
borrowing more or less consciously from the ethical writers of the 
time, framing new words or giving a new meaning to old words 
. . . His choice of vocabulary is therefore much like that of Epic- 
tetus save that his intimate knowledge of the LX X has modified 
it.” Paul’s Greek, in a word, “has to do with no school, with no 
model, but streams unhindered with overflowing bubbling right 
out of the heart, but it is real Greek”? (Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, 
Die griechische Literatur des Altertums, 2. Aufl., p. 159. Cf. Die 
Kultur der Gegenwart, Tl. I, Abt. 8, 1905). Deissmann (Ivght, p. 
234) sees Paul wholly as “a non-literary man of the non-literary 
class in the Imperial Age, but prophet-like rising above his class 
and surveying the contemporary educated world with the con- 
sciousness of superior strength.” 


1 Walter Lock, Jour. of Theol. Stud., 1906, p. 298. Athletic figures are 
almost confined to Paul (and Heb.), and Ramsay (Exp., 1906, pp. 283 ff.) thinks 
Tarsus left this impress on him. A further discussion of Paul’s rhetoric will 
be found in the chapter on Figures of Speech. Cf. J. Weiss, Beitr. zur paulin. 
Rhetorik, 1897; Blass, Die Rhyth. der asian. und rém. Kunstpr., 1905. Deiss. 
(Theol. Literaturzeit., 1906, pp. 231 ff.) strongly controverts Blass’ idea that 
Paul used conscious rhythm. Cf. Howson, Metaph. of St. Paul. On Paul’s 
Hellen. see Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen. (Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., 1896); Curtius, 
Paulus in Athens (Gesamm. Abhandl., 1894, pp. 527 ff.); Ramsay, Cities of 
St. Paul (pp. 9, 80-41); Heinrici, Zum Hellen. des Paulus (2 Cor. in Meyer); 
Wilamowitz-MOll., Die griech. Lit. des Altert. (p. 157); G. Milligan, Epis. to 
the Th. (1908, p. lv). Paul had a full and free Gk. vocab., thought in Gk., 
wrote in Gk. as easily as in Aramaic. But his chief indebtedness seems to 
be to the LXX, the vernac. xow7 and the ethical Stoical writers. Milligan (see 
above, pp. lii-lv) has a very discriminating discussion of Paul’s vocab. and 
style. Garvie (Stud. of Paul and His Gospel, p. 6 f.) opposes the notion that 
Paul had a decided Gk. influence. 


132 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 

(h) WriteR oF Hesrews. Bruce! is certain that the author 
was not a disciple of Paul, while Simcox? is willing to admit that 
he may have belonged once to the school of Philo, as Paul did to 
that of Gamaliel. Harnack suggests Priscilla as the author. If 
Paul had “imperial disregard for niceties of construction,’ He- 
brews shows “a studied rhetorical periodicity.”* Von Soden‘ 
considers that in the N. T. Hebrews is “the best Greek, scarcely 
different in any point from that of contemporary writers.” This 
is the more surprising when one observes the constant quotation 
of the LXX. The grammatical peculiarities are few, like the fre- 
quent use of tapa in comparison, érei with apodosis (protasis sup- 
pressed), the perfect tense to emphasize the permanence of the 
Scripture record which sometimes verges close to the aorist (4 : 38), 
the frequent participles, the varied use of particles, periphrases, 
the absence of the harsher kinds of hiatus, the presence of rhythm 
more than in any of the N. T. books, and in general the quality 
of literary style more than in any other N. T. writing. Westcott 
notes “the parenthetical involutions.” “The calculated force of 
the periods is sharply distinguished from the impetuous eloquence 
of St. Paul.’”’ The writer does not use Paul’s rhetorical expres- 
sions ri ov; tt yap; Moulton (Camb. Bibl. Essays, p. 483) notes 
the paradox that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by one 
who apparently knew no Hebrew and read only the LXX. The 
use of subordinate sentences is common and the position of words 
is carefully chosen. There is frequent use of ywév and re as well as 
dev and 6.6. The optative occurs only once and illustrates the 
true xowy. The studied style appears particularly in ch. 11 in the 
use of zicre. The style is hortatory, noble and eloquent, and has 
points of contact with Paul, Luke and Peter. The vocabulary, 
like the style, is less like the vernacular xow7 than any book in 
the N. T. Of 87 words which are found in the LXX and in this 
book alone in the N. T., 74 belong to the ancient literary works 
_and only 13 to the vernacular. 18 other words peculiar to this 
Epistle are found in the literary xown. There are 168 (10 doubt- 
ful) words in Hebrews that appear nowhere else in the N. T. 
(cf. Thayer, Lexicon, p. 708). These 168 words are quite char- 
acteristic also, like adopdav, aic@nrnpiov, ravnyupis, Tpwrotdkia. West- 


1 Hast. D. B., Hebrews. 2 Writers of the N. T., p. 42. 

3 Thayer, Lang. of the N. T., Hast. D. B. 

4 Early Chris. Lit., 1906, p. 12. On the lang. of Heb. see the careful re- 
marks of Jacquier (Hist. des Livres du N. T., tome 1°T, 1906, pp. 457 ff.). Cf. 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 1, 5, 279, 280 f., 288 f., 296 ff., 303 f. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINU 133 


cott' considers the absence of words like edayyédov, uvorhpor, 
mAnpow remarkable. The chief bond of contact in the vocab- 
ulary of Hebrews with the xowf is in the use of “sonorous” 
words like dyrixadiornu, evrepioraros, but the author is by no 
means an Atticist, though he does approach the literary xow7. 
Deissmann? indeed considers Hebrews as alone belonging “to an- 
other sphere: as in subject-matter it is more of a learned theo- 
logical work, so in form it is more artistic than the other books 
of the N. T.” He even feels that.it “seems to hang in the back- 
ground like an intruder among the N. T. company of popular 
books” (Light, p. 248). 

(1) Joun. The Johannine question at once confronts the mod- 
ern grammarian who approaches the books in the N. T. that are 
accredited to John. It is indeed a difficult problem.’ There is 
a triple difficulty: the Gospel presents a problem of its own (with 
the Epistles), the Apocalypse also has its burden, and there is the 
serious matter of the relation of the Gospel and Apocalypse on 
the linguistic side. Assuming that John the Apostle wrote the 
Gospel, Epistles and Apocalypse, we have the following situation. 
The Gospel of John has a well-defined character. There are few 
Hebraisms in detail beyond the use of viol ¢@wrds (12 : 36), kai in 
the sense of “and yet” or “but” (cf. Hebrew 7? and xai in LXX) 
as in 20:14, the absence of the particles save otv, and the con- 
stant co-ordination of the sentences with rhythmical parallelism. 
In the formal grammar the Greek is much like the vernacular 
(and literary) xowy, but the cast of thought is wholly Hebrew. 
Ewald? rightly calls its spirit “genuinely Hebrew,” while Renan® 
even says that the Gospel “has nothing Hebrew” in its style. 
Godet® calls the Gospel a Hebrew body with a Greek dress and 
quotes Luthardt as saying that it “has a Hebrew soul in the 
Greek language.”’ Schaff? compares Paul to an Alpine torrent 
and John to an Alpine lake. There is indeed in this Gospel great 
simplicity and profundity. John’s vocabulary is somewhat lim- 
ited, some 114 words (12 doubtful, Thayer, Lexicon, p. 704) be- 

1 Comm. on Heb., p. xlvi. 2 Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 59. 

8 Cf. Drummond, Charac. and Author. of the Fourth Gosp., 1904; Sanday, 
Crit. of the Fourth Gosp., 1905; Bacon, The Fourth Gosp. in Res. and De- 
bate, 1910. 

4 Quoted in Schaff, Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 67. 

6 Ib. On p. 73 Schaff puts Jo. 1:18 side by side in Gk. and Heb The 
Heb. tone of the Gk. is clear. 


6 Comm. sur l’Evang. de 8S. Jean, vol. I, pp. 226, 232. 
7 Comp. to Gk. N. T., p. 66. 


134 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


longing to the Gospel alone in the N. T. But the characteristic 
words are repeated many times, such as aA7fea, auaptia, ywwokw, 
ddéa, CwH, Koopos, Kplows, Oyos, PapTUpéw, TioTEbw, oKOTOS, Pas, etc. 
“He rings the changes on a small number of elementary words 
and their synonyms.”! But words like éxxAnoia, ebayyedov, meTa- 
youu, TapaBor\n, miotis, copia do not occur at all. However, too 
much must not be inferred from this fact, for murebw and evayye- 
Ai~w do appear very often.2 Other characteristics of the Gospel 
are the common use of iva in the non-final sense, the distinctive 
force of the pronouns (especially éxetvos, éuds, téros), the vivid use 
of the tenses (like Mark), the unusual use of otv,* fw alwys is 
frequent (21 times, and more than all the rest of the N. T.), fre- 
quent repetition, favourite synonyms. The Johannine use of 
kal, 6€, AAG, yap, el, STL, uN, od, etc., is all interesting (see Abbott). 
The prepositions, the cases, the voices, the modes all yield good 
results in Abbott’s hands. The Epistles of John possess the same 
general traits as the Gospel save that oty does not occur at all 
save in 3 Jo. 8 while 67. is very common. Kai is the usual con- 
nective. Only eight words are common alone to the Gospel and 
the Epistles in the N. T., while eleven are found in the Epistles 
and not in the Gospel. Westcott,’ however, gives parallel sen- 
tences which show how common phrases and idioms recur in the 
Gospel and the First Epistle. The Apocalypse has much in 
common with the Gospel, as, for instance, no optative is found in 
either; d7ws is not in either save in Jo. 11:57; wa is very common 
in Gospel, 1 John and Apocalypse, more so than in any other 
book of the N. T. save Mark, and wa uy is very common in 
Gospel and Apocalypse; otv is almost absent from the Apocalypse 


1 Abb., Joh. Vocab., p. 348. 

Mba gem J keto abhor has luminous remarks on such words as morebu, 
éfovcia, and all phases of John’s vocabulary. 

’ Occurs 195 times in the Gospel and only 8 of the instances in the dis- 
courses of Jesus. Nearly all of these are in the transitional sense. Cf. Abb., 
Joh. Gr., 1906, p. 165. 

* On Joh. Synon. (like Oewpéw, dpa) see ch. III of Abbott’s Joh. Vocab., 
1905. In John épaw is not used in present (though often é&paxa), but Br€érw 
and Oewpéw. Luke uses it also in present only 3 times, Heb. 2, Jas. 2, Ac. 8, 
Apoc. 18. On the whole subject of Joh. gr. see the same author’s able work 
on Joh. Gr. (1906), which has a careful and exhaustive discussion of the most 
interesting points in the Gospel. 

5 Comm. on Epis. of Jo., pp. xliff. The absence of og», when so character- 
istic of the Gospel, shows how precarious mere verbal argument is. Baur, 
Die Evang., p. 380, calls the Gospel the Apocalypse “transfigured.” Cf. 
Blass on John’s style, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 261, 276, 278 f., 291, 302. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 1385 


as in Epistles and the discourses of Jesus, being common as tran- 
sitional particle in narrative portion of Gospel!; épa, common in 
other Evangelists and Paul, is not found in Gospel, Epistles or 
Apocalypse; uév, So common in Matthew, Luke (Gospel and Acts), 
Paul and Hebrews, is not found at all in Apocalypse and John’s 
Hpistles and only eight times in his Gospel; aore, which appears 
95 times elsewhere in the N. T., is not found in Gospel, Epistles 
or Apocalypse save once in Jo. 3:16; uh wore, fairly common in 
Matthew, Luke and Hebrews, does not occur in John’s writings 
save in Jo. 7:26 (Paul uses it also once only, 2 Tim. 2:25, prefer- 
ring un mws, which he alone uses, 13 exx.); uaptvpéw is more fre- 
quent in Gospel than in | John and Apocalypse, but paprupia is as 
common in Apocalypse as Gospel; dvoua is frequent in Gospel and 
Apocalypse as applied to God; oféa is found less often in Apoca- 
lypse than in Gospel; dAy@vds is common in Gospel, Epistle and 
Apocalypse, though a\7nO7s and adjfeca do not appear in the Apoca- 
lypse; vuxaw occurs only once in Gospel (16:33), but is common 
in 1 John and Apocalypse; 6iéwu is more frequent in Gospel and 
Apocalypse than in any other N. T. book (even Matt.); dei- 
Kvume appears about the same number of times in Gospel and 
Apocalypse; doyos is applied to Christ in Jo. 1:1 and Rev. 
19 : 13; the peculiar expression kal vdv éoriv which occurs in John 
5 : 25 is similar to the xai éovev of 1 Jo. 3:1, and the xal ovk eict 
of Rev. 2:2, 3:9; all are fond of antithesis and parenthesis 
and repeat the article often. Over against these is to be placed 
the fact that the Apocalypse has 156 (83 doubtful) words not in 
the Gospel or Epistles, and only nine common alone to them. 
Certainly the subject-matter and spirit are different, for the Son 
of Thunder speaks in the Apocalypse. Dionysius? of Alexandria 
called the language of the Apocalypse barbaric and ungram- 
matical because of the numerous’ departures from usual Greek 
assonance. The solecisms in the Apocalypse are not in the realm 
of accidence, for forms like adjjxes, rémtwxav, 6164, etc., are com- 
mon in the vernacular cow. The syntactical peculiarities are 
due partly to constructio ad sensum and variatio structurae. Some 
(“idiotisms” according to Dionysius) are designed, as the expres- 
sion of the unchangeableness of God by azo 6 & (1:4). As to 
6 Av the relative use of 6 in Homer may be recalled. See also 


€ ’ 


4 oval in 11:14, buorov vidy in 14 : 14, oval rods x. In 8:13. Benson 


1 Similarly re, which occurs 160 times in the Acts, is found only 8 times in 
Luke’s Gospel. Cf. Lee, Speaker’s Comm., p. 457. 
2 Apud Hus. H. HE.) VII, xxv. 


136 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Apocalypse) speaks of “a grammar of Ungrammar,” which is a 
bold way of putting it. But the “solecisms” in the Apocalypse 
are chiefly cases of anacolutha. Concord is treated lightly in the 
free use of the nominative (1 :5; 2 : 20; 3 : 12), in particular the 
participles Néywy and eéxwv (4:1; 14:14); in the addition of a 
pronoun as in 3:8; in gender and number as in 7:9; in the use 
of parenthesis as in 1:5f. Cf. Swete, Apocalypse, p. cxviil f. 
The accusative, as in the vernacular xow7 (cf. modern Greek) 
has encroached upon other cases as with xarnyopety (12 : 10). The 
participle is used freely and often absolutely in the nominative as 
6 vuev (2 : 26). Most of the variations in case are with the parti- 
ciple or in apposition, as 6 waprus after Xpiorod (1:5). Moulton! 
has called attention to the numerous examples of nominative ap- 
position in the papyri, especially of the less educated kind. The 
old explanation of these grammatical variations was that they 
were Hebraisms, but Winer? long ago showed the absurdity of 
that idea. It is the frequency of these phenomena that calls for 
remark, not any isolated solecism in the Apocalypse. Moulton® 
denies that the Apocalypse has any Hebraisms. That is possibly 
going too far the other way, for the book is saturated with the 
apocalyptic images and phrases of Ezekiel and Daniel and is very 
much like the other Jewish apocalypses. It is not so much par- 
ticular Hebraisms that meet us in the Apocalypse as the flavour 
of the LX X whose words are interwoven in the text at every turn. 
It is possible that in the Apocalypse we have the early style of 
John before he had lived in Ephesus, if the Apocalypse was writ- 
ten early. On the other hand the Apocalypse, as Bigg holds true 


1 Exp., 1904, p. 71. Cf. also Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 151; Reinhold, 
Graec. Patr. etc., p. 57f.; Schlatter, Die Spr. und Heimat des vierten 
Evang. Schl. overemphasizes the Aramaic colour of the Gospel. 

2 W.-M., p. 671. 

8 Prol., p.9. Cf. also Jiilicher, Intr. to N. T.; Bousset, Die Offenb. Joh., 
1896; Lee, Speaker’s Comm. on Rev. Swete (Apoc. of St. John, 1906, p. 
exx) thinks that John’s “eccentricities of syntax belong to more than one 
cause: some to the habit which he may have retained from early years of 
thinking in a Semitic language; some to the desire of giving movement and 
vivid reality to his visions, which leads him to report them after the manner 
of shorthand notes, jotted down at the time; some to the circumstances in 
which the book was written.’”” The Apoc. “stands alone among Gk. literary 
writings in its disregard of the ordinary rules of syntax, and the success with 
which syntax is set aside without loss of perspicuity or even of literary power.” 
Swete welcomes gladly the researches of Deissmann, Thumb and Moulton, 
but considers it precarious to compare. a literary document like the Apoc. 
with slips in business letters, etc. 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 137 


of 2 Peter, may represent John’s real style, while the Gospel and 
Epistles may have been revised as to Greek idioms by a friend or 
friends of John in Ephesus (cf. Jo. 21 : 24). With this theory 
compare Josephus’ War and Antiquities. One is slow (despite 
Moffatt’s positiveness in the Hap. Gk. Test.), in the light of Dante, 
Shakespeare, Milton, to say that John could not have written 
the Apocalypse, though it be the last of his books. Besides what 
has been said one must recall that the Apocalypse was composed 
on the Isle of Patmos, in some excitement, and possibly without 
careful revision, while the Gospel and First Epistle probably had 
care and the assistance of cultured friends. At any rate the ver- 
nacular xowy is far more in evidence in the Apocalypse than in 
the Gospel and Epistles. “As Dante had the choice between the 
accepted language of education, Latin, and the vulgar tongue, so 
St. John had to choose between a more artificial kind of Greek, 
as perpetuated from past teaching, and the common vulgar 
speech, often emancipated from strict grammatical rules, but 
nervous and vigorous, a true living speech.’’! 

VII. N. T. Greek Illustrated by the Modern Greek Vernacu- 
lar. Constant use will be made of the modern Greek in the 
course of the Grammar. Here a brief survey is given merely to 
show how the colloquial xow7y survives in present-day Greek ver- 
nacular. Caution is necessary in such a comparison. The literary 
modern Greek has its affinities with the literary xown or even 
with the Atticists, while the vernacular of to-day often shows 
affinities with the less educated writers of papyri of the N. T. 
time. The N. T. did indeed have a great effect upon the later 
xown When theological questions were uppermost at Alexandria 
and Constantinople.? The cleavage between the literary and the 
vernacular became wider also. But apart from ecclesiastical 
terms there is a striking likeness at many points between the ver- 
nacular xow7 and modern Greek vernacular, though modern Greek 
has, of course, Germanic and other elements’ not in the xou7. 
The diminutive‘ is more common in the modern Greek than in 


1 Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 1905, p. 209. In general see 
‘Seeberg, Zur Charak. des Apost. Joh., Neue Kirch. Zeitschr., 1905, pp. 51-64. 

2 Cf. Gregory Naz., II, 13, A; Gregory Nyssa, III, 557 B; Reinhold, De 
Graec. Patr.etc., 1898. 

3 Thumb, Indoger..Forsch., 1903, p. 359f. Boltz (Die hell. Spr., 1881, 
p. 10) quotes Rangabé as saying that the mod. Gk. is as far removed from 
that of the LXX as from that of Xenophon. 

4 Cf. Hatz., Einl. in d. neugr. Gr., p. 37 f., for list. 


138 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the cow? and usually in ct, as 76 dpvi. The optative is rare in the 
N. T.; in the modern Greek it has disappeared. The infinitive is 
vanishing before iva in the N. T.; in the modern Greek va has dis- 
placed it completely save with auxiliary verbs... The accusative? 
in modern Greek has made still further headway and is used even 
with a7é and all prepositions. The ui verb has entirely vanished 
in modern Greek vernacular except ¢efvar. The forms in —ogap, 
—ovoay are very common, as are the a forms in aorist and imper- 
fect. The forms in —es (—as) for perfect and first aorist are also 
frequent. The middle voice has almost vanished as a separate 
voice (cf. Latin). Prepositions in the vernacular (chiefly es) have 
displaced the dative. The superlative is usually expressed by 
the article and the comparative. Kennedy gives an interesting 
list of words that appear either for the first time or with a new 
sense in the LXX or the N. T. (or the papyri) that preserve that 
meaning in the modern Greek, as 6ua (‘roof’), dvcvacrnproy (‘altar’), 
kadnynrns (‘professor,’ in N. T. ‘master’), fevodoxetov (‘hotel,’ in 
N. T. &evodoxew= ‘entertain strangers’), waldetw (‘chastise,’ from 
tats), b0avw (‘arrive’), yoptacw (‘feed’), ete. The list could be greatly 
extended, but let these suffice.t A specimen of modern Greek 
vernacular is given from Pallis’ translation of Jo. 1 : 6-8: Byfixe 
évas avOpwros oTadyevos ad TO Qed 7’ Svoud Tov “Iwavns. AdTos ApbE La 
Knpvypa, yra va Knpvéer TO Hos, Tov va Kaver KL’ GOL VA TLoTEWouv. ev 
eiTav éxelvos TO Pads, Tapa ya va Knpv&a To dds. The literary modern 
Greek in these verses differs very little from the original N. T. 
text, only in the use of imfjp£tev, dvouatduevos, dra va, d€v, Aro. Moul- 
ton® in an interesting note gives some early illustrations of 
modern Greek vernacular. In the second century A.D. écod is 


1 It still persists in Pontic-Cappadocian Gk. according to Thumb, Theol. 
Literaturzeit., 1903, p. 421. 

? There is a riot of indifference as to case in the vernacular Byz. Gk., as 
avy rijs yuvaixds. Cf. Mullach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., p.27. Jean Psichari, 
“Poda kat Mfjda (1906), has written a defence of the mod. Gk. vernac. and has 
shown its connection with the ancient vernac. The mod. Gk. has like free- 
dom in the use of the genitive case (cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 32 ff.). Prep- 
ositions have displaced the partitive gen., the genitive of material and of 
comparison (abl.), in mod. Gk. The mod. Gk. shows the acc. displacing the 
gen. and dat. of the older Gk. (op. cit., p. 35 f.) after axodov0&, axobw, aravTd, 
etc. The double acc. goes beyond anc. Gk. usages (op. cit., p. 36) as Aa pddwa 
Ta Brérw, ‘I see everything rosy.’ 

§ Sour. of N. T. Gk., pp. 153 ff. 

* Cf. Thumb’s Handb. der neugr. Volksspr. (1895); V. and D., Handb. to 
Mod. Gk. (1887); Thumb-Angus, Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vernac. (1912). 

Se Prolypa ok 


THE PLACE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE KOINH 139 


found in OP 528. He quotes Thumb (BZ ix, 234) who cites 
from an inscription of the first century A.D. éyouces as nominative 
and accusative plural. And Ramsay (Cities and Bish., II, p. 537) 
gives émirndeboouv as third plural form on a Phrygian inscription 
of the third century a.p. As one illustration note Paul’s use of 
katéxw (Ro. 1:18). In modern Greek dialects xkaréexw=néevpw, ‘I 
know.’ 


<% 
a 


7 
= “ap 3) an e 
> ot py 4 “4 
_ S 7 





PART II 
ACCIDENCE 





CHAPTER V 
WORD-FORMATION 


I. Etymology. Grammar was at first a branch of philosophy 
among the Greeks, and with the foundation of the Alexandrian 
library a new era began with the study of the text of Homer.! 
After Photius etymology “rules the whole later grammatical 
literature.”* The Stoic grammarians were far better in ety- 
mology than in anything else and we owe them a real debt in 
this respect, though their extended struggle as to whether anal- 
ogy or anomaly ruled in language has left its legacy in the long 
lists of “exceptions” in the grammars.’ In some grammars the 
term etymology is still applied to the whole discussion of Forms 
or Accidence, Formenlehre. But to-day it is generally applied 
to the study of the original form and meaning of words.4 The 
word érvpodoyia is, of course, from érvyyos and ddyos, and ér-vyos, 
meaning ‘real’ or ‘true,’ is itself from the same root er— from which 
ér-eds, ‘true,’ comes. So also ér-afw, ‘to test.’ Compare also San- 
skrit sat-yas, ‘true,’ and sat-yam, ‘truth,’ as well as the Anglo-Saxon 
s63, ‘sooth.’ To éruyoy is the true literal sense of a word, the 
root. No more helpful remark can be made at this point than to 
insist on the importance of the student’s seeing the original form 
and import of each word and suffix or prefix. This is not all that 
is needed by any means, but it is a beginning, and the right be- 
ginning.» “It was the comparative study of languages that first 


1 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét. et Et. des Formes Grq. et Lat., 1901, p. 245. 

2 Reitzenstein, Gesch. der griech. Etym., 1897, p. vi. 

3 Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw. etc., 2. Tl., pp. 347 ff. 

4 “8 éruuos Adyos heifkt ja auch ‘die wahre Bedeutung’; da8 man hier érv- 
pos sagte und nicht 4767s, liegt daran, daf§ ionische Sophisten, namentlich 
Prodikos, die Etymologie und Synonymik aufbrachten.” F. Blass, Hermen. 
und Krit., Bd. I, Miiller’s Handb. d. klass. Alt., 1892, p. 183. 

5 See Pott, Etym. Forsch., 1861; Curtius, Gk. Etym., vols. I, II, 1886; 
Prellwitz, Etym. Worterb. der griech. Spr., 1893; Brug. und Delb., Grundr. 
der vergl. Gr., 1897-1901; Skeat, Etym. Dict. of the Eng. Lang., etc. 

143 


144 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


gave etymology a surer hold.”! Curtius means etymology in 
the modern sense, to be sure. 

II. Roots.2 It is not to be supposed that what are called roots 
necessarily existed in this form. They represent the original 
stock from which other words as a rule come. What the original 
words actually were we have no means of telling. They were not 
necessarily interjections, as some have supposed. Mere articu- 
late sounds, unintelligible roots, did not constitute speech. Some 
interjections are not roots, but express ideas and can often be 
analyzed, as “jemine’”’=Jesu Domine.? Others, like most nursery 
words, are onomatopoetic. There is, besides, no evidence that prim- 
itive man could produce speech at will.t| But a few root-words 
appear like the Latin 7 (‘go’) and probably the Greek 74 (though 7eé 
is found in Epic Greek). The number of Greek roots is compara- 
tively few, not more than 400, probably less. Harris® observes 
that of the 90,000 words in a Greek lexicon only 40,000 are what 
are termed classic words. The new words, which are constantly 
made from slang or necessity, are usually made from one of the 
old roots by various combinations, or at any rate after the anal- 
ogy of the old words.* Words are “the small coin of language,’’? 
though some of them are sesquipedalian enough. There seem to 
be two ultimate kinds of words or roots, verbs and pronouns, 
and they were at last united into a single word as ¢7-ui, ‘say I.’ 


1 Curtius, Gk. Etym., vol. I, p. 16. 

2 The whole subject of N. T. lexicography calls for reworking. Deissmann 
is known to be at work on a N. T. Lex. in the light of the pap. and the 
inscr. Meanwhile reference can be made to his Bible Studies, Light, and 
his New Light on the N. T.; to J. H. Moulton’s articles in the Exp. 
(1901, 1903, 1904, 1908); to Kennedy’s Sour. of N. T. Gk. (for LXX and 
N. T.); to Thayer’s N. T. Gk. Lex. and his art. on Lang., of N. T. in Hast. 
D. B.; to Cremer’s Theol. Lex. of N. T.; to Mayser’s Gr. d. griech. Pap. For 
the LX X phenomena see careful discussion of Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 112- 
136. Nothing like an exhaustive discussion of N. T. word-formation can yet 
be attempted. But what is here given aims to follow the lines of historical 
and comparative grammar. We must wait in patience for Deissmann’s Lex. 
George Milligan is at work with Moulton on his Vocabulary of the New 
Testament. Cf. also Nigeli, Der Wortsch. des Apost. Paulus, a portion of 
which has appeared. Especially valuable is Abb. Joh. Vocab. (1905). For 
the LXX cf. also Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., pp. 302-304. The indices to 
the lists of inscr. and pap. can also be consulted with profit. . 

3 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 181. “1b; DaloG 

5 MS. notes on Gk. Gr. 

6 Cf. on slang, Wedgwood, Intr. to the Dict. of the Eng. Lang.; Paul, 
Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 175. 

7 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 235. 


WORD-FORMATION 145 


It does not seem possible to distinguish between verbal and nomi- 
nal roots, as in English to-day the same word is indifferently verb 
or noun, ‘‘walk,” for instance. The modern view is that verbs are 
nominal in origin (Hirt, Handb., p. 201). The pronominal roots 
may furnish most of the suffixes for both verbs (6nuara) and nouns 
(dvouatra). Verbs, substantives and pronouns (avTwvoyia), there- 
fore, constitute the earliest parts of speech, and all the others are 
developed from these three. Adjectives (dvouara érifera) are 
merely variations from substantives or pronouns. Adverbs (ézip- 
pnuata) are fixed case-forms of substantives or adjectives or pro- 
nouns. Prepositions (xpodéces) are adverbs used with nouns or 
with verbs (in composition). Conjunctions (civéecuor) are adverbs 
used to connect words and sentences in various ways. Inten- 
Sive (émitacews) particles are adverbs from nominal or pronominal 
stems of a special kind. Speech has°made a very small be- 
ginning with isolated words; in fact the sentence is probably as 
old as human speech, though we first discuss words.?, The number 
of root-words with the mere ending is not very great, but some 
few survive even in the N. T., where the case-ending is added 
directly to the root, as ad-s (ada, Mk. 9: 50), with which compare 
Latin sal, English sal-t. So vats (Ac. 27:41), Latin ndv-is. In- 
stead of ads the N. T. elsewhere follows the xown in using 76 
adas, and 7é wdotov instead of vats. In rots (1d6-s) the root is only 
slightly changed after the loss of 6 (analogy of ots or déovs). The 
pronoun eis (&-s) is similarly explained. Pronouns and numerals 
use the root directly. In verbs we have many more such roots 
used directly with the personal endings without the thematic 
vowel o/e and sometimes without any tense-suffix for the pres- 
ent, like ¢y-yi (¢a-pi). The whole subject of verbs is much more 
complicated, but in general the non-thematic forms are rapidly 
disappearing in the N. T., while in the vernacular modern Greek 
the non-thematic or ws verbs are no longer used (save in the case 
of efuac), as dl6w for di6w-u, for instance. A number of these roots 
go back to the common Indo-Germanic stock. Take 6.x, the root 
of deixvu-u. The Sanskrit has di¢-d-mi; the Latin dic-o, in-dic-o, 
ju-dex; the Gothic teiho; the German zeigen. Take the thematic 
verb oxér-ro-uar. The Sanskrit root is spa¢ (‘look’), spag=spy. 
The Zend has ¢pac¢, the Latin spec-io, spec-ulum, spec-to, etc. In 
the Greek root metathesis has taken place and ozex has become 

1 “ber das relative Alter der einen oder der anderen Wortklasse lit 


sich nichts Sicheres ausmachen”’ (Vogrinz, Gr. des hom. Dial., 1889, p. 164). 
2 Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., p. 281. 


146 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


oxer in oxeér-ro-wa (‘to spy out’), oxor-7 (‘a watching’), cKom-.a 
(‘a watch-tower’), oxor-ds (‘a spy,’ ‘a goal’), oxwy (‘owl’).! Cf. 
Ph. 3: 14 xara cxordv. The old Greek writers? made pvarjpioy= 
pds Ttnpetv! 

III. Words with Formative Suffixes. The Indo-Germanic 
languages have a highly developed system of affixes,’ prefixes, 
infixes, suffixes. The suffixes are used for various purposes, as 
case-endings of nouns, as personal endings of verbs, .as aids in the 
creation of words (formative suffixes). The Greek is rich in these 
formative suffixes, which are more or less popular at various peri- 
ods of the language. The suffixes in the Greek are quite similar to 
those in the older Sanskrit. When the formative suffixes are used 
directly with the root, the words are called primitives; when the 
stem of the word is not a root, it is called a derivative. Hence 
there are primitive and derivative verbs, primitive and deriva- 
tive substantives, primitive and derivative adjectives.. There 
are, of course, in the N. T. Greek no “special’’ formative suffixes, 
though the xow7 does vary naturally in the relative use of these 
terminations from the earlier language. In the modern Greek a 
number of new suffixes appear like the diminutives —ovdos (7AXos, 
‘foal’), xr. “In all essentials the old patterns are adhered to” 
in the N. T. word-formation.t See also Hadley-Allen (pp. 188 ff.) 
for the meaning of the Greek formative suffixes. - 

(a) VerBs. On the stem-building of the verb one can consult 
Hirt or Brugmann for the new point of view.’ Without attempt- 
ing a complete list of the new words in the xowy, I give what 
is, I trust, a Just interpretation of the facts concerning the new 
words appearing from the time of Aristotle on that we find in the 
N. T. Hence some classes of words are not treated. 

1. Primary or Primitive Verbs. No new roots are used to 
make verbs with old or new terminations® in the xow7. The. ten- 


1 Cf. Rachel White, Cl. Rev., 1906, pp. 203 ff., for interesting study of 
ETLOKNTTW. 

? Blass, Hermen. und Krit., Bd.1, p. 191. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., 
1898, has a very helpful discussion of N. T. word-building (pp. 28-65), but 
does not distinguish the cow? words. _ 

* Next to Sans. Gk. uses more inflections and so more affixes. Cf. Jann., 
Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 45. 

* Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 61. On the whole subject of word-building see 
Brug., Griech. Gr., 1900, pp. 160-362; K.-BL, Bd. II, Ausf. Gr., pp. 254-340. 

* Brug. op. cit. Hirt, Handb. der griech. Laut- und Formenl., 1902, pp. 
360-391. 

6 Schmid, Der Atticis. ete., 4. Bd., p. 702. 


WORD-FORMATION 147 


dency is all towards the dropping of the non-thematic or uw forms 
both with the simple root and with the suffix. The remnants of 
the «we forms, which are not quite obsolete in the N. T., will be 
given in the chapter on the Conjugation of the Verb. Here may 
be mentioned aé\d\vu, which uses the suffix -vv.! Thematic verbs 
made from the root by the addition of o/e are very common, like 
Ney-w, Nel-w (Aur). The N. T., as the xow7y, has new presents like 
KpUBw, virtw, xbvvw, etc. These kept increasing and are vouched 
for by modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handbook, pp. 129 ff. 

2. Secondary or Derivative Verbs. Not all of these verbs are 
formed from nouns; many come also from verbs. Denominatives 
are made from nouns, like riua-w from tiun, while verbals (post- 
verbals, Jannaris?) are made from verbs. The simple denomi- 
natives,? ending in —aw, —éw, —elw, —afw, —ifw, are not always 
distinguished from the intensive verbals or the causative denomi- 
natives, though —dw, —atvw, —ivw more commonly represent the 
latter. ’Omravw (from drtw) besides Ac. 1:3 appears in the LXX, 
Hermes, Tebt. Papyri. Cf. also the rare AXwrdavw. The xow7 is 
rich in new verbs in —-vw. Verbs in —aw are common in the N. T., 
as in the cow, like tiudw, dupaw, Faw, ete. ’Ava-faw occurs in Artem., 
Photius, inscriptions, etc. In the modern Greek verbs in —aw have 
gained at the expense of verbs in -ew.t They belong to the oldest 
Greek speech and come from feminine stems in -a.° Verbs in -afw 
show great increase in the N. T. as in the xow7 and modern Greek,® 
like ay.atw (ay.os, ayitw, LXX), evradiafw (radia, Anthol., Plut.), 
ynmiacw (vamos) in Hippocrates, orvyvafw (from orvyvds) in Schol. 
on A’sch. and in LXX ouwidtw (cuvior, eccl., Byz.). Ivppatw (Mt. 
16 :2f.) occurs in LXX and Philo, but W. H. reject this passage. 

The majority of the new verbs in —-éw are compound, as aoxnyovew, 
TAnpopopéw (rAnpo-hopos, LX X, pap.), but dvvarew (only in N. T.) 
is to be noticed on the other side.” ’Axacpéw (from axatpos) is found 


1 On history of the we verbs see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 234. In the pap. 
verbs in —vu keep the non-thematic form in the middle, while in the active 
both appear. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 38. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 300. 

3 Harris, MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. 

4 Thumb, Handb., p. 175; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 218, 300. 

6 Siitterlin, Gesch. der Verba Denom. in Altgriech., 1891, p. 7. Cf. also 
Pfordten, Zur Gesch. der griech. Denom., 1886. Mayser (Gr., pp. 459-466) has 
an interesting list of derivative verbs in the Ptol. pap. Cf. Fréankel, Gr. Den. 

6 Thumb, Handb. of Mod. Gk., V., p. 185f. There is frequent inter- 
change between forms in —é{w, —ifw and —é. 

7) Blass, Gr. of aN. L..Gk.,; p: 61. 


148 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Diodorus; ebrpoowréw (ebrpdcwmros) is found in Gal. 6:12 (in 
papyri, 114 B.c.; drws ebrpoowrduev, Tebt. P. No. 19»f.). Cf. 
Moulton, Expositor, 1903, p. 114. These verbs have always been 
very numerous, though —ew gradually retreats before -aw. Tpnyo- 
pew (Arist., LX X, Jos.) is formed from the perfect éypyyopa, 
which is not in the N. T., but Winer long ago found a similar 
form in émxeyerpéew (Papyri Taurin. 7).! ’EXarrovew (Arist., LXX, 
pap.) is from édarrov. ’Eddoyéw (and —dw) is in inscriptions and 
papyri. ’Egaxodovdéw (Polyb., Plut., inscriptions) is not “biblical” 
as Thayer called it. Av’Oevréw (aifévrns, atros and &rea) is in the 
xownh, according to Moeris, for the Attic atrodiuew. (In the late 
papyri see Deissmann, Light, p. 85.) No great distinction in 
sense exists between —aw and —éw. 

Verbs in —evw are also very common and are formed from a 
great variety of stems. Alxyadwrebw (from aixuadwros) is read in 
2 Tim. 3:6 only by D° EKL al. pl. Or., the form in —ifw being 
genuine. It is, however, common in the LXX, as is éyxparevouat 
(1 Cor. 9: 25), from éyxparns (in Aristotle). Tvuritebw (not yupry- 
zevw, Dio Chrys., Plut., Dio Cass., etc.) is found in 1 Cor. 4:11 
and is from yuuvnrns. Zndeve (Simplic., Democr.), not ¢7dwaor, is 
the correct text in Rev. 3:19 (so W. H. with ABC against NP). 
Both are from (fos. OpiayBebw (from ApiauBos) is in the literary 
kown. ‘leparebw (Lu. 1: 8) is from fepetbs and is found in the 
LXX, the xowy writers and the inscriptions. Meow.rebw (Heb. 
6:17) is from yecirns and is found in Arist., Polyb. and papyri. 
Maénrebw is from pabyrjs (Plut., Jambl.); ddoApetw (Heb. 11: 28, 
LXX) is from édcpos (ADE read odc$petwy in Heb. 11:28). In 
Ac. 3:23 é£o\cpebw is the form accepted by W. H. after the 
best MSS. of the LXX.3 TIlayidetw (Mt. 22:15) is from zayis 
and occurs in the LXX. TIlapa-Bodevouar is the correct word in 
Ph. 2:30 against CKLP which read zapa-Bovrebowar. The word 
is from mapd-Bodos, which has not been found in other writers, but 
an inscription (ii/A.D.) at Olbia on the Black Sea has the very 
form rapaBorevoduevos used by Paul (cf. Deissmann, Light, p. 84). 
Ileprepevouat (1 Cor. 13 : 4) is made from zépzepos and is found in 


1 W.-M., p. 115. 

2 Cf. OpiauBov cicdyav, triumphum agere. Goetzeler, Einfl. d. Dion. von 
Ital. auf d. Sprachgeb. d. Plut., 1891, p. 203. Deiss. (Light, p. 368) gives 
this word (with dpern, éfoucta, 56a, loxbs, kpatos, ueyadedrns) as proof of a paral- 
lel between the language of the imperial cult and of Christianity. 

> Cf. W.-M., note, p. 114. Mayser (Gr., pp. 415-509) gives a very com- 
plete discussion of “Stammbildung” in the Ptol. pap. 


WORD-FORMATION 149 


Antoninus. Xpyorevouat is from xpyords. Three verbs in —$w 
appear which are made from verbs in —dw and —éw, viz. adnOw 
(drew), KvnOw (kvaw), vnAw (vew), One (v7Aw) being found also in Plato. 
Polit. (p. 289 ce). Cf. modern Greek 6€érw (ridnur). 

The causative ending —dw is usually formed on noun-stems and 
is very common, sometimes supplanting verbs in —elw or —ifw, as 
ava-ka.vow (Isocrates, avaxawvitw),! avacrarow (from davacratos, LXX, 
papyri. Cf. dvacrarot we, ‘he upsets me,’ Deissmann, Light, p. 81); 
ad-utvow (Anthol., classical adumvitw); dexatow (classical dexarebw) ; 
dodvew (LXX, from 66d0s); duvvaudw (LXX, ecel. and Byz., from 
dvvauts); éfovdevow (often in LXX, but W. H. read é£ovdevéw in 
Mk. 9:12, Plutarch even éfovderitw); Oeuehtow (LXX) is from 
Beuédvov; Kavodw (from xadoos, Disc., Galen); xedadiow (Lob., ad 
Phryn., p. 95, xedarifw, though not in any known Greek author) 
W. H. read in Mk. 12:4 with NBL as against xedadaiow and it 
means ‘beat on the head’ (cf. codadifw). So KodoBow (from KddoBos, 
Arist., Polyb., Diod.); vexpow (from vexpos, Plut., Epict., M. Aur., 
inscriptions); kpatavow (LXX, eccl.), from kparivw; capow (Artem., 
Apoll., Dysc.), from caipw (capos); cnuetow (from onuetov, Theoph., 
Polyb., LX X, Philo, Dion. Hal., etc.); cOevow (Rhet. Gr.), from 
abevew (cOevos) ; xapitow (LX X, Jos., eccl.), from yapis. Verbs in —dw 
do not always have the full causative idea,? a&6w=‘deem worthy’ 
and éuxkalow= ‘deem righteous.’ 

Verbs in —ifw do not necessarily represent repetition or inten- 
sity. They sometimes have a causative idea and then again lose 
even that distinctive note and supplant the older form of the 
word. Forms in-ifw are very common in modern Greek. ‘Pavrifw 
(LXX, Athen.), for instance, in the N. T. has displaced paivw, and 
Barrif~w (since Plato) has nearly supplanted Barrw. These verbs 
come from many sorts of roots and are very frequent in the N. T., 
as the xow7 is lavish with them. The new formations in the xown7 
appearing in the N. T. are as follows: aiperifw (from afperés, LXX, 
inscriptions); aixuadwritw (literary xown and LXX), from aixpa- 
Awtos; avabeuatifw (LXX and inscriptions), from avabeua; daveuifw 
(Jas. 1:6) is found in schol. on Hom. Od. 12, 336, the old form 
being dveudw; arevitw (from arevjs, Arist., Polyb., Jos.); devryparifw 
(from de?yua) appears in apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul; 
doyuarifw (from déyua) is in Diodorus and the LXX; éyyifw (from 
éyyts, from Polyb. and Diod. on); é-vrvitw (from tavos, LXX, 
Plut.); @earpitw (from Oéarpov) in ecclesiastical and Byzantine 
writers, éearpitw being in Polybius; tuarifw (from tuariov) is 

1 Cf. Siitterlin, Zur Gesch. der Verba Denom., p. 95. 2 Tb. 


150 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


found in Serapeum papyrus 163 B.c.; lovdaifw (from ’Iovéaios) is 
found in the LX X and Josephus and is formed like é\Anvitw and 
similar ethnic terms; xafapifw (classic xafaipw, from xafapos, LXX, 
Jos., inscriptions); xpuoradAXif~w (from xpiaraddos, Rev. 21:11) is 
still “not found elsewhere” (Thayer); uwuxrnpifw (from puxrjp, ‘the — 
nose’) is in the LXX; dpApifw (from ép8pos) is in the LXX; zedexifw 
(from 7é\exus) is common in literary kown; cxoprifw (akin to oxop- 
mlios, root skerp) is in LXX and in literary «own, Attic form being 
oxedavvumt, old Ionic according to Phrynichus; ordayxvifouar (from 
omdayxva, Heb. 27971) occurs in LXX, Attic had an active 
orAdayxvebw; ouppopditw (from ctupopdos) is the correct text in 
Ph. 3:10 against cvuppyopdow (EKL), though neither word is known 
elsewhere, perhaps coined by Paul; ¢vAaxifw (from ¢vAaxy) is in 
LXX and Byzantine writers. Of verbs in —ifw, yoyyifw (ono- 
matopoetic, like rovOptfw of the cooing of doves) is in the LX 
and the papyri. 7 

Verbs in —vvw are fairly common, like rapoétvw. Only one word 
calls for mention, oxAnpbyw (from oxAnpos), which takes the place 
of the rare oxAnpow and is found in LXX and Hippocrates. No 
new verbs in —aivw (like evdpaivw) appear in the N. T. Verbs in 
—cxw are, like the Latin verbs in —sco, generally either inchoative 
or causative. It is not a very common termination in the N. T., 
though ebpicxw, ywwoxw and é6idacxw occur very often, but these 
are not derivative verbs. In the N. T. the inchoative sense is 
greatly weakened. ‘The suffix belongs to the present and the im- 
perfect only. In modern Greek it has nearly disappeared save 
in the dialects... Tauicxw (accepted by W. H. in Lu. 20: 34) 
rather than yauitw is causative (Arist. pol.); ynpackw and pebvoxw 
both come from the earlier Greek.? ’Ev-6.6t-cxw occurs in the 
LXX, Jos., inscriptions. The new present ornxw (Mk. 11: 25) is 
made from the perfect stem éornxa (oréxw in modern Greek). As 
in N. T., so in modern Greek desideratives in —celw, —o1dw drop 
out. The verbs in —idw still retained (ayadd\idw, apotp-1dw, Juu-rdw, 
xor-.dw) have no desiderative meaning. Of these dyad\raw, for 
the old ayaddouat, is late xown; aporpraw is from Theophr. on, 
kor.aw is late in the sense of ‘toil.’ No new reduplicated verbs 
appear in the N. T. 

(b) SUBSTANTIVES. 

1. Primary or Primitive Substantives. Here the formative 
(stem-suffix) suffix is added to the root. It is important to seek the 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 302; Thumb, Handb., p. 133. 
2 Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 615, for discussion of —oxw verbs. 


WORD-FORMATION 151 


meaning not only of the root, but of this formative suffix also 
when possible. The root has in most cases the strong form, as 
in doy(Aey)-0-s. These substantives are thus from the same root 
as the verb. With —y0-s, —uy, expressing action, are formed in 
the old Greek words like @v-ués, ri-u7. With —ua, denoting re- 
sult, we find dvr-amé-do-ua (LXX, old Greek davt-azr6-6o-c1s, from 
avt-aTro-didwut) ; Sua-oTy-wa (from éi-iornu, Arist., Polyb., Philo); 
év-6u-ua (from é-dtw, LXX, Strabo, Jos., Plut.); O€\yn-wa (from 
Gedw, Arist. and LXX); xara-xpi-ua (from xata-xpivw, Dion. Hal., 
pap.) ; ka7a-dv-va (from Kkata-db-w, literary xown for old xat-aywyeior, 
and with idea of place); xata-orn-ua (xab-iorn-u, Plut. and the 
LXX); xric-ya (from xrifw, Strabo, Dion. Hal.); rpdc-kou-ya (from 
mpoo-koT-Tw, in LXX and Plut.). The suffix —o.-s, meaning action 
(abstract), appears in ava-BreJ-1s (Arist., LX X); ava-deré-cs (from 
ava-deix-vu-ut, Plut., Diod., Strabo, Sirach); @é\yn-o1s in Heb. 2 :4 
(from #é\w, a “vulgarism,” according to Pollux); xara-vvé-is (from 
Kata-vioo-w, LXX); Kxara-xprots (from xara-xpivw, Vettius Valens, 
eccl.); me-ol8-n-o1s (from é-7ob-a, reidw, Josephus and Philo, 
condemned by the Atticists) ; rpdc-xdt-ovs (from mpoo-xdiv-w, Polyb. 
and Diod.); rpdc-xv-o1s (from mpoc-xé-w, Justin Martyr and later). 
The suffix —yov7 is used with zeo-yovn (from zeidw, Ignatius and 
later) and émi-\no-yovn (éri-davO-dvw, émi-Ajo-pwv, Sirach). Lay-hvy 
(LXX, Plut., Lucian) has suffix —jv7n (cf. -ovo, —-ovn, ete.). Ara- 
omop-a (dta-orelipw, LXX, Plut.) and spoc-evx-7 (apoo-ebx-omat, 
LXX, inscriptions) use the suffix —a (—n). Cf. azo-ypad-7 (N. T., 
papyri), azo-doxy (inscriptions), Bpoxn (papyri), éuwAoKn (éumdeéxw, 
inscriptions), dva-rayn (dva-racow, papyri, inscriptions, later writ- 
ings). The agent is usually —7ns (Blass, Gr., p. 62), not —rwp or 
—Tnp as in dvaxrns (from diwxw, earliest example) and 66-rns (from 
di-dw-ut, Classic dornp. But cf. cw-rnp). See yrworns (yt-vackw, 
LXX, Plut.), crio-rns (krifw, Arist., Plut., LX X), émi-cra-rns (only 
in Luke, é¢iornu). See further under compound words for more 
examples. In modern Greek —7ns is preserved, but —7wp and rnp 
become —ropys, —rnpas. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 288; Thumb, Hand- 
book, p. 49. I pass by words in —evs, —unv, —Tpov, etc. 

2. Secondary or Derivative Substantives. Only important words 
not in common use in the older Greek can be mentioned. 

(a) Those from verbs. Words in —yés expressing action. From 
verbs in —afw come ayiac-yds (ancient Greek ayifw, but later form 
common in LXX and N. T.); ayvio-ués (from ayvitw, Dion. Hal., 
LXX, Plut.); damapric-uds (Dion. Hal., Apoll. Dyse., papyri); 
aptay-uos (apratw is from root apm, like Latin rapio. ‘Apray-yds once 


152 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Plutarch, adprayji common from Aschylus)'; yoyyve-pyos (from 
yoyvyucw, Antonin.) ; évradiac-yds (Plutarch and scholia to Eur. and 
Arist., vragidfw); tuatio-wos (from tuarifw, LX X, Theophr.,Polyb., 
Diod., Plut., Athen.); meipac-yos (from mepafa and common in 
the LXX). From verbs in -if{w we have Bamrio-yos (Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 62) used by Josephus of John’s baptism,” but not in 
the N. T. of the ordinance of baptism, save in Col. 2:12, in X° 
BD*FG 47, 67**, 71, a Western reading rejected by W. H.; 
éverdio-uos (Plutarch and Dion. Hal.); zapopyic-uos (not found 
earlier than LXX nor in xow7 writers, Dion. uses zapopyitw) ; ropic- 
pos (Sap., Polyb., Jos., Plut., Test. XII Patr.); pavric-yos (LX X); 
caBBaric-uos (Plut. and eccl. writers); cwdpovic-yds (Jos., Plut., 
etc.); Wbupic-uos (from yYibvpitw, LXX, Clem. Rom., Plut., ono- 
matopoetic word for the hissing of the snake). The ending —pés 
survives in literary modern Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 288. 
The tendency to make new words in —yés decreased. The modern 
Greek vernacular dropped it (Thumb, Handbook, p. 62). 

Abstract nouns in —ovs are Biw-ors (in Sirach, from 6.dw); ava- 
Kalyw-ors (ava-kavo-w, Htym. M. Herm.); amavtn-o1s (a7-avtTa-w, 
LXX, Polyb., Diod., papyri); amo-xcadufis (LX X, Plut.); azo-xara- 
ota-ows (Polyb., Diod., papyri, etc.); amro-cra-cia (LX X); éxfyrn-ors 
(éx-(nréw, true text in 1 Tim. 1:4, Basil Cas., Didym.); &-édun-ots 
(from évdouéw, Jos., also evdwunots); érumdOy-o1s (LXX, from ém- 
Tobéw); vr-avTn-o1ts (LXX, Jos., App.). Words in —o1s, common 
in Hebrews, make few new formations in the later Greek. 
‘Ayarn begins to displace ayamrnous (LX X, inscription in Pisidia, 
and papyrus in Herculaneum). Abstract nouns in —eia (W. H. 
—ia) are chiefly from verbs in —ebw as dpeckela (from épeckebw, 
Polyb., Diod., papyri, and usually in bad sense); éi-7d6ea (so 
W. H., not ém-ofia, in Ro. 15 : 23, from éruroféw, probably 
by analogy like éiduuia. Not found elsewhere). ’Epideia (from 
épidevw, Arist. pol. The verb from ép.fos, ‘working for hire’); 
tepateia (from teparedw, Arist. pol., Dion. Hal., LXX, inscriptions) ; 
Aoyela (—ia) is from doyebw (‘collect’) and is found in inscrip- 
tions, ostraca, papyri (see Deissmann, Light, p. 105); peOodeia 
(from pefodedw, which occurs in the xowh, from pé§odos, but not 
the abstract noun). 


* Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 407; Donaldson, New Crat., p. 451; Light- 
foot on Ph. 2 : 6. 
9a Ant. 18. 5, 2. Cf. Sturtevant, Stud. in Gk. Noun-Formation (Cl. Philol., 
vul, 4, 1912). For long list of derivative substantives in the Ptol. pap. see 
Mayser, Gr., pp. 416-447. 


WORD-FORMATION 153 


From odeikw we have o¢ecAn (common in the papyri), ddeiAnua 
(Plato, Arist., LX X). Words in —ya (result) are more common in 
the later Greek and gradually take an abstract idea of —ovs in 
modern Greek.! The new formations appearing in the N. T. are 
a-yvon-ua (O. T. Apoc., from ayvoew); aitiw-ua (correct text in 
Ac. 25:7, and not airiawa, from airidouwa). Cf. aitiwois in 
Kustathius, p. 1422, 21. This form as yet not found elsewhere) ; 
avTAnua (from évTA\éw, Plut., what is drawn, and then strangely a 
thing to draw with, like av7tAntnp or avrAnTHp.ov); am-atyac-pa 
(from dmavyafw, and this from a7é and atyy, in Wisdom and 
Philo); dmo-cxiac-va (from arockiafw, and this from a7é and oxid. 
Only in Jas. 1:17); aodevn-ua (from daobevew, in physical sense in 
Arist. hist., papyri); Bamric-ua (from Barritw, “peculiar to N. T. 
and ecclesiastical writers,’ Thayer). In Bamric-ya, as distinct 
from Barrio-pos, the result of the act is included (cf. Blass, Gr. 
of N. T. Gk., p. 62); e&€pa-ua (from ééepaw, in Dioscor., example of 
the verb, cf. Lob., ad Phryn., p. 64); frrn-ya (from 7rrdo-pat, 
LXX, in ecclesiastical writers); feparev-ua (from tepatebw, LXX); 
kat-op0w-uwa (from xat-opbow, literary xowyn, as Polyb., Diod., Strabo, 
Jos., Plut., Lucian and 3 Macc.); pamio-ua (from fparifw, An- 
tiph., Anthol., Lucian); orepéw-wa (from orepedw, Arist., LX X). 
Blass? calls attention to the fact that in the later Greek words in 
—ya, like those in —ovs, —7ns, —ros, often prefer stemS with a short 
vowel, as ddua (dds), Oéua (Péors), though this form is already in 
the older Doric, xdi-ua, xpi-wa, mova (Attic téua). Hence avdde-ya 
in N. T., though dva6yua in Lu. 21:5 (W. H. ace. to BLQT, etc.), 
and in the papyri “nouns in —ya are constantly showing short 
penult.”? But davadeua, like déua and ddua, belongs to the list 
of primary substantives. | 

Words in —7ns (agent) are fairly numerous, like Barrio-rhs (from 
Barrifw, Jos.); Biac-rys (from Biafw. Pind., Pyth. and others use 
Bards); yoyyvo-rns (from yoyyifw, Theodotion and Symm. trans- 
lation of the LXX); éAAnvo-rns (from é\Anvitw, not in Greek 
authors, though €\Ayvitw is, as in Xen., Anab., and Strabo, etc.) ; €&- 
opk.o-rns (from é£-opxitw, Jos., Lucian, eccl. writers); ebayyeduo-rThs 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 289. Thumb, Handb., p. 65. On frequency in 
LXX see C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 28. Cf. Frankel, Griech. Denom., 1906. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 62f. For same thing in LXX (avdfeua, rpdcbeua, 
déua, etc.) see C. and §., Sel. from LXX, p. 28. 

3 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 108. He instances besides ayd6eua in the 
sense of ‘curse,’ Oéua, ériPeua, tpdc0eua, tpddoua. On avadeua, for exx. in iii/B.c. 
inser., see Glaser, De Rat., quae interc. inter serm. Polyb. etc., 1894, p. 82. 


154. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(from ebayyerivw, eccl. writers) ; kepuatio-rns (from Kepuarifw, Nicet., 
Max. Tyr.); xo\dvBic-rhs (found in Men. and Lys.) has no verb 
ko\duBifw, but only KodAdvBos, a small coin; Autpw-rns (from urpdw, 
LXX and Philo); yepio-7rys (from pepifw, Pollux); mpoo-kuvy-rhs 
(from mpocxvvéw, inscriptions, eccl. and Byz.); oracvac-rns (from 
otac.atw, Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Ptol.); reXeww-7ns (from redevdw, 
only in Heb. 12 : 2). 

A few late words in —r7p-tov (from —rnp and —.ov) occur as &Kkpoa- 
thpiov (from dxpodouat, Plut. and other xown writers) where 
—rhpiov means ‘place’; idac-rnprov (from idaoxopar, LX X, inscrip- 
tions, papyri, Dio Chrys.) is a substantive in the N. T., made 
probably from the adjective f\aornp.os (cf. cwrnpios) and means 
‘propitiatory gift’ or ‘means of propitiation’ and does not allude 
to the mercy seat! or covering. However, in Heb. 9:5 iacrnpiov 
does have the meaning of ‘place of propitiation’ or ‘mercy seat’ 
(cf. @vuyia-rnpiov). Deissmann passed this passage by, though he is 
correct in Ro. 3:25. Cf. dudaxrnprov. 

(8) Those from substantives. Several words expressing place 
are formed after the fashion of the older Greek as adedpwv (prob- 
ably from the Macedonian adedpos, and that from édpa and amo) 
which may be compared with kxorpwyv; BpaBetov (from BpaBels, Me- 
nand. Mon., Opp., Lycoph., Clem. Rom.); éd\acwy (from édavor, 
like aued-wy* from dumedos, in the LXX, Jos., inscriptions and 
papyri),? with which compare pvAwy (—évos) in Mt. 24:41 accord- 
ing to DHM and most cursives instead of uwidos. Moulton (The 
Expositor, 1903, p. 111) has found d¢orxwy (—Gvos), ‘palm-grove,’ in 
A. P. 31 (112 B.c.). Eiéwetov (ov W. H.), found first in 1 Macc. 
and 1 Esd., is formed after the analogy of povce-to-v. Tedwviov 
(from reAwrys) is found in Strabo. Terpdéiov (Philo) is from rerpas, 
the usual guard in the prisons. Several new words in —rys (qual- 
ity) appear, as ddeA¢o-rns (from ddeddds, 1 Macc., 4 Mace., Dio 
Chrys., eccl. writers); @¢6-rns (from 66s, Lucian, Plut.); xvpid-rns 


1 See Deiss., B. 8., p. 1381 f., where a lucid and conclusive discussion of the 
controversy over this word is given. See also Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 4 
(1903), p. 193. 

? Blass is unduly sceptical (Gr., p. 64). Deiss. (B. S., p. 208 f.) finds nine 
examples of é\a.wv=‘place of olives’ or ‘olive orchard’ in vol. I of the Ber. 
Pap., and Moulton (Exp., 1903, p. 111; Prol., p. 49) has discovered over 
thirty in the first three centuries a.p. In Ac. 1 : 12 it is read by all MSS. 
and is correct in Lu. 19:29 (ag. W. H.) and 21:37 (ag. W. H.). ’EAadv is 
right in Lu. 19:37, ete. In Lu. 19: 29; 21: 37, question of accent. Cf. 


also duedev (from dumedos, LXX, Diod., Plut.) which is now found in 
the pap. 


WORD-FORMATION 155 


(from xipwos, originally adj., eccl. and Byz. writers). Lupo-dowixiooa 
is the text of NAKL, etc., in Mk. 7: 26 as against Lipa Powixicca 
in BEFG, etc. In either case ¢dowixioca, not doimaca (Text. 
Rec.) which is the usual feminine of goimé, as Kidiooa is of 
Kiicé. Lucian has a masculine Zupodoimé and Justin Martyr a 
feminine Lupodowixn. From this last dowixicoa probably comes. 


. Cf. the use of Bagiticoa, the Atticists preferring BaciNis or 


BaciXea. 

‘“Hpwotavos (from ‘Hpwédns) and Xpuiot-vavds (from Xpuords) first 
appear in the N. T., and are modelled after Latin patronymics 
like Caesarianus (Katcap-cavés, Arrian-Epictetus). Blass! goes un- 
necessarily far in saying that the N. T. form was Xpyor-.avds 
(from Xpyoros), though, of course, « and y at this time had little, 
if any, distinction in pronunciation. Meyordy is from péy.otos 
(as veav from véos). Cf. Latin megistanes. Mey.ordy is found in 
LXX, Jos., Maneth. Tdnuyipa (LX X, Dion. Hal., Jos., Philo) is 
from zAnupn. There was, of course, no “Christian”’ or “biblical” 
way of forming words. 

Diminutives are not so common in the N. T. as in the Byzan- 
tine and modern Greek? where diminutives are very numerous, 
losing often their original force. BuBdapidwv (a new form, but 
compare \apidwv) is read in Rev. 10:2 by NACP against 
BiBXLd6aprov (fragment of Aristoph.) according to C* and most of 
the cursives and B.BXtov (by B). Variations occur also in the text 
of verses 8,9, 10. Tvvaxapiov (from yuvn) is used contemptuously 
in 2 Tim. 3:6 (also in Antonin. and Epict.). “Ix@vduov (from 
ixOvs), KAwidvov and kAwaprov (from xdivn) occur from Aristoph. on. 
Kopdacvov (from xdpn,. called Maced. by Blass) is used disparagingly 
in Diog. Laert. and Lucian, but in LX X and Epict. as in the N. T. 
that is not true, though it hardly has the endearing sense (some- 
times found in the diminutive) in kuvapiov (kives=‘street-dogs’), 
but that sense appears often in zadiov as in Jo. 21:5. ’Ovaprov 
(from évos) is found in Machon and Epictetus. ’Oyapiov (from 
dyov) is found in Alexis and Lucian, and é~amoy (likewise from 
dYov) is used by Dion., Polyb., Jos., Apocrypha and papyri. II7e- 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 68. Cf. Lipsius, Ursp. des Christennamens, 1873. 
W.-Sch. (p. 135) suggests that these two words are not after the Lat. model, 
but after the type of ’Aovavés, which was foreign to the European Greeks. 
But ’Accavés (from ’Acta) is in Thucyd. and besides is not parallel to Xprorés, 
Xpior-tavés. Cf. Eckinger, Die Orthog. lat. Wo6rter in griech. Inschr., 1893, 
Di27: 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 292; Thumb, Handb., p. 62. 


156 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pvywov (from mrépvé) comes from Arist. down, but yrxiov (from 
yié) does not appear elsewhere. Both wrapiov (Anthol., Anax.) and 
@riov (LXX) are from ots, but have lost the diminutive idea, just 
as pare in modern Greek means merely ‘eye’ (déupariov). Blass} 
indeed accuses Luke of atticising when he uses ods in Lu. 22 : 50. 

(y) Those from adjectives. The new substantives derived from 
adjectives in the later Greek found in the N. T. all have suffixes ~ 
expressing quality. With —ia we find do-roy-ia (from 4a7é-ropos, 
Diod., Dion., pap.); édadpia (from édadpos, cf. Lob., ad Phryn., 
p. 3438. Cf. aicxp-ia from aicxpds, Eust.); rapadpov-ia (from mapa- 
g¢pwr. Greek writers use rapadpo-civn, but cf. evdaruov-ia from ed- 
daiuwr). So mepicoeia (from zepiocds, LXX, inscriptions, Byz.). 
W. H. use the ending -ia with xaxorafe-1a (from xkaxorab7s). 
With -—civn several new words occur from adjectives in —os 
with the lengthening of the preceding vowel, as aya0w-ctvn (from 
ayabos, eccl.); ayuw-ovvn (from ay.os, not in earlier Greek writers) ; 
peyadw-civn (from stem peydado. of wéeyas, LXX and ecel.). These 
forms are like tepw-ctvn from tepds (also in N. T.) which is as old as 
Herod. and Plato. Still weyado-civn and fepo-ctvn are both found 
in inscriptions or in Glycas.2. Most of the words in —ctvyn belong 
to the later language? ’EXenuo-civyn (from é\enuwy; Callim. in Del., 
Diog. Laert., LX -X), like other words in —ctvn, loses the ». So 
Tatewo-ppo-civn (Jos., Epict.). 

Rather more numerous are the new words in —7ns,4 as ay.d-77s 
(from ays, 2 Mace.); ayvd-rns (from ayvds, inscriptions); a6ndd- 
ms (from &éndos, Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo); adedd-rys (from 
adedns, eccl. writers, ancient Greek adédeca) ; yuuro-rns (from yup- 
vos, Deut., Antonin.); parad-rns (from patracos, LXX and eccl. 
writers); weyaded-rns (from peyadetos, Athen., Jer.); aid-7ns (from 
miwy, Arist., Theophr., LXX). ’Axafap-rns (Rev. 17:4) is not 
supported by any Greek MSS. 

The neuter (and often the masculine and feminine) of any ad- 
jective can be used as a substantive with or without the article, as 
70 doxiuiov (from doxiuwos, Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 259 f., Dion. 
Hal., Long., LX X, papyri). Like peOdpiov (the Syrian reading for 
dpa in Mk. 7:24) is rpocddyiov (rpoc-paywos, —ov from mpoc-da- 


1 Grol Net Geepeoas 

2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 124, n. 14. On the termination —ctvn see Aufrecht, Ber. 
Zeitschr. fiir vergl. Sprachf., 6. Heft. 

3 W.-M., p. 118, n. 1. 

* On words in —rns see Lob. ad Phryn., p. 350; Biihler, Das griech. Secun- 
dirsuffix rns, 1858; Frankel, Gesch. d. Gr. Nom. Ag. (1910). 


WORD-FORMATION 157 


vetv, inscriptions), cPay.ov (opayuos, —ov, from od¢ayn, Am., Ezek.), bzo- 
Anviov (broAnvios, —ov, from bz Anvov, Demiopr. in Poll., Geop., LX-X. 
Cf. tro-fiy.ov). As already seen, itac-rypiov is probably the neuter 
of the adjective f\ac-rnpios, —a, —ov (from idAdoKkouwa). So dvdak- 
tnpiov is the neuter of the adjective duAak-rnpios, —a, —ov (from 
gvvaktTnp, dvdacow, Dem., Diose., Plut., LXX).1 Lwrnpiov and 
cwrnpia (from owrypios) are both common in the old Greek as 
is the case with trep-Gov (from tzepaos, —wios). Zevk-rypia (from 
fevx-rnpios, only in Ac. 27: 40) reverts to the abstract form in —ia. 

(c) ADJECTIVES. 

1. Prumary or Primitive Adjectives. These, of course, come 
from verbal roots. ‘Ayapr-wdds (from root dyapt-avw, Arist., 
Plut., LXX, inscriptions) is like deié-wros (4 Macc. 2: 9), from 
deid-ouar. Ted-os (W. H. i6-ds from zeifw, as ded-ds from deidouar) 
is not yet found elsewhere than in 1 Cor. 2:4, but Blass? regards 
it as “a patent corruption,” zelots for refot. The evidence is 
in favour of zeots (all the uncials, most cursives and versions). 
Payos (from root ¢day—) is a substantive in the N. T. with paroxy- 
tone accent as in the grammarians, the adjective being ¢ay-ds. 
The other new adjectives from roots in the N. T. are verbals in 
-—ros. There is only one verbal (gerundive) in —réos (Lu. 5: 38, 
elsewhere only in Basil), and that is neuter (8dnréov), “a survival 
of the literary language in Luke.’ The sense of capability or 
possibility is only presented by the verbal za@y-76s (from root 
rab—, macxw, eccl. writers). But the weakened sense of the verbal 
in —ros, more like an ordinary adjective, is very common in the 
later Greek.4 But they are rare in the modern Greek (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 151). These verbals correspond to the Latin participle 
in —tus,° like yvwords, or to adjectives in —bilis, like éparés. They 
are common in the N. T., though not many new formations 
appear. They are usually passive like ypaz-rés (from ypadw, 
Georg. apol., LXX), though spoo-ndv-ros (mpoo-epx-opat, root 
—y\vb-, LXX, Philo) is active in sense. The ancient form was 


1 This termination became rather common in the later Gk., as, for instance, 
in dvakadurrip.ov, dSenrhprov, Oavarhprov, iauatnpiov. See also Stratton, Chap- 
ters in the Hist. of Gk. Noun-Formation, 1889. 

aaGraon Ne. Gk. pe64. So W.-och.,.p., 135. 

3 Viteau, Ess. sur la Synt. des Voix, Rev. de Philol., p. 38. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 297. ‘Ex also is wholly adjective and pé\X\wy 
sometimes so. Cf. Brugmann, Grundr. d. vergl. Gr., p. 429. 

5 W.-M., p. 120. Cf. Viteau, Ess. sur le Synt. de Voix, Rev. de Philol., 
p. 41. For deriv. adj. in the Ptol. pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 447-455. 


158 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


éxmdus. A number of new verbals were formed on compound 
words which will be discussed later. For the syntactical aspects 
of the verbal adjectives see discussion of the participle (cf. Moul- 
ton, Prolegomena, p. 221). 

2. Secondary or Derwative Adjectives. 

(a) Those from verbs. urio-rés (from ourifw, Jos., Athen.) is 
to be mentioned. It is equivalent to the Latin saginatus and is 
passive in meaning. 

(8) Those from substantives. Some new words in -wos occur 
as édpapavrivos (from dudpavros, Philost., inscriptions); xabnuep-wos 
(from xaé’ juepavy, Athen., Plut., Jos.) is for ancient xanpépros; 
xoxk-uvos is from xoxxos (LX-X, Plut., Epict., papyri); 6p0p-.os (from 
bpOpos, LXX, older form dp§p.os), with which compare éozep-.vds 
(from éozépa, from Xen. on) in the minuse. 1, 118, 209 (Lu. 12: 38); 
towivos (so W. H., from zpwi, for the older zpaws, LXX, Plut., 
Athen., etc.); avp-wos (from zip, Arist., LXX, Polyb., Plut.); 
taxwvos (from raya) from Theocritus on (LXX also). , 

There are several words in —.xés, like e@vcxos (from eOvos, Polyb., 
Diod.); xepay-cxds (from xépayos, Hipp., Plat. pol., LXX) which 
supplanted the earlier xepdauos, Kepapeods; Kxupt-axos (from xtpuos, 
—axos instead of —iKxos after c, eccl. writers) is found in papyri of 
Fayim and in inscriptions of Phrygia and Lydia.! So Aeroupy:- 
kos (from eToupyia, LX X, papyri) and ovixds (from dvos, in a con- 
tract in the Fayim Papyri dated Feb. 8, a.p. 33). 

Of special interest are several words in —wos and -1xds. ’Oorpax- 
wos (from dorpaxov, Hipp., Anthol., LXX), ‘made of clay,’ 
‘earthen’; capx-wos (from capé, Aristoph., Plato, Arist.) is thus 
not a new word, but is used in Heb. 7 :16 and by Paul in 1 Cor. 
3:1; Ro. 7:14 (correct text in each instance), where many 
MSS. have capx-ixés. Indeed cadpxiwos in these two passages must 
mean more than made of flesh or consisting in flesh, perhaps 
“rooted in the flesh” (Thayer). Cf. relation of adn-wés to adn- 
6és. Still a real distinction seems to be observed between cdpx- 
wos and capk-ixés in 1 Cor. 3:1 and 3:3. Dapk-uds (from cdpé, 
Arist., Plut., LXX) is a man who lives according to the flesh 
and is here opposed to those who are avevyar-iol (from mredya, 
from Arist. down, but not in LXX, pertaining to the wind). 
But 6 Yox-uds (from yux4, Arist., Polyb., down) is the man pos- 

' Deiss., B. S., p. 217 f.; Liget, p. 361; Thieme, Die Inschr. v. M., p. 15. 

* See comm. in loco. W.-M. (p. 123) held that capxwvos was “hardly to be 


tolerated” in Heb. 7 : 16, but Schmiedel (p. 139) has modified that statement. 
Cf. on -wos, Donaldson, New Crat., p. 458. 


WORD-FORMATION 159 


sessed of mere natural life (1 Cor. 2 : 14) as opposed to regenerate 
(rvevuar-ixds) life (1 Cor. 2:15). Lapx-cxds can be applied to either 
of these two distinct classes... But in 1 Cor. 3:3 ru yap capkixol 
éore Paul reproaches the Corinthians. Proper names also have 
-.Kos, aS “EBpa-ixos. Note accent in Tvux-ixKds. ‘Pwya-ixos (from 
‘Pwun) is read in Lu. 23:38 by the Western and Syrian MSS., 
common in the literary xown (Polyb., Diod., etc.). 

Aiwmos, though found in Plato and Diod., is not a common 
adjective. But cf. LXX, O. T. Apoc., Philo, inscriptions, papyri. 
Cf. Moulton and Milligan, Hxpositor, 1908, p. 174.  Aoxisos 
is from doxun (Dion. Hal., Long., LXX, papyri). Mic@os is 
from p.obos (LX X, Plut.), while ‘Pwuatos is common in the lit- 
erary xown. Mediooros (from pédrooa, like OadXaoovos from Aadacca) 
is read by the Syrian class of documents in Lu. 24:42. The 
word occurs nowhere else, though Nic. has pedooatos and 
Eustath. yediocecos. 

(y) Those from adjectives. There are only a few new adjectives 
of this character, but they present special difficulties. About 
émvovc.os (found only in Mt. 6:11 and Lu. 11:3 and used with 
aptos) there has raged a long controversy. It has been derived 
successively from éri and ovgia, ‘bread for sustenance,’ though 
ovoia only has the sense of tzapés in philosophical language (an- 
other theory, ‘bread of substance’ in the spiritual sense); from ézi 
and dy (érovtios, érovotos, like éxwv, éxovoros, etc.), ‘bread for the 
present,’ though the ¢ in éi is not allowed to remain with a vowel 
save when a digamma existed as in émecxns; from éx-vwy (Er-erpe, 
‘approach’), like 4 érvodca (juepa), ‘the next day’ (Ac. 16: 11), this 
last a common idiom. Lightfoot? has settled the matter in favour 
of the last position. See also jjpeuos (from jpeuns, adv. jpéua, 
Lucian, Eustath., Hesych); vewrepixds (from vewrepos, 3 Macc., 
Polyb., Jos.). In zepiotcros (from mepi-wy, repieut, LXX) no seri- 
ous problem in etymology arises, for repi retains the « in composi- 
tion with vowels. It is used with ads, to express the idea that 
Israel belongs to God as his very own. Ilior-ixos (from ruoros, 


1 See Trench, N. T. Synon., 1890, pp. 268 ff. 

2 See Rev. of the N. T., pp. 194-234. Deiss., B. S., p. 214, calls attention 
to Grimm’s comment on 2 Macc. 1:8 about rods értoveiovs being added to rods 
&prous by “‘three codices Sergii.””’ Cf. W.-Sch., p. 136 f., n. 23, for full details. 
Cf. Bischoff, ’Ezcotovos, p. 266, Neutest. Wiss., 1906. Debrunner (Glotta, IV. 
Bd., 3. Heft, 1912) argues for éri rv otcav juépav, ‘for the day in question.’ 

3 Cf. Lightfoot, Rev. of the N. T., pp. 234-242, for full discussion of 


Teplovatos. 


160 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Plato, Diog., Dion. Hal., in sense of persuading, but Artem., 
Cedrenus and other late writers in sense of ‘genuine’) is hardly 
to be derived from murickw or aiw and hence= ‘drinkable.’ 
‘Genuine nard’ is a much more probable meaning. For curious 
details see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 188, n. 24. Ilovarés is from the 
older zodarés and occurs in Dion. Hal., Philo, Jos., papyri. 

(5) Those from adverbs. From dvw come avarepos (Polyb., LXX, 
Arist.) and dvw-repixds (Hippoc., Galen); é&-repos (LX-X, Strabo, 
etc.). See also écw-repos (only N. T.); katw-repos (Theoc., Hippoc., 
Athen.). Cf. Hagen, Bildung d. griech. Adverbien. 

(d) Tue Apvers. The adverb ¢edouérws (from the participle 
dedouevos, Plut., Mosch., Alex.) is a new word of this nature. Cf. 
duoNoyouuevws in the older Greek. So tux6v, dvTws and tbrepBaddov- 
tws. The neuter accusative singular and plural of adjectives con- 
tinue to be used adverbially. Baféws occurs also in Theoc. and 
Ailian. ’Axunv (Theoc., Polyb., Strabo) is in the inscriptions also 
as well as & dkuar (cf. Ditt., Syll. 326, 12). ’E8paior7i (Sirach) is 
properly formed (cf. ‘EAAnvcrt) from’EBpais. ’Iovdatkés is in Jos. 
See also é€vixds (Apoll. Dysc., Diog. Laert.). Eire (correct text 
Mk. 4 : 28) is arare Ionic form for-ef7a (papyri also). Kevds 
is used from Arist. on. ’Odtyws occurs out of the N. T. only in 
Anthol. and Aquila. IIpwrws (correct text Ac. 11:26) occurs here 
for the first time. ‘Pyrés is found in Polyb., Strabo, Plut. 
‘Pwyatort is common in the literary xown (Plut., App., ete.) and 
in Epictetus. Zwyatuas comes from Aristotle and Plutarch. 
Tumis is in the ecclesiastical writers. voiuxds is in Aristotle; 
Philo, ete. Mayser (Gr., pp. 455-459) has a good list of deriva- 
tive adverbs. See ch. VII for full discussion of the formation 
of the adverb. 

IV. Words Formed by Composition (Composita). The Greek 
in the Ptolemaic papyri is not equal to modern German in the 
facility with which agglutinative compound words (é:7\a@ Aris- 
totle termed them) are formed, but it is a good second. The N. T. 
writers make use of many of the new compounds (some new 
kinds also), but not more than the literary xoww7, though more than 
the Atticists or Purists.!. The following lists will show how fond 
the N. T. is of double prepositional compounds like évr-ava-rAnpdw, 
amo-KaT-ahdaoow, émt-cuy-ayw, cvv-ayTi-hauBavouat, etc. So also com- 
pound prepositional adverbs like évwmov, karevwrvov, karévavtt, etc. 
On the whole subject of compound words in the Ptolemaic papyri 
see Mayser, Gr., pp. 466-506. Compound words played an in- 

1 Schmid, Der Atticismus, Bd. IV, p. 730. 


WORD-FORMATION 161 


creasing réle in the xowyn. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., p. 810. See in 
particular F. Schubert, Zur mehrfachen prdfixalen Zusammen- 
setzung im Griechischen, Xenia Austriaca, 1893, pp. 191 ff. 

(a) KrnpDs oF ComMPOUND WORDS IN GREEK: proper composition 
(civOects), copulative composition (zapabeors), derivative composi- 
tion (rapactvecis). In the first class the principal idea is ex- 
pressed by the second part of the word, while the first and 
qualifying part is not inflected, but coalesces with the second, 
using merely the stem with connective vowel. As an example 
take oixo-vouos, ‘manager of the house.’ The second kind of 
composition, paratactic or copulative, is the mere union of two 
independent words like zapa-xAnros. It is not common in the 
old Greek save in the case of prepositions with verbs, and even 
this usage is far more frequent in the later Greek. It is seen in 
many late compound adverbs as in tbzep-avw. The third or deriv- 
ative composition is a new word made on a compound, whether 
proper or copulative, as eidwdo-Aarpia (or —eia) from eidwdo-harpebw. 
The above classification is a true grammatical distinction, but it 
will be more serviceable to follow a more practical division of the 
compound words into two classes. Modern linguists do not like 
the term “‘proper composition.” In principle it is the same as 
copulative. 

(b) INSEPARABLE PREFIxES. These make a cross-line in the 
study of compound words. They enter into the formation of 
verbs, substantives, adjectives and adverbs. By prefixes here is 
not meant the adverbs and prepositions so commonly used in 
composition, but the inseparable particles a— (ay—) privative, 4— 
collective or intensive, apxi—, dvo—, jur-, vn—-. As examples of such 
new formations in the N. T. may be taken the following substan- 
tives and adjectives (chiefly verbals) with é&— privative: a-Bapjs 
(from Arist. down, papyri, in metaphysical sense); d-yevea-doynros 
(LXX); a-yvados (Thom. Mag.); a-yvonua (O. T. Apoc., papyri); 
aypt-edatos (Arist., papyri); da-yvoew (Apoc., papyri); 4-dn\dorns 
(Polyb., Dion. Hal., Philo); 4-6:4-xpiros (from Hippocrates down); 
a-dia-Aecrtos (Tim. Locr., Attic inscriptions, 1/B.C.); d-dca-pOopia 
(not in ancient Greek); d-dvvaréw (LXX, ancient Greek means 
‘to be weak’); d-Oéucros (for earlier d-Qéuictos); a&-ecpos (LXX, 
Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut.); a4-Qeréw (LX X, Polyb.); a-Karpéw (Diod.) ; 
a-bérnots (Diog. Laert., eccl. writers, papyri); d-KaTa-yvworos 
(2 Macc., eccl. writers, inscriptions, papyri); 4-Kata-Kadumtos 
(Polyb., LXX, Philo); a-xara-xpiros (earliest example); 4-xara- 
Autos (4 Macc., Dion. Hal.); a-xara-racros (found only here. 


162 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


This is the reading of AB in 2 Pet. 2:14 rather than 4-xaré- 
ravoros, verbal of kararatw, found in Polyb., Diod., Jos., Plut., 
ef. W. H., App., p. 170; Moulton, Prol., p. 47); a-xara-oracia 
(Polyb., Dion. Hal., papyri); 4-ka7a-craros (Hippoc., Polyb., 
LXX); d-xard-cxeros (LXX, Diod.); a-cvpdw (Diod., Dion. Hal., 
Plut., 1 Esdr.); a-Aadyros (Anth. Pal.); a-yéOvoros (LXX, Dion. 
Hal., Plut.); é-werd-Oeros (Polyb., LX-X, Diod., Plut., inscriptions) ; 
a-pera-vonros (Lucian, Philo, papyri); av-avti-pnros (from Polyb. 
down, inscriptions); av-aro-doynros (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Plut.); 
av-ex-b.-pyntos (Clem. Rom., Athen.); av-éx-Aerros (Diod., Plut., 
papyri); dv-év-dexros (Artem., Diog. Laert., eccl., Byz.); dav-eé- 
epebvnros (LX X, Symm., Dio Cass.); dv-ef-txviacros (LXX, eccl. 
writers); édv-er-aicxuvtos (Jos.); dv-eb-Oeros (Moschion); dv-irews 
(reading. in Jas. 2: 13 of L, other MSS. have av-édeos, old Greek 
av-ndens) ; &-vouos (LX X, a-vouia from Thuc.); av-vid-raxros (Artem., 
Philo); d-rapa-Baros (Jos., Plut., papyri, etc.); a-7elpacros (Jos., 
ececl., old Greek 4d-zeiparos); a-epi-runros (LXX, Philo, Plut.); 
a-mpoa-wtos (lit. Kown) ; a-rpdoc-Korros (Sir., Sext., inscriptions); a-pados 
(LXX, Jos.); &-omdos (Anthol., ecel.); a-craréw (Anthol.); a-croxew 
(Polyb., Plut., Lucian, papyri); é-orfpucros (Anthol.); &-beddrns 
(eccl. writers); &-d0apros (Arist., Wisd., Plut., inscriptions); a-¢:A- 
ayabos (papyri and 2 Tim. 3:3); a-¢iA-apyvpes (Diod., Hippoc., 
inscriptions, papyri).! 

With dpx.—- (from apxw) we have apx-ayyedos (eccl.); apx-vepa- 
tuxos (inser., Jos.); dapx-tepeds (LXX, inscr.); apxt-rouunv (Test. 
of 12 Patr., wooden tablet from Egypt, Deissmann, Exp. Times, 
1906, p. 61); apxi-cvv-dywyos (inser., eccl.); apxi-7eAwvns (only in 
Lu. 19:2); dpxt-rpi-kdwos (Heliod., cf. cuumoct-dpyns in Sirach). 
Cf. apxe-dudakitns, P. Tb. 40 (B.c. 117), apxi-deopo-pidrAaé (LXX). 

With a— connective or intensive are formed a-vefids (for a-ver- 
tos, LXX, cf. Lat. con-nepot-ius), a-revitw (Polyb., Diod., Jos., 
Lucian).? | 

‘With dvo— we have 6vo-Bacraxros (LXX, Philo, Plut.); dvc- 
evrép.ov (late form, correct text in Ac. 28:8, older form dvc-evrepia) ; 


1 Cf. Hamilton, The Neg. Comp. in Gk., 1899. ‘The true sphere of the 
negative prefix is its combination with nouns, adjectives and verbal stems 
to form adjective compounds” (p. 17). Cf. also Margarete Heine, Subst. 
mit a privativum. Wack. (Verm. Beitr. zur griech. Sprachk., 1897, p. 4) 
suggests that dys is from dei and —ée, not from é— and idetv. Ingenious! Cf. 
Wack. again, Das Dehnungsgesetz der griech. Composita, 1889. 

* Cf. on a4— connective or intensive, Don., New Crat., p. 397. Also Déder- 
lein, De ad¢a intenso, 1830. 


WORD-FORMATION 163 


dvo-epunvevtos (Diod., Philo, Artem.); dve-vonros (Arist. Diog. 
Laert.); dvo-dnuia (LX X, Dion. Hal., Plut.). 

With ju (ef. Lat. semz) are found only ju-favns (Dion. Hal., 
Diod., LX X, Strabo), 7ui-wpov (so W. H., Strabo, Geop., NP have 
—wp.ov). Cf. jucovs. 

For vy— note ynriatw (Hippoc., eccl.). 

(c) AGGLUTINATIVE CompouNnps (Juataposition or Parathesis). 
This sort of composition includes the prepositions and the cop- 
ulative composition (dvandva). This last is much more com- 
mon in the xow7 than in the older Greek. Cf. Jannaris, op. cit., 
p. 310, and Mayser, Gr., p. 469. 

1. Verbs. The new compound verbs are made either from 
compound substantives or adjectives or by combining adverbs 
with a verb-stem or noun-stem or by adding a preposition to the 
older verb. This last method is very frequent in the later Greek 
due to “a love for what is vivid and expressive.”! This embel- 
lishment of the speech by compounds is not absent from the sim- 
plest speech, as Blass” shows in the case of Titus, where over thirty 
striking compound words are found, omitting verbals and other 
common ones. Moulton (Cl. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) shows 
from the papyri that the compound verb is no mark of the literary 
style, but is common in the vernacular also. The preposition fills 
out the picture as in dy7i-verpew (Lucian), and so ayti-AauBarw 
(Diod., Dio Cass., LXX). So also observe the realistic form of 
the preposition in éf-acrpamtw (LXX, Tryphiod.) in Lu. 9 : 29; 
kata-\llatw (eccl. writings) in Lu. 20:6. The modern Greek 
even combines two verbs to make a compound, as tatw-yedd. 
As examples of new compound verbs may be given ayaloupyéew, 
ayaboepyéw, in 1 Tim. 6: 18 (ecel.); ayabo-rovew (LXX, later writers) ; 
add-nyopéw (Philo, Jos., Plut., grammatical writers); dva-¢aw (in- 
scriptions, later writers); dva-fewp-éw (Diod., Plut., Lucian); ava- 
orato-w (LX X, papyri); dv-eratw (LXX, papyri); dvri-dca-riPnwe 


1 W.-M., p. 127. Cf. Winer, De Verb. cum Praep. compos. in N. T. usu, 
1834-43. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 70. Mostly adj., but ze6-apxety occurs in the list. 
Blass, ib., p. 65, even thinks that it is not the province of grammar to discuss 
the numerous compounds with prepositions. It belongs to the lexicon. The 
lists that I give are not complete for prepositional compounds because of lack 
of space. See Helbing (Gr. d. Sept., pp. 128-136) for good list of compound 
verbs in the LXX. Mayser (Gr., pp. 486-506) gives list of compound verbs 
in the Ptol. pap. The xowy is fond of compound verbs made of noun and 
verb. Cf. e érexvorpddnoer, ci tEevoddxnoev (1 Tim. 5:10). So tWnrodpovety 
(text of W. H. in 6:17). 


164 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Philo, eccl. writers); avri-map-épxo-yar (Anthol., Sap., eccl. writers, 
Byz.); dvr-ofPadpéw (Sap., Polyb., eccl. writers); am-edmifw (LXX, 
Polyb., Diod., inscriptions); ao-ypadouar (papyri); azo-Pncaupifw 
(Sir., Diod., Jos., Epict.); azo-xedadivw (LXX, Epict., etc.); at6- 
evrew (Polyb., papyri); yovu-reréw (Polyb., Heliod., eccl. writers) ; 
Sia-yvwpltw (Philo, schol. in Bekk.); dva~yoyyifw (LXX, Heliod., 
Byz.); d:a~ypnyopéw (Herod., Niceph.); di-avyagw (Polyb., Plut.); 
dua-dnuitw (Aratus, Dion. Hal.); 6c-epunvebw (2 Macce., Polyb., 
Philo); 6:-odebw (LX X, Polyb., Plut.); dovd-aywyew (Diod. Sic. and 
on); elpnvo-roew (LXX, Hermes); éx-daravaw (Polyb.); é-dixéw 
(LXX, Apoll., Diod.); éu-Barebw (inscr.); év-Kawifw (LXX); e&- 
kaxew (Polyb., Symm. translation of LXX, Philo, Clem. Rom.); 
év-xpiw (Tob., Strabo, Anthol., Epict.); é¢&-ap7igw (Jos., Hipp.); 
éE-ucxbw (Sir., Strabo, Plut.); ém-oxnvow (Polyb.); ém-daboxw 
(LXX, Acta Thom.); émr-xopnyéw (Dion. Hal., Phal., Diog. Laert., 
Alex. Aphr.); érepo-dvdacxadew (eccl. writers); érepo-fvyew (LX X); 
eb-apestéw (LXX, Philo, Diod.); e-doxéw (probably simply from 
e) and doxéw, as there is no such form as 6doxos or evdoxos, and cf. 
kapa-doxew in Polyb., Diod., Dion. Hal.); ev@v-dpouew (Philo); 
ed-karpew (from Polybius on, papyri); ¢’-rpoo-wrew (P. Th., Chrys.) ; 
Onp.o-uaxéw (Diod., Artem., Ign.); fwo-yovew (Theophr., Diod., 
Lucian, Plut.); ¢wo-ovew (Arist., Theophr., LX-X); xax-ovxéw (from 
obsolete kax-obdxos, 1.e. kaxov, Exw, LXX, Diod., Dio Cass., Plut.); 
Kado-rovew (Etym. Magn., LXX, Philo); xara-Bapew (Polyb., 
Diod., App., Lucian papyri); ka7-aywvifoua (Polyb., Jos., Lucian, 
Plut., A®lian); xat-avtaw (Polyb., Diod., eccl. writers, papyri); 
Kata-KAnpo-doTéw (LX X); Kxata-rovew (2 and 3 Mace., Hipp., Polyb., 
Diod., Jos., A#l., etc.); Kar-ef-ovoratw (only N. T.); xat-orrpifw 
(Athen., Diog. Laert., Philo); if the conjectural xev-eu-Barevw in 
Col. 2:18 be correct (as is now no longer probable), xev-eu- 
Barns has to be presupposed; da-rowew (LX X, Diod., Dion. Hal., 
Strabo); Ado-Borew (LX X, Diod., Plut.); Noyo-waxew (only instance 
in 2 Tim. 2 : 14); waxpo-Ouyéw, (LX X, Plut.); web-epunvetw (Polyb., 
Diod., Sir., Plut.); uera-uopddow (Diod., Philo); werpro-rabéw (Philo, 
Jos.) ; wooxo-rovew (LX X and ecel. writers); uv-wratw (Arist.); oiko- 
deororéw (Lucian, Plut.); duetpowar is a puzzle (Fritzsche derives it 
from 6uod and efpw, but other compounds with duod have instru- 
mental-associative, not genitive case, as dm-déw, from dperos 
(ouod, thn); Photius and Theophr. get it from du0d Apudcba; but, 
as Nicander uses petpouar ivelpouwa, modern editors print dpe- 
pouevoe IN 1 Th. 2:8 (6-, W. H., elsewhere only in Job and 
Symm., Ps. 62); 6p80-70déw (only instance); 6p00-rowew (LXX, eccl. 


WORD-FORMATION 165 


_ writers); éxXo-rovew (only in Ac. 17:5); apa-Bodebouar (inscr. 
li/A.D.); map-eo-epxouat (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); aepi-Aaurw (Diod., 
Jos., Plut.); aAnpo-dopew (LXX, eccl. writers); mpo-edzifw (Posid., 
Dexipp., Greg. N.); mpoo-eyyifw (LXX, Polyb., Diod., Lucian); 
mpoo-kAnpow (Philo, Plut., Lucian); rpocwo-\nurrew (N. T. word); 
ovv-avéavw (LXX, inscriptions); ovv-arocred\dkw (LXX, papyri, in- 
scriptions); orpato-hoyew (Diod., Dion. Hal., Jos., Plut., etc.); 
ovv-vro-Kpivouat (Polyb., Plut.) and many other verbs with ovv; 
texto~yovew (Anthol.); rexvo-rpopéw (Arist.); terpa-apxéw (Jos.); 
Tpoto-popew (LXX and eccl. writers, so W. H. with NBDHLP, 
etc., in Ac. 13 : 18); tpodo-dopéw (LXX and eccl. writers, so ACK 
and some cursives in Ac. 13:18); trep-rdeovatw (Ps. Sal, He- 
rond., Herm.); bo-Awwravw (Themist., Dion. Hal., eccl. and Byz.); 
giro-rpwrebw (Artem., Plut.); dpev-araraw (eccl. and Byz. writers) ; 
xpovo-rpi8ew (Arist., Plut., Heliod., Byz. writers). Thus, it will 
be noticed, verbs compounded with nouns are very common in 
the xo.v7. 

Often two prepositions are used in composition with the same 
verb, where the proper meaning must be given to each. The use 
of double prepositional compounds grew rapidly in the xown; cf. 
Schmid, Att. IV, pp. 708ff. Mayser gives a long list in the Ptol. 
papyri (Gr., pp. 497-504), some of which are old and some new. 
Of 162 examples 96 are new. The N. T. is in perfect accord with 
the xown here. So it is with dvri-rap-epxoua (Anthol., Wisdom, 
eccl. and Byz. writers) in Lu. 10: 31; av7-ava-tAnpdw in Col. 1 : 24 
(Dem., Dio Cass., Apoll. Dysc.); dyvri-6ia-ri€nur (Philo, Diod.); 
amo-kat-addaoow (not in old Greek), ém-dia-raocouac (only in 
N. T.); émi-cvv-ayw (LXX, Aisop, Polyb.); xar-ef-ovcrdéw (only in 
N. T.); ap-ec-epxouae (Polyb., Philo, Plut.); mpo-ev-apxouae (only 
in N. T.); ovv-ava-piyvume (LXX, Plut.); cvv-ava-ratoua (LXX, 
Dion. Hal., Plut.); cuvv-avri-AapBavoua (LXX, Diod., Jos., inscrip- 
tions, papyri); bep-ex-xivw (LX X); brep-ev-rvyxavw (eccl.). There 
is in the papyri (P. Tb. I, 66) a triple prepositional compound, 
TT PO-AVT-QV-al pew. 

2. Substantives. Here again the new compound substantive 
draws on verbs, substantives, adjectives, adverbs and preposi- 
tions for part or all of the word. There are also double compound 
substantives from compound substantives, adjectives, adverbs and 
prepositions like rpoowmodnuia, addoTpieTicKoTos, SuaTapatpi3yn. The 
great majority have substantive or adjective for the second half 
of the word. These nouns are more often abstract than concrete. 
’Ayabo-rovia (from adjective and verb-stem, eccl. writers); aya6o- 


166 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


, 
rows (adjective and verb-stem, Sirach, Plut. and later papyri); . 
aypt-édavos (from dypios and édavos, Arist.); aiuar-ex-xvola (from 
substantive, preposition and verb xivw, eccl. writers); axpo-Bvoria 
(LXX); adexropo-pwvia (AXsop, Strabo, eccl. writers); &dorpi-eri- 
oxoros (from aAdérpios and éri-cxoros, Dion. Areop., eccl. writers. 
Deissmann finds a synonym for the word in dAXorpiwy érbupn- 
ths, Faytim Papyri. See Bible Studies, p. 224); aud-odov (LXX, 
Aristoph., Hyper., papyri); dva-deé:s (Sir., Polyb., Plut.); ava- 
otpo¢y in the ethical sense (LXX, Polybius on, inscriptions in 
Pergamum and Magnesia); ava-xvo1s (Strabo, Philo, Plut.); av6- 
bratos (Polyb., Dion. Hal., Lucian, Plut., inscriptions); av7i-Aurpov 
(one translation of Ps. 48:9, Orph.); avri-xpicros (probably 
formed by John, eccl.); apyupo-xé7os (Plut., LX X, papyri); dpoevo- 
xolrns (Anthol., eccl.); amo-Kapa-doxia (verb —ew in LXX, Jos., Plut.); 
aot-apxns (inscriptions, Polyc.); yafo-duAaxiov (LX X, Jos., Strabo); 
yA\wood-Kouov (earlier yAwoookouetov, LX X, Jos., Plut., Longin., in- 
scriptions, papyri); devor-daruovia (Polyb., Diod., Jos., Plut.); decpo- 
gvrAaé (Jos., Lucian, Artem., apxi-deopo-dirat, LXX); 6c-epuy-via 
(only in AD 1 Cor. 12:10; 6c-epunvevrjs probably correct 1 Cor. 
14: 28, NAKL against €punvevrys by BDFG); é:a-rapa-rpiBy (not 
found elsewhere) is the correct text for 1 Tim. 6:5, not zapa- 
dia-TpL8n, Which may be compared with zapa-xara-6y-xn in 2 Tim. 
1:12, but rapa-0n-xn (Herod., LX X, inscriptions, papyri) is the 
true reading; dwédexa-purov (Clem. of Rome, N. T. Apoc.); d:xato- 
kpiola (Test. xii Pat., eccl., papyri); dwpo-dopia is read by MSS. 
BDFG against dcaxovia in Ro. 15:31; €edo-Opnoxia (from verb 
ééhw and Opnoxia, eccl., cf. eNo-dovdela); eidwdo-AaTpeia (W. H. —ia, 
two substantives, eccl.) and eiéwdo-darpns (eccl.); eidt-Kpivera (LXX, 
Theophr. Sext., Stob.); éx-rAnpwors (2 Macec., Dion. Hal., Philo, 
Strabo); éx-reveea (2 Macce., Judith, inscriptions); %-edpov (late 
form of évédpa, LXX); é&-ava-cra-o1s (double compound, Polyb.); 
ért-ouv-aywyn (double compound, 2 Macc., inscriptions, Artem., 
Ptol.); é-cb-cracts (double compound, LXX, Philo, Sext.); ém- 
xop-nyla (eccl.); eb-doxia (LXX, inscriptions); edp-axidwy (a hybrid 
from edpos and Lat. aquilo, like auto-mobile; so W. H. for Text. 
Rec. edpo-x\bdwy in Ac. 27: 14, which is Etym. Magn. alone); 
n60-ocuos (Strabo, Theophr.); ‘Iepo-codvyeitns (Jos.); Kaddt-édatos 
(Arist.); xado-didaoxados (only in Tit. 2: 3); xapdi0-yrmorns (ecel. 
writers); xat-ayyenets (inscriptions) ; kaTa-Geua (only in Rev. 22: 3); 
kaTa-kpyuia (Sir., Dion. Hal., papyri); xard-dewya (N*DEFGKLP 
in Ro. 9:27 for tro-A, LXX, Gal.); xar-hywp (papyri; ef. Deiss- 
mann, Light, p. 90; Radermacher, Gr., p. 15); xara-d\vua (LXX, 


WORD-FORMATION 167 


Polyb., Diod.); kata-réracua (LXX, Jos., Aristeas, Philo, inscrip- 
tions); xevo-dofia (4 Macc., Polyb., Philo, Plut., Lucian); kxocpo- 
kpatwp (Orph., eccl. writers, inscriptions); kwud-rodrs (Strabo, Ag. 
and Theod., eccl.); Noyo-uaxia (only in 1 Tim..6: 4); warato-doyia 
(Plut., Porph.); weco-vix-riov (Arist., LXX, xown writers); peod- 
tovxov (EHrat.); pueo-ovpavnua (Manetho, Plut.); per-ouxecia (LXX, 
Anthol.); puc0-aro-docia and -ddrns (eccl.); pwpo-Aoyia (Arist., 
Plut.); voyo-didacxanros (eccl.); vux6-nuepov (Alex., App., Geop.); 
olxo-deororns (Alexis, Jos., Plut., Ign., etc.); oixo-doun (possibly 
Arist., Theophr., certainly LX X, Diod., Philo, Jos., Plut., con- 
demned by Phrynichus); oivo-rorns (Polyb., LXX, Anthol., 
Anacr.); ddvyo-motia (eccel. and Byz.); 6do-xAnpia (LXX, Diog. 
Laert., Plut.); épk-wpocla (LXX, Jos., Ta dpx-wydora in Attic); 
dpo-Gecia (eccl.); d¢adpo-dovrtia (only instance is in N. T,); 
madw-yeveria (Philo, Longin., Lucian, Plut.); mavro-xpatwp (LXX, 
eccl., Anthol.); mapa-xdntos (Aq. Theod., Diog. Laert., Dio Cass., 
papyri, inscriptions); mapa-xejacia (Polyb., Diod.); zarpi-apyns 
(LXX); qepi-feors (Arr., Gal., Sext.); aepi-xa0-apua (LX X, Hpict., 
Curt.); mept-oxn (Theophr., Diod., Plut., etc.); epi-roun (LXX, 
Jos., papyri); mepi-Ynua (Tob., Ign.); mpav-rafia (Philo, Ign.); zpo- 
avAvov (Pollux); mpo-caBBarov (LXX, eccl.); mrpoo-airns (lit. xowwn) ; 
mpoa-Kouya (LXX, Plut.); mpoo-xaprépnors (inscriptions, 81 A.D.); 
mpoo-kuyntns (inscriptions, eccl., Byz.); mpoo-¢ay.ov (inscriptions, 
dpov ’ArriKds, mpoo-pay.ov ‘EdAnvikds, Moeris); mpoowro-\qurrns 
(Chrys.); mpoowro-Anuyia (eccl.); mpwro-Kabedpia (eccl.; mpwro-Kducla 
(eccl. writers); mpwro-roxa (LX X, Philo, Byz.); paBd-otx0s (paBd0s, 
éxw, literary xown); padi-olpynua (literary xown, ecel.); capd-dvvé 
(Jos., Plut., Ptol.); ovro-yeérpiov ( Polyb., Diod., Jos., inscriptions) ; 
oxnvo-rnyia (Arist., LX X, Philo, inscriptions); oxnvo-ro.ds (Atlian, 
eccl.); oxAnpo-xapdia (LX X); orparo-réb-apxos, —apxns (reading of 
Syrian class in Ac. 28: 16), though critical text rejects both 
(Dion. Hal., Jos., Lucian); cuxo-vopea (Geop.); various new words 
with oiv, like cuv-arxuddwros, cuv-Kata-$eo-is, cvv-KAnpovouos (Philo, 
inscriptions); ovy-Kowwvds, ovv-odia (LXX, Strabo, Jos., Epict., 
Plut.); ouv-mpeo-Bitepos, obv-tpodos (LXX), ete.; Tamewo-hpocivy 
(Jos., Epict.); rexvo-yovia (Arist.); terpa-apxns (Strabo, Jos.); vio- 
Oecia (Diod., Diog. Laert., inscriptions) ; tzep-exeva (Byz. and eccl.) ; 
bro-ypaupos (2 Macc., Philo, ecel:); bd-Neupya (from dtzo-Neitw, 
LXX, Arist., Theoph., Plut., Galen); to-Ajnviov (LX X, Demioph.); 
bro-rodvov (LX X, Lucian, Att.); tao-crodn (Jos., Plut.); ba0-ray7 
(Dion. Hal.); bzo-ritwors (Sext. Emp., Diog. Laert.); dpev-ararns 
(papyri, eccl. writers); xadxo-diBavov (LXX); xe:po-ypadov (Polyb., 


168 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Dion. Hal., Tob., Plut., Artem., papyri); xpe-ofererns (from 
xpéos or xpéws and odederns, LXX, Aisop, Plut., Dion. Hal.); 
xpnoto-voyla (Eust., ecel. writers); xpuc6-\vos (Diod., LXX, Jos.); 
xpuc6-rpacos (only in Rey. 21:20); Pevd-adeddds, Pevd-ardcTonos, 
Wevdo-6.5aoKanos, Wevdd-xpioros are all compounds of Pevdns and are 
N. T. words; Wevdo-rpodyrns (ancient Greek Yevdduartis) is found 
in LXX, Philo, Jos.; wevdd-uaprus (LXX) and wevdo-yaprupia 
both go back to Plato and Aristotle. The papyri show many 
examples of such compounds. Cf. kwyo-ypayparebls, P.Tb. 40 
(B.c. 117). 

3. Adjectives. It will not be necessary to repeat the adjec- 
tives formed with inseparable prefixes a—, etc. The method of 
many grammars in dividing the compounds according to the 
element in the first or second part has not been followed here. It 
is believed that the plan adopted is a simpler and more rational 
exposition of the facts. These adjectives are compounded of 
two adjectives like d\vyé-Puyxos, an adjective and substantive like 
akKpo-ywviatos Or vice versa avOpwr-apecxos; a substantive and a 
verbal like xetpo-roinros; a preposition and a verb like cup-rabys, 
with two prepositions and verbal like zap-eic-axros; an adverb 
and a preposition and a verbal like et-apdc-dexros, etc. The ad- 
jective compounds used in the N. T. characteristic of the xouw7 
are somewhat numerous. ’Aya0o-zovds (Sirach, Plut.); aypc-édaros 
(Anthol.); axpo-ywriatos (eccl.); addo-yerns (LXX and Temple 
inscriptions meant for gentiles to read); dv-e£i-kaxos (from 4év4, 
éxouar and xaxds, Lucian, Justin M., Poll., papyri); avOpw2-dpeckos 
(LXX, eccl.); a6-dexros (Sext. Emp., Plut., inscriptions) ; azo-cur- 
aywyos (2 Esdr.); apri-yerynros (Lucian, Long.); atro-Karé-Kputos 
(eccl. writers); Bapt-riuos (Strabo); ypa-wdys (from ypats, €léos, 
Strabo, Galen); de&o-AaBos (true reading in Ac. 23: 23, late eccl. 
writers); devrepo-mp&ros (cf. devtep-erxatos, only MSS. in Lu. 6:1); 
6-Gadaccos (Strabo, Dio Chrys., eccl.); di-uxos (eccl.); &-AayBos 
(Polyb., eccl.); é-revjs (Polyb., Philo); %-rpouos (only in ND 
Heb. 12:21, other MSS., &-rpoywos, LXX, Plut.); é-doBos (Arist., 
Plut.); é-Oavarwos (Dion. Hal.); éri-rd6nros (eccl.); érepd-yAwo- 
gos (LXX, Strabo, Philo); et-dpecros (Wisd., eccl., inser., but 
Xen. has evapéorws); et-xoros (Polyb., LXX); e-doynrés (LXX, 
Philo) ; e’-wera-doros (Anton.); e’-mdp-e5pos (for Text. Rec. ed-rpdc- 
edpos, Hesych.); et-repi-cratos (only in Heb. 12:1); ed-rpédc-dexros 
(Plut., eccl.); evpt-xwpos (Arist., LXX, Diod., Jos.); e-crAayxvos 
(Hippoc., LXX, eccl. writers); 6¢0-didaxros (eccl.); 6¢6-rvevaros 
(Plut., Phoc., eccl. writers, inscriptions); is-ayyedos (cf. icd-Beos, 


WORD-FORMATION 169 


Philo, eccl.); io6-riwos (cf. isd-bvyos, Philo, Jos., Plut., Lucian, 
Alia, ete.); Kabnuepivos (from xa’ yuepay, Judith, Theophr., Athen., 
Plut., Alciph., Jos.); xar-eléwdos (only in Ac. 17 : 16); Kevd-do€éos 
(Polyb., Diod., Philo, Anton., eccl. writers); a-fev7ds (LXX); 
Nect-oupytxds (LXX, eccl. writers); paxpo-xpovios (LX X, Hipp., 
Agath.); jarao-hoyos (Telest.); joyi-Addos (LXX, schol. to 
Lucian); ved-¢dutos (LXX, papyri, Aristophanes?); dx7a-npuepos 
(ecel. writers); dAvyo-miotos (only in N. T.); odvyo-Wuxos (LXX, 
Artem.); 6do-reAns (Plut., Hexapla, eccl. writers); mav-odpyos 
(Arist., xown, LXX); mapa-Aurixéds (eccl. writers); map-eic-axros 
(Strabo); map-eri-dnuos (Polyb., Athen., LX X); sarpo-rapa-doros 
(Diod., Dion. Hal., eccl. writers); mevre-xat-déxatos (Diod., Plut., 
etc.); moAXa-rAaciwy (Polyb., Plut., ete.); modt-ordayxvos (LXX, 
Theod. Stud.); odv-rywos (Plut., Herodian, Anthol.); orayo- 
gdopntos (only in Rev. 12:15 and Hesych.); mpo-Barixés (from 
mpo-Barov, LXX, Jo. 5:2); mpdc-xarpos (4 Macc., Jos., Dio Cass., 
Dion. Hal., Strabo, Plut., Herodian); rpo-¢nrixds (Philo, Lucian, 
eccl.); mpwrd-roxos (LX X, Philo, Anthol., inscriptions, eccl.); on76- 
Bpwros (LXX, Sibyll. Or.); cxAnpo-rpaxndos (LX X); cxwdnKd-Bpwros 
(Theophr.); cty-yopdos (Lucian, Nicand.); cuu-rabjs (LXX); obv- 
Yuxos (ecel. writers); cuv-ex-dexTos (only in 1 Pet. 5:18); ctv-cwpyos 
(eccl. writers); ov-cratixos (Diog. Laert.); ramewvd-dpwy (from ra- 
mewvos, ppnv, LXX, Plut.); rpi-creyos (Dion. Hal., Jos., Symm.); 
¢O.v-orwpivos (Arist., Polyb., Strabo, Plut.); @id-ayabes (Arist., 
Polyb., Wisd., Plut., Philo); #id-avros (Arist., Philo, Plut., Jos., 
Sext.); @A-Adovos (Polyb., Plut., Lucian, ete.); dAd-feos (Arist., 
Philo, Lucian, ete.); dpev-araryns (eccl. writers); yep-aywyds 
(Artem., Plut., etc.); yerpo-roinros (LX X, Polyb., Dion. Hal., 
papyri); xpvco-daxriduos (Jas. 2:2, elsewhere only in Hesych.). 
It will be apparent from this list how many words used in 
the N. T. appear first in Aristotle or the literary xowy. Aris- 
totle was no Atticist and broke away from the narrow vocab- 
ulary of his contemporaries. Many of these late words are found 
in the papyri and inscriptions also, as is pointed out. But we 
must remember that we have not learned all that the papyri and 
inscriptions have to teach us. Cf. also the numeral adjective 
‘dexa-réooapes (LXX, Polyb., papyri).!. See further chapter VII, 
Declensions. 

4. Adverbs. The late Greek uses many new adverbs and new 
kinds of adverbs (especially compounds and prepositional ad- 
verbs). For list of the new prepositional adverbs see chapter on 

leo lassniGr..ofeNev 1. Gk: p.°70. 


170 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


prepositions. These are usually formed either from adjectives 
like é&-wmvov (neuter of év-wmos) or by composition of preposition 
and adverb as in brep-avw, or preposition and adjective as in éx-ze- 
pis-ood, or two or more prepositions (prepositional adverbs as in 
an-€-ayrt), or apreposition and a noun-root as in azro-T6uws, or a Sub- 
stantive and a verb as in vouy-exa@s, or an adjective and a substan- 
tive as in rav-7AnOet, or an adjective and an adverb as in rap-rore, 
or a preposition and a pronoun as in é£-aurfs._ In a word, the com- 
pound adverb is made from compound adjectives, substantives, 
verbs with all sorts of combinations. The xowyn shows a distinct 
turn for new adverbial combinations and the N. T. illustrates 
it very clearly. Paul, especially, doubles his adverbs as in bzep- 
ex-repicaov. ‘These adverbs are generally formed by parathetic 
composition and are used as prepositions in the later Greek, in- 
correctly so according to Blass.1_ But it must be remembered that 
the xown developed according to its own genius and that even the 
Atticists could not check it. In Luke zap-rdnOei (Lu. 23 : 18) and 
mav-ouxel (Ac. 16 : 34) are not derived from adjectives or previous 
adverbs, but from substantives (perhaps assoc. instr.). As to the 
use of adverbs as prepositions, all prepositions were originally 
adverbs (cf. év-avriov). In the later language we simply can see 
the process of development in a better state of preservation. No 
magical change has come over an adverb used with a case. It is 
merely a helper of the case-idea and is part of the analytic linguistic 
development. 

The chief compound adverbs used in the N. T. characteristic 
of the xown are here given. As the list of adverbs is much smaller 
than those of verbs, substantives and adjectives, compounds 
with a— privative are included here. ’A-dca-Aelrtws (Polyb., Diod., 
Strabo, 1 Macc., papyri); ava-uecov and dvd-pepos is the Text. Rec. 
in Rev. 7:17 and 1 Cor. 14: 27, but this is not the modern edit- 
ing, rather ava péoov, etc.; av-avti-pytws (Polyb., etc.); dvri-répa 
(Xen. avri-répav, Polyb., ete.); aa-évayte (Polyb., LXX, papyri 
and inscriptions); d-mepi-craotws (Polyb., Plut.); dzo0-réuws 
(Polyb., Diod., Wisd., Longin.); éy\-avy&s (so NCLA in Mk. 
8 : 25 for rnd-avyés); dua-ravros is the way Griesbach and Tisch. 
print 6:4 mavrés; &-radat (Philo and on, inscriptions); é&-revds 
(Polyb., LXX, inscriptions); &-avr. (LX X, inscriptions); é&-dmov 
(Theoc., LXX, papyri); é&-amwa (LXX, Jamb., Byz.); é&-auriis 
(Theogn., Arat., Polyb., Jos., ete.); é-4raé (Lucian, Dio Cass., 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 65. Cf. Mayser’s Gr., pp. 485 ff. Jannaris, 
§ 1490. 


WORD-FORMATION 171 


etc.); xa0-e&fs (Atlian, Plut.); xar-ev-avre (LXX, Hermas); kar- 
ev-wriov (LXX); vouvr-exs (Arist., Polyb.); wav-rdnOei (Dio Cass.) ; 
mav-orxel (rejected by the Atticists for ravocxia [LX X], Plato Eryx., 
Philo, Jos.); mav-rore (Sap., Menand., Dion. Hal., condemned by 
the Atticists for éxaorore); map-extos (LXX); mpoc-datws (LXX, 
Polyb., Alciph.); trep-avw (Arist., LX X, Polyb., Jos., Plut., etc.); 
vrep-execva (Byz. and eccl.); bep-ex-repicood (Dan. 2:22, Ald., 
Compl.); bep-ex-repicods (T, W. H. marg. 1 Th. 5:18, Clem. 
Rom.); bzep-diav (Kust.); trep-repicods (only Mk. 7:37). There 
are two ways of writing some of these compound adverbs, either 
as single words or as two or more words. ‘The editors differ as 
to dca mavtos, éh’ amaké, Ex-rada, Kal’ nuépayv, Kab’ Odov, UTEP ExeEtva, 
etc. The editors do as they wish about it. These compound 
adverbs were still more numerous in the Byzantine writers.!. For 
further list of verbs compounded with prepositions see ‘‘ Language 
of the N. T.” by Thayer, in Hastings’ D. B. The xown was fond 
of compound words, some of which deserve the term sesquipe- 
dalian, like karaduvacrebw, cvvayTidapBavouar, etc. We must not for- 
get that after all these modern words from Aristotle onwards 
are only a small portion of the whole. Kennedy (Sources of N. T. 
Greek, p. 62) claims that only about 20 per cent. of the words in 
the N. T. are post-Aristotelian. Many of this 20 per cent. reach 
back into the past, though we have no record as yet to observe. 
The bulk of the words in the N. T. are the old words of the 
ancients, some of which have a distinct classic flavour, literary 
and even poetic, like aic@nrnpiov, rodvToixidos. See list in Thayer’s 
article in Hastings’ D. B., III, p. 37. 

These lists seem long, but will repay study. They are reason- 
ably complete save in the case of verbs compounded with preposi- 
tions and substantives so compounded. As a rule only words 
used by Aristotle and later writers are given, while Demosthenes 
is not usually considered, since he was more purely Attic. 

V. Personal Names Abbreviated or Hypocoristic. The chap- 
ter on Orthography will discuss the peculiarities of N. T. proper 
names in general. Here we are concerned only with the short 
names formed either from longer names that are preserved or 
from names not preserved. This custom of giving short pet- 
names is not a peculiarity of Greek alone. It belonged, moreover, 
to the early stages of the language and survives still.2. It was used 
not merely with Greek names, but also with foreign names brought 
into the Greek. It is proof of the vernacular xow7n in the N. T. 

1 W.-M., p. 127. > 4 Jann HistaGkaGr. p. 293, 


172 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. English “Tom” and “Will.” These abbreviated names are 
regularly from compounds, as Zyvaés for Znvo-dwpos (Tit. 3:13). 
Of the various forms used in these abbreviated names only 
three occur in the N. T., —as, —js, —@s. The great majority 
belong to —as or —d@s.1. ’Aumdias (or —v@s) is the reading of the 
Western and Syrian classes in Ro. 16:8 for ’Apmdcaros (Latin 
Ampliatus) ; ’Avépeas is, according to Blass,” “‘a genuine old Greek 
form,” while Schmiedel*® thinks it can come from ’Avdpopeédns; 
’Avrimas is an abbreviation of ’Avrimatpos (Rev. 2:13) (found in 
inscription ii/A.D. at Pergamum*); ’AzodAws, possibly’ an abbre- 
viation for ’AroA\wros, is the reading of D in Ac. 18:24, though 
& 15, 180 read ’AzedAfs here, while ’AzedAjs is read by all MSS. 
in Ro. 16:10 (cf. Doric ’Azed\a@s in inscriptions, PAS, ii, 397); 
*Aprevas (Tit. 3:12) is an abbreviation of ’Apreuidwpos; Anuds 
(Col. 4:14; Phil. 24; 2 Tim. 4:10) is probably an abbreviation 
of Anunrpios, though Ajuapxos is possible (Anuéas also=Anuds), not 
- to mention Anuaparos, Anuddoxos; ’Exadpas (Col. 1:7; 4:12; Phil. 
23) is (Ramsay so takes it, Expositor, Aug., 1906, p. 153. CE. 
genitive ’Ezadpados, PAS, 11, 375; Fick-Bechtel, p. 16) an ab- 
breviation of ’Eradpdéditos (Ph. 2:25; 4:18), but it does not fol- 
low that, if true, the same man is indicated in Ph. and Col.; ‘Epyds 
(Ro. 16:14) is from the old Doric form abbreviated from ‘Ep- 
podwpos; ‘Epuns (Ro. 16:14) may be merely the name of the god 
given to a man, though Blass doubts it. Likewise we may note 
that Oevdas (Ac. 5:36) is possibly an abbreviation, of O¢déwpos; 
Iovvias (sometimes taken as feminine “Iovia, Ro. 16:7) may be 
‘Iovuas as abbreviation of “Iouvavds; .KXedras (Lu. 24:18) is 
apparently an abbreviation of KXeérarpos; Aouxds (Col. 4:14; Phil. 
24; 2 Tim. 4:11) is an abbreviation of Aovxavds and of Aovxtos7; 
Nuydas (Col. 4:15) is probably derived from Nupdddwpos; ’Od\vuras 


1 See Fick-Bechtel, Die griech. Personennamen, 1894; Pape, Worterbuch 
der griech. Higennamen, 1842, ed. Benseler, 1870; Keil, Beitr. zur Onomatolo- 
gie; W. Schulze, Graeca Lat., 1901; Hoole, the Class. Elem. in the N. T., 1888; 
Kretsch., Gesch. der griech. Spr., Die kleinasiat. Personennamen, pp. 311-370. 

25 Gry OlsNat Lee Cree eed Le 

3 W.-Sch., p. 1438. 4 Deiss., B. S., p. 187. 

5 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 143 f., for objections to this derivation. In a Fayim 
pap. (Deiss., B. S., p. 149) ’Aod\Awos occurs és kal oupiott "Iwvabas. Cf. 
Brug., Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 175. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. Cf. also Fick-Bechtel, p. 304. Fick (xxxviii) takes 
it from ‘Epyoxparns, as also ‘Epudas. 

7 Ramsay (Exp., Dec., 1912, pp. 504 ff.) quotes inscription of Pisid. 
Antioch where Aovxds and Aov«os are used for the same person. 


— 


WORD-FORMATION 173 


(Ro. 16:15) is apparently abbreviated from ’Odvumiddwpos, though 
‘Oduuriaves is possible; Hapyevds (Ac. 6:5) is probably an abbre- 
viation of Ilapyevidns, though Blass! suggests Hapyevwv; HarpoBas 
(Ro. 16:14) is derived from Ta7péfios; Litas (Ac. 15:22, etc.) is 
the same man as LAovavos (MSS. often LiABaves), as Paul always 
calls him (1 Th. 1:1, etc. So Peter in 1 Pet. 5:12); Yredavas 
(1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15, 17) may be either a modification of Dréda- 
vos or an abbreviation of Lredavndopos; Dwrarpos (Ac. 20:4) is read 
Dwotrarpos by a dozen of the cursives and the Sah. Cop. Arm. 
versions, while Lwaimrarpos is the correct text in Ro. 16:21, but 
it is not certain that they represent the same man, for Zwrarpos 
is from Bercea and LYwoiratpos from Corinth, though it is pos- 
sible. ’Apxédaos, NuxoAaos appear in the N. T. in the unabbreviated 
forms, though in the Doric the abbreviated forms in —as were used. 
On the subject of the N. T. proper names one can consult also 
Thieme, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mdander und das N. T., 
1906, p. 39 f. He finds twenty of the N. T. names in the Mag- 
nesia inscriptions, such as ’Ardia, ’Apteuds(’Apreuidwpos), etc. Kupia 
is a2 common proper name (cf. Hatch, Journal of Bibl. Lnt., 1908, 
p. 145). For the papyri illustrations see Mayser, Gr. der griech. 
Papyri (Laut- und Wortlehre, 1906), p. 253 f. Cf. also Traube, 
Nomina Sacra (1907), who shows that in both B and ®& as well 
as D the abbreviation THC XPC is found as well as the more 
usual IC XC. Cf. Nestle, Exp. Times, Jan., 1908, p. 189. Moul- 
ton (Cl. Quarterly, April, 1908, p. 140) finds ’Axovaidaos in the 
body of a letter in a papyrus and ’Axot7, the abbreviated ad- 
dress, on the back. See also Burkitt, Syriac Forms of N. T. Proper 
Names (1912), and Lambertz, Die griech. Sklavennamen (1907). 
VI. The History of Words. This subject concerns not merely 
the new words appearing in the N. T. but all words there used. 
This is the best place for a few remarks on it. It is not enough 
to know the etymology, the proper formation and the usage in 
a given writer. Before one has really learned a word, he must 
know its history up to the present time, certainly up to the period 
which he is studying. The resultant meaning of a word in any 
given instance will be determined by the etymology, the history 
and the immediate context.2. The etymology and the history be- 
long to the lexicon, but the insistence on these principles is within 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 71. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. der att. Inschr. (pp. 114- 
118), for formation of proper names. 

? Cf. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., p. 29. Goodell, The Gk. in Eng., 
1886, gives a popular exhibition of the influence of Gk. on Eng. 


174 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the purview of grammar. The N. T. Greek on this point only 
calls for the same treatment granted all literature in all languages 
and ages. 

Take oxavdadov, for instance. It is a shorter form of the old 
Greek word cxavdddnOpor, ‘trap-stick.’ The root cxavé is seen in the 
Sanskrit skdndami, ‘to dart,’ ‘to leap.’ The Latin has it in scando, 
de-scendo. The termination —dd7nPpov is possibly the suffix —rpov 
(-@pov) for instrument and cxavd-dda(n). The form cxavdadn occurs 
in Alciphro, of which ocxavd-ado-v. is simply the neuter variation. 
Sxavo-ado-y occurs first in the LXX as a translation for wpi or 
Sqwo, ‘a noose,’ ‘a snare,’ as in Ps. 69 (68):23. It was the trap- 
stick, the trap, the impediment; then a stumbling-block or any 
person who was an occasion of stumbling, as in Josh. 23:13. So 
Peter became a stumbling-block to Jesus, cxavéadov ef éuod (Mt. 
16:23). Christ crucified became a cxavéadov to the Jews (1 Cor. 
1:23). Take again ék-xAyoia (from ék-KdnTos, éxxadew). The root 
ka\ appears in the Latin cal-endae, con-cil-vum, nomen-cld-tor; in 
the Old High German hal-dn, ‘to call.’ Originally éx-x\ncia was a 
calling-out of the people from their homes, but that usage soon 
passed away. It became the constitutional assembly of Athens 
and “we must banish from our minds all remembrance of its ety- 
mology.”’! In the LXX the word is used as the equivalent of 
sap, the assembly of the Israelites as a whole. In the N. T. 
the word takes a further advance. It still appears in the sense of 
‘assembly’ at times, as in 1 Cor. 11:18, but usually, as Thayer 
shows (Lexicon), the idea of the word is that of body or company 
of believers whether assembled or not, the body of Christ. This 
is true at times where the idea of assembly is impossible, as in 
Ac. 8:38. The word in this sense of body of Christians is used 
either in the local (Ac. 8:3) or the general sense (Mt. 16 : 18). 
In the general sense the word does not differ greatly from one 
aspect of the word Baotreia. These examples must suffice. 

VII. The Kinship of Greek Words. The study of the family tree 
of a word is very suggestive. Aeix-vuv-uwe is a good illustration 
in point. It has the root é« which appears in the Sanskrit di¢-d- 
mi, ‘to show,’ Latin dic-o, Gothic teiho, German zeigen, etc. 
On the root 6 a number of Greek words are built, as 6dix-n, 
‘the way pointed out,’ ‘right’ or ‘justice’; dixnv, ‘after the way’ 
or ‘like’; de?é-1s, ‘a showing’; de?y-ua, ‘something shown’; dix-avos, 
‘a man who seeks to go the right way,’ ‘righteous’; 6:x-ardw, ‘to 


1 Hicks, Cl. Rev., 1887, p. 48. See also Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. 
N. T., pp. 57-60. 


WORD-FORMATION highs 


make or declare one te be righteous’; 6cx-aiw-ors, ‘the act of declar- 
ing one righteous’; 6évx-aiw-ua, ‘the thing declared to be right’; 
dix-ato-cbvn, ‘the quality of being right,’ ‘righteousness’; dcx-alws, 
‘righteously’ or ‘justly’; dcx-avw-rns or dix-ao-7Hs, ‘one who decides 
righteously’; 6écx-ac-rnpiov, ‘the place for judging righteously.’ 
Each of these words occurs in the N. T. save three, dixny, dx-aw- 
Ths, dkac-Tynpiov. With these twelve words the difference in mean- 
ing is not so much due to historical development (like éxkxAncia) as 
to the idea of the various suffixes. It is, of course, true that the 
N. T. has a special doctrine of righteousness as the gift of God 
which colours most of these words. The point is that all these 
various points of view must be observed with each word. An- 
other illustration that will not be followed up is \t-rpov (Mt. 
20 : 28), dzo-dl-rpw-ors (Ro. 3:24). The ideas of action, agent, 
result, instrument, quality, plan, person, etc., as shown by the 
suffixes, differentiate words from each other. 

Green in his Handbook to Grammar of N. T. Greek? illustrates 
this point well with the root kpc (xpi), giving only the examples 
that occur in the N. T. They will be found interesting: first, the 
verb, Kpiv-w, dva-Kpiy-w, ayT-aTro-Kply-omal, ao-Kply-ouat, dia-Kplv-w, 
éy-Kply-w, €ml-Kply-W, KaTa-KplV-W, OVY-KplV-wW, TvV-UTO-KplY-o"al, UTO- 
Kplv-w; second, the substantive, xpi-ovs, xpi-ua, Kpi-Tnpiov, Kpl-T7s, 
QVa-Kpl-ols, ATO-Kpl-ua, ATO-Kpl-ols, OLa-Kpl-ols, EiAL-KplV-Ela, KATA-Kpl-pa, 
KATG-Kpl-ols, TpO-Kpl-ua, b1o-Kpt-o1s, Uro-Kpi-Tns; third, adjectives, 
KPl-TLKOS, G-OLA-Kpl-TOS, A-KATA-KPL-TOS, GV-UTO-KpPL-TOS, QUTO-KATA-KPL-TOS, 
e(Xl-Kpl-V7Ns. 

The development of this line of study will amply repay the 
N. T. student. 

VIII. Contrasts in Greek Words or Synonyms. The Greek is 
rich in synonyms. In English one often has a choice between the 
Anglo-Saxon word or its Norman-French equivalent, as “to ask”’ 
or “to inquire.”? The Greeks made careful distinctions in words. 
Socrates tripped the Sophists on the exact meaning of words as 
often as anywhere. We are fortunate in N. T. study in the pos- 
session of two excellent treatises on this subject. Trench, Syno- 
nyms of the N. T., 1890, is valuable, though not exhaustive. But 
he gives enough to teach one how to use this method of investi- 
gation. Heine, Synon. des neutest. Griech., 1898, is more com- 
prehensive and equally able. The matter can only be mentioned 

1 § 149, new ed., 1904. 


2 Cf. Skeat, Prin. of Eng. Etym., 1st ser. (Native Words, 1892); 2d ser. 
(Foreign Words, 1891). 


176 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


here and illustrated. With dixavos, for instance, one should com- 
pare dyads, ays, kafapds, Kadds, dovos, before he can obtain a 
complete idea of N. T. goodness or righteousness. We see Jesus 
himself insisting on the use of ayados for the idea of absolute 
goodness in Mk. 10: 18, ovdels ayabds ei ui eis 6 Oeds. Both ayabes 
and dixaos occur in Lu. 28:50. In Lu. 8:15 the phrase xapéia 
ayab) kat Ka\n approaches Socrates’ common use of Kkadds k’ ayabds 
for “the beautiful and the good.” It is also the Greek way of 
saying “gentleman” which no other language can translate. To 
go no further, répas, dtvayis and onuetoy are all three used to de- 
scribe the complete picture of a N. T. miracle. Neos is ‘young’ 
and ‘not yet old,’ xavvés is ‘recent’ and ‘not ancient.’ 


CHAPTER VI 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 


The term orthography is used to include all that pertains to the 
spelling of Greek words. Phonetics deals with the sounds of the 
letters. The orthography was constantly changing, but not so 
rapidly as did the sounds. Each had an independent develop- 
ment as is seen very strikingly in the modern Greek vernacular 
(Thumb, Handbook of the Mod. Gk. Vernac., p. 6). There has 
never been a fixed orthography for the Greek tongue at any stage 
of its history. ‘There has always been an effort to have new 
phonetic spelling to correspond to the sound-change. Cf. Blass, 
Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 6. The confusion in spelling grew with the 
‘centuries as in English. Many delicate questions confront us at 
once. It has not seemed possible to give the explanation of all 
the varied phonetic (true or merely analogical) and orthographic 
changes in the use of the vowels and consonants. An orderly 
‘collection of the facts with historical side-lights is all that is 
attempted. 

I. The Uncertainty of the Evidence. It is difficult to tell 
what is the vernacular usage in N. T. times on many points, 
though somewhat less so since the discovery of the papyri. 

(a) THe ANCIENT LITERARY SPELLING. The difficulty is much 
increased by the comparison of the phonetic spelling of the modern 
vernacular with the historical orthography of the ancient literary 
Greek.! This method applied to any language may lead one into 
error. Modern conversational English differs widely in orthog- 
raphy from Spenser’s Faerie Queene. For most of the history 
of the Greek language no lexicons or grammars were in use. 
There were the schools and the books on the one hand and popu- 
lar usage on the other. The movement of the Atticists was just 
the opposite of the modern phonetic spelling movement in Eng- 
lish. The Atticists sought to check change rather than hasten it. 
It is to be remembered also that the Atticists were the cloister 


1 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 19 f. 
Wits 


178 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


copyists of the ancient Greek writings and of the N. T. Later 
copyists reflect local types, some more conservative, some less so. 
The law of life is best here, as always, without artificial impulse or 
restraint. In seeking to restore the orthography of the xo.vy ver- 
nacular of the first century A.D. one must not be handicapped by 
the literary Attic nor the modern Greek vernacular, though each 
will be of service. In simple truth one has to be less dogmatic 
these days concerning what could or could not have been in the 
past. Breasted! calmly assures us that before 3000 B.c. “‘the al- 
phabetic signs, each of which stood for one consonant,” were in 
use in Egypt. He adds: “Had the Egyptian been less a creature 
of habit, he might have discarded his syllabic signs 3500 years 
before Christ, and have written with an alphabet of 24 letters.” 
The Greek language was a growth and did not at first have 24 
letters. E, even in early Attic,? not to mention Cretan, had the 
force of e, » and sometimes e. Indeed Jannaris® asserts that 
“the symbols 7 and w, in numerous cases also t, originated at 
school as mere compensatory marks, to represent positional or 
‘thetic’ « or o.” It is not surprising with this origin of vowels 
(and consonants do not differ) that variations always exist in the 
sound and use of the Greek letters. Blass‘ is clearly right when 
he points out that in changes in the sounds of words “it is usual 
for the spelling not to imitate the new sound off-hand,” and in the 
case of the N. T. writers there was “no one fixed orthography in - 
existence, but writers fluctuated between the old historical spelling 
and a new phonetic manner of writing.’ Moulton® adds that the 
N. T. writers had to choose “between the literary and illiterate 
Greek of their time,” and “an artificial orthography left the door 
open for not a few uncertainties.”’ Here is a “letter of a prodigal 
son’’ (B.G.U. 846 ii/a.p. See Milligan, Gk. Papyri, p. 93.) in which 
we have “phonetic” spelling in abundance: Kat 6a ravtw[y] edxoual 
gat vyeaivev. TO mpooktynud cov [rot]@ Kar’ aikdorny hualpay mapa 
7T@ kupiw [Leplameda. Tevwoxev cat O€\w xtA. There is here inter- 
change of « and a, of . and e. 

(b) Tue Diatect-CoLourED VERNACULAR. The dialects explain 
some variations in orthography. One copyist would be a better 
representative of the pure vernacular xow/, while another might 


1 A Hist. of Egypt, 1906, p. 45. 


> Meisterh., Gr. ete., p. 3; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 26 f.; Solmsen, Inscr. 
Graecae etc., pp. 52 ff. 


SECC ead « 
£GrootN ak oker eae &Prol:, p. 42: 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 179 


— live where Attic, Ionic, Doric or Northwest Greek had still posi- 
tive influence. Often what looks like a breaking-down of the lan- 
guage is but the survival or revival of old dialectical forms or 
pronunciation. But these variations are mainly due to the per- 
sonal equation. It was not till the time of Marcus Aurelius that 
the learned grammarians succeeded in formulating the artificial 
rules which afterwards prevailed for writing the old classical 
Greek. The first century A.D. was still an age of freedom in or- 
thography. Even in the fourth century a.p. the scribe of N pre- 
fers cu rather than e, while in the case of B e often occurs where 
is the rule elsewhere. This is not mere itacism, but is also indi- 
vidual preference.! “The oldest scribes whose work we possess 
(centuries 4 to 6) always kept themselves much freer from the 
schools than the later.’”’? But, even if Luke and Paul did not 
know the old historical spelling in the case of « mute (subscript) 
and e, it is merely cutting the Gordian knot to “follow the By- 
zantine school, and consistently employ the historical spelling in 
the N. T.” and that “without any regard to the MS. evidence.”’ 
It is not the spelling of the Byzantine school nor of the Attic 
dialect that we are after, but the vernacular Greek of the first cen- 
tury A.D., and this is not quite “the most unprofitable of tasks,” 
as Blass would have us believe.’ 

(c) Tue Unctats. They do complicate the situation. On some 
points, as noted above, the great uncials & and B differ, but usu- 
ally that is not true. There is a general agreement between the 
older uncials in orthography as against the later uncials and the 
cursives which fell under the spell of the Byzantine. reformers, 
who sought to restore the classical literary spelling. The Syrian 
class of documents therefore fails to represent the orthography of 


1 Hort, The N. T. in Orig. Gk., App., Notes on Sel. Read., p. 152. But 
in the Intr. (p. 304) Hort is not willing to admit “peculiarities of a local or 
strictly dialectic nature” in the N. T. Still Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 151) 
allows the Doric déayéw (ddnyéw) in “single MS.” like B and D, zpocaxety in 
B, pacow in D, ete. Hirt (Handb. d. Griech., p. 53) attributes much of the 
vocal change to dialect-mixing and analogy. On & and B see Hort, op. cit., 
p. 606 f. eeDlass GreoluN a Laake pao tl 

3 Ib., p. 7. Hort (p. 302 f. of the Intr. to the N. T. in Orig. Gk.) makes a 
strong defence of his effort to give as nearly as possible “the spelling of the 
autographs by means of documentary evidence.’’ There must not be “slov- 
enly neglect of philological truth.’ But Moulton (Prol., p. 47) does not ‘‘set 
much store by some of the minutiz which W. H. so conscientiously gather 
from the great uncials.”’ - Certainly ‘‘finality is impossible, notwithstanding 
the assistance now afforded by the papyri”’ (Thack., Gr., p. 71). 


180 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the vernacular xowy of the first century A.D. The Syrian class, for 
instance, reads Kazepvaotu, not Kadapvaoiy. But do the MSS. 
which give us the pre-Syrian types of text preserve the auto- 
eraphic orthography? The fourth century is a long time from the 
first and the presumption might seem to be to some extent against 
the Neutral, Alexandrian and Western classes also. The temp- 
tation is constant to spell as people of one’s time do. This diffi- 
culty is felt by every editor of classical Greek texts and often 
purely arbitrary rules are used, rules made by modern critics. 
Hort! is willing to admit that in some instances the spellings 
found in the great uncials which are at variance with the Textus 
Receptus are due to the “literary spellings of the time’ when the 
MSS. were written, “but for the most part they belong to the 
‘vulgar’ or popular form of the language.”’ Hort could see that 
before we had the new knowledge from the papyri and inscrip- 
tions. He adds?: “A large proportion of the peculiar spellings of 
the N. T. are simply spellings of common life. In most cases 
either identical or analogous spellings occur frequently in inscrip- 
tions written in different countries, by no means always of the 
more illiterate sort.’ This fact showed that the unclassical spell- 
ings in the uncials were current in the Apostolic age and were the 
most trustworthy even if sometimes doubtful. “Absolute uni- 
formity belongs only to artificial times,’ Hort* argues, and hence 
it is not strange to find this confusion in the MSS. The confusion 
existed in fact in the first century A.D. and probably the auto- 
graphs did not follow uniform rules in spelling. Certain it is that 
the N. T. writings as preserved in the MSS. vary. But itacism 
applies to all the MSS. to a certain extent and makes it difficult 
to know what vowel or diphthong was really before the ‘scribe. 
In general the N. T., like the LXX, is grounded in matters of or- 
thography on the rules of the grammarians of the time of the 
Cesars (Apollonius and Herodian) rather than upon those of 
the time of Hadrian, when they had an archaistic or Atticistic 
tendency (Helbing, Grammatik d. LXX, p. 1). Moulton (Prol., 
p. 42) thinks that “there are some suggestive signs that the great 
uncials, in this respect as in others, are not far away from the 
autographs.” But Thackeray (op. cit., p. 56) denies that this 


1 Op. cit., p. 303 f. Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 35) calls attention to the fact 
that the professional copyists not only had to copy accurately, but “in the 
received uniform spelling.” Cf. also Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p.2. For further 
remarks on the phenomena in the LXX MSS. see Swete, O. T. in Gk. p. 300f. 

2 Op. cit.,.p. 304, ©. Opvci.apectas 


‘ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 181 


conclusion can be drawn ipso facto of the LXX, since it was trans- 
lated (the Pentateuch certainly) some three centuries earlier than 
the N. T. was written. 

(d) Tue Papyri. They strengthen the case for the uncials. 
Deissmann! and Moulton? show that the great uncials correspond 
in orthography not only with the contemporaneous inscriptions 
as Hort had seen, but also with the papyri of the better-educated 
writers. Among the strictly illiterate papyri writers one can 
find almost anything. The case of é4v=dy in relative clauses is 
worked out well by Moulton to prove this point. In the papyri 
dated B.c. the proportion of éav to av in such cases is 18 to 29, while 
in the first century A.D. it is 76 to9. But in the fourth century 
A.D. it is 4 to 8 and the usage disappears in the sixth century A.D. 
Thackeray (Grammar, vol. I, pp. 65 ff.) shows (after Deissmann?) 
how the LXX confirms this conclusion for ééy =a. The usage 
appears in B.c. 183; copyists are divided in different parts of the 
same book as in Exodus or Leviticus; it is predominant in the 
first and second centuries A.D., and then disappears. Thackeray 
(p. 58) traces ot@eis (unOeis) “from its cradle to its grave”’ (from 
378 B.c. to end of 11/a.D.) and shows how in 1i/A.D. ovdels is supreme 
again. This point very strikingly confirms the faithfulness of the 
uncials in orthography in a matter out of harmony with the time 
when the MSS. were written. We may conclude then that Hort 
is right and the uncials, inscriptions and papyri give us the ver- 
nacular orthography of the xowy with reasonable correctness. 

II. Vowel-Changes (otou.xeia dwvjevta). In the old times the 
vowels underwent many changes, for orthography was not fixed. 
Indeed is it ever fixed? If the Atticists had let the xowy have a 
normal development, Dr. Rutherford would not have complained 
that Greek was ruined by their persistence “in an obsolete or- 
thography instead of spelling as they speak.’ But as early as 
403 B.c. the orator Archinos® had a law passed in Attica prescrib- 
ing the use of the Ionic alphabet in the schools. The early Greek 
used only a, ¢, t, 0, v, and no distinction was made in writing be- 


J Nay, Teh fe) psa 2 Prol., pp. 42 ff. 

3 B.S., pp. 202 ff. On the whole subject of the difficulty of N. T. orthog. 
see W.-Sch., pp. 31 ff. Deiss. (B. S., p. 180) is clearly right in denying a 
“N. T. orthography” save as individual writers, as now, have their peculiar- 
ities. For general remarks about vowel changes in LXX MSS. see Swete, 
O. T. in Gk., p. 301 f.; Thack., Gr., vol. I, pp. 71-100; Helbing, Gr., Laut- u. 
Wortl., pp. 3-14. 

4 Nicklin, Cl. Rev., 1906, p. 115, in review of Rutherford’s A Chap. in 
the Hist. of Annotation, 1905. 5 Cf. Bekker, Anec. Gr., vol. II, p. 783. 


182 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tween long and short vowels, as indeed was never done in the 
case of . and v. The Ionic invented! Q for long o. Before the 
introduction of the Ionic alphabet, I.E. @ and @ were represented 
by z. H was at first the aspirate like Hebrew ;7 and then now 
aspirate and now long « or a as the inscriptions amply show. It 
is very common in the early inscriptions to see € thus used as 
long and @ likewise, as in &a and ros. Cf. e, o for spurious diph- 
thongs e, ov. The kinship of these vowels with the Phoenician 
alphabet is plain, as a is from N, e from jJ, ¢ from 9, o from Y, uv 
from the doubling of 4 (and so a Greek invention). It is inter- 
esting to note that the Sanskrit has three pure vowels, a, 2, u, 
while e and o are diphthongs in origin. In Sanskrit a far surpasses 
all other vowel-sounds, more than twice as many as all other vowel- 
sounds put together.? Schleicher® speaks of the weakening of a 
into 7 and wu, and thus he goes back to an original a sound for all 
the vowels. In Latin also a breaks into e, 7 and u.47 Even in 
Attica in the first century B.c., In spite of Archinos’ law, the in- 
scriptions use sometimes au and ae, ec and t, 7 and vt, v and ut, v and 
vw,cand e interchangeably.® Uniformity did not exist in one dialect, 
not to mention the persistent differences between the various Greek 
dialects. These changes were going on constantly all over the 
Greek world in the first century a.D. For the alphabetical changes 
in the dialects see Buck’s Greek Dialects, pp. 15 ff. These inter- 
changes between vowels are interesting. 

(a) THE CHANGES (INTERCHANGES) WITH a. The first sound 
made by a baby is @. These changes became dialectical peculiari- 
ties in many words like the Lesbian xpéros (kparos, “‘ablaut”’ varia- 
tions), the Boeotian arepos (érepos), Doric tapds (iepds).6 So in the 
vernacular Attic we find épern (apern) where a breaks to ¢€ before 
e (vowel assimilation), as in the Ionic-Attic a sometimes changes 
to « after . and v.? See Kihner-Blass® for many examples. 


1 Riem. and Goelzer, Gr. Comp. du Grec et du Lat., Phonét., p. 38. 
Cf. also Donaldson, The New Crat., pp. 207 ff.; K.-Bl., Griech. Gr., Tl. I, 
Bd. I, pp. 39 ff.; Earle, Names of the Orig. Letters of the Gk. Alph. (Class- 
Papers, 1912, pp. 257 ff.); Flin.-Pet., Form. of the Gk. Alph. (1912). But 
Sir Arthur Evans gets the Gk. Alph. from Crete. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 10. 

* Vergl. Gr., p. 55. His opinion is now considered antiquated. 

* Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 149 f. ) 

* Télfy, Chron. und Topog. d. griech. Ausspr. etc., 1893, p. 39. See also 
Larsfeld, Griech. Epig., 1892, pp. 494 ff.; King and Cookson, Sounds and 
Inflex. in Gk. and Lat., 1888. 60K Blech sl) (Bas kip aehbodt: 

’ Hirt, Handb. der griech, Laut- u. Formenl., pp. 115,119. Ta is the form 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 183 


aande. ’Ayyapebw appears as éyyap. In N (Mt. 5:41) and XB 
(Mk. 15: 21).!. The New Ionic eivexev (more commonly éexev) has 
nearly displaced the Attic éexa which Blass? admits only in 
Ac. 26:21. E?frev for efra appears in Mk. 4: 28 as a rare Ionic 
form. Herodotus? had both efra and éreta. Kaéapifw in the 
aorist (active and passive) and perfect middle has e for the second 
a in many of the best MSS. both in LXX and N. T. (ef. Mk. 
1:42; Mt. 8:3 W. H.). Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 82, gives the 
facts. Blass* points out that Idzrepa (Ilad7apa) occurs in AC in 
Ac. 21:1. Teocepaxovra is the form given always by W. H. This 
is an Ionic form (vowel assimilation) which is not so common in 
the papyri as in the N. T. MSS.2 In modern Greek both capavra 
and cepavra survive. Likewise W. H. always give the preference to 
téaoepa, though the papyri do not use it till the fourth century a.p.° 
But in the inscriptions réccepa is found several times,’ one case in 
the first century A.D.5 Téocepas, however, does not occur in the 
N. T: MSS., though the papyri have it in the Byzantine age.? The 
Ionic and the modern Greek have réocepes and réocepa. The N. T. 
thus differs from the cow? papyri, but is in harmony with the Ionic 
literature and inscriptions. In some MSS. in both LXX and N. T. 


in Doric and Beeotian, while ye is found in the Ionic, Attic and Cypriote 
(Meister, Griech. Dial., Bd. II, p. 29). 

1 Deiss., B. S., p. 182, gives é&yapias in a pap. (iv/A.D.). 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 20. Cf. Note in W.-Sch., p. 50; Thack., pp. 82, 135; 
Mays., p. 14. 

§ According to Phrynichus (Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 204) both of these 
words are éoxdatws BapBapa. 

Per ofan LeGe pao), 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 46. 

6 Ib. For assimilation between a and ein modern Gk. dialects see Dieterich, 
Unters. etc., pp. 272, 274. In mod. Gk. vernacular a frequently displaces 
initial e or o. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 14. 

7 Dieterich, Unters. zur Gesch. der griech. Spr., p. 4; also Schweizer, Gr. 
d. perg. Inschr., p. 163. 

8 Nachm., Laute und Formen d. magn. Inschr., p. 146. 

9 Moulton, Prol., p. 46. For further evidence see Croénert, Mem. Graeca 
Hercul., 1903, p. 199. In the Apostolic Fathers and the N. T. Apoc. réocepa 
and reocepdxovra are common as well as éabepicbn (Reinhold, De Grecitate 
Patr. Apostol. etc., p. 38 f. On the whole subject of a and e in the papyri see 
careful discussion of Mayser, Gr., pp. 54-60, where he mentions éxotw, éyvapetw, 
éxe\eboaoba (for similar confusion of aorist and fut. inf. see éxkdebéacbar, 2 Mace. 
9:22 V). Téooepa and reccepdxovtra are very common also in the LXX MSS. 
Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 5; Thack., Gr., p. 62f. This spelling occurs as 
early as iv/B.c. in Pergamum (Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 163 f.). In 
Egypt it hardly appears before i/a.p. and is not common till ii/a.p. (Thack., 
Gr., p. 62). The uncials give the later spelling. See “Additional Notes.’’ 


184 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


reocapes iS accusative as well as nominative, like the Achzan dia- 
lect, but this is another story. § in Rev. 3:16 has xNepds. The 
common (Ionic and Northwest Greek) use of —éw instead of —daw 
with verbs as in épwréw will be discussed in the chapter on Verbs. 

Conversely « is sometimes changed to a. “Audiafer 1s accepted 
by W. H. in Lu. 12 : 28 rather than either the late du@éfe or the 
early audiévyver. The form épavvaw instead of épevvaw W. H. have 
everywhere received into the text, and so with é&epavvaw and avete- 
pabyntos. NB always read it so, sometimes AC. It is supported 
by the papyri. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 113; Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, 
p. 7, for similar phenomena in the LXX. 

Initial e€ often becomes a in modern Greek vernacular, as a\a- 
pos (€\adpos), avrepa (€vrepa), etc. Cf. Thumb, Handbook, p- 14. 
So the Doric miafw is used in the N. T. everywhere save in Lu. 
6 : 38, where, however, wemtecuevos has the original idea (‘pressed 
down,’ not ‘seized’). Both occur in the LXX. The Attic forms 
gan, bados are retained in the N. T. (as in LXX) rather than the 
Ionic and vernacular xo.wy forms in e, a mark of the influence of 
the literary! xow7. 

Some verbs in —éw also use —aw forms, like é\edw, EANoyaw, Evpaw. 
See the chapter on Verbs. 

Changes in a take place in a few Hebrew proper names. Kazep- 
vaovp is the Syrian reading for Kadapvaoby (W. H.). So W. H. read 
MaaAedena in Lu. 3: 37,not Med.(Tisch.),and Na@avanr. Ledabuyd (in- 
stead of ad.) appears in B. Thumb? remarks that these changes 
between a and e occur to-day in the Kappadocian dialect. 

aand 7. The Doric forms 66ay6s, 66a7 are found in the xouwn, 
though Schweizer calls it hardly a Dorism. So in N. T. MSS. 
we have mpocaxéw in B (Ac. 27: 27) and paoow in D (Mk. 9: 18). 
The Ptolemaic papyri regularly have davyXicoxey till ii/A.D. (May- 
ser, Gr., p. 345). For a and a see and yn under (c). 

aando. The changes* between these two vowels are seen in 
the Lesbian tra (b76), Arcadian rpraxdovor, Doric eixare (eixoor), ete. 
W. H. give Barradoyew in Mt. 6:7 (cf. Barrapif~w) instead of Bar- 
todoyew. ABK and twice 8 and many cursives have pos Kodacoaels 

1 Dieterich Unters. etc., p. 70. Cf. Thack., Gr., vol. I, p. 75 f. So Aadyaria 
in 2 Tim. 4: 10, though C has Ae\u. as Lat. has both. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 21. Both forms are in the pap., Deiss., B. S., p. 182. 

2 Hellen. (Griech. Spr.), p. 76. See also Radermacher, N. T. Gr., pp. 34 ff. 


§ Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 49. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 62, xpao0a for xpicba. 
So A in 2 Mace. 6 : 21. 


* K.-BIL., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 117 f. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. ete., p. 117, where Attic 
inscr. are shown to have NeoroNirns. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 185 


as the title, while in Col. 1:2 nearly all MSS. read & Kodoscats. 
Blass finds the title in o also in accordance with the coins and the 
profane writers; Xen., Anab. I, 2. 6, has a variant reading in Kodac- 
cai. In Mk. 13:35 B has pecavixriov and D in Lu. 11: 5 instead 
of pecovixriov.! In 1 Tim. 1:9 W.H. give unrpod\wars and tarpo- 
Awats (instead of —adoias) on the authority of NADFGL. Blass? 
compares tatpo-KrTévos. 

aandw. ’Avayaov is read by the most and the best MSS. in 
Mk. 14:15; Lu. 22:12. ’Avwyeov, dvwyatov, avwyewr, avaryeov have 
only “trifling authority.”’* Tatos is Dorie and Ionic. 

aandat. The papyri* sometimes have the Epic and Ionic aiet, 
though the N. T. only reads det. The early dropped out between 
the vowels. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 103. B has alet in 1 Esd. 1:30. 
The N. T., like the LXX, hae katw and kdaliw, though the Rel 
maic papyri rarely have caw and kd\daw. 

aandav. Jn Lu. 2:1 NCA have ’Ayotcrov instead of Aivyotorov. 
This spelling of a for av is found in Pergamum by Schweizer® 
in the reflexive pronoun éa7év, while Meisterhans® gives examples 
of it as early as 74 B.c. in the Attic inscriptions. Moulton?’ is 
probably correct in saying that we need not assume the existence 
of this spelling in the N. T. autographs, though it is not impos- 
sible. He indorses Mayor’s suggestion (Hwp., VI, x, 289) “that 
axatataorous in 2 Pet. 2:14 AB may be thus explained: he com- 
pares axunp@ 1:19 A.” This dropping of v between vowels ex- 
tended to the dropping of v before consonants. In the modern 
Greek we have airés (aftos) and ards (in Pontus), whence comes 
76 (not the article). The examples of ’Ayotoros and arés (atoyer- 
yntov once) in the papyri are very common.? Thackeray (Gr., 
p. 79) finds no instances in the LXX. 


1 Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 152) compares péoaBov, and Blass (Gr., p. 21) 
pecactinuov. Merott (ueraét) is in 1 Clem. and Barn. (Reinhold, De Graec., 
p. 40. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 60f., ddXAor for &\Aov. Illiterate scribes confused 
a and o, a and e in the LXX (as weroét) and in the pap. (Thack., Gr., p. 77). 

SGT cou Gk, Decks 

3 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151. W.-Sch., p. 51, compare xara-gayas and 
KaTtw-payas as parallel. Cf. Meisterh., Gr., p. 17. 

4 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 31, 1904, p. 107. SE Se @bC ret eo Lte 

6 Gr. etc., p.61. Cf. also Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 78. 7 Prol.,. p. 47. 

8 Moulton, Exp., 1904, p. 363. So also in the Rom. period occasionally 
éuarod, éarod. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35; Wack., Kuhn’s Zeitschr., 
RXXUL, DD. ls 

® Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 33; 1904, p. 107. He quotes Laurent (B.C.H., 
1903, p. 356) as saying that this erenomenon was very common in the tie 
half of i/B.c. 


186 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


atand €. a was written ae in early Boeotian and Attic inscrip- 
tions (cf. Latin transliteration) and so gradually was pronounced 
as e (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 28). By 100 a.p. in the xow7 a 
was the mere equivalent of «. The Egyptian papyri show abun- 
dant illustrations of it. Especially do the LXX MSS. exhibit it 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 78). The modern Greek pronounces both these 
vowel-sounds alike, as indeed did the Boeotian dialect long before 
the xow?. Numerous examples of this interchange of spelling exist 
in the Pompeian wall-inscriptions and in the vernacular xo.wy from 
100 a.p. on.! Indeed in the N. T. MSS. it is very common to 
find —c@ac and —oe used indiscriminately, probably representing the 
common later pronunciation which was already developing in the 
first century A.D. Hort? compares this “shortening of an identical 
sound” to the late ortdos for ordAos and xpiwa for kptua. So com- 
mon did this blending become that Blass? places little confidence 
in the N. T. MSS. on this point. Such readings occur as ére?ode 
for aitetoOe and yvuvexars for yuvatxes. Sometimes only the con- 
text+ can decide between e and a: where different forms result, as 
in dvarece or —at (Lu. 14:10), éyerpe or —av (Mt. 9:5), éravayxes 
(Ac. 15:28),> éoxecbe or —cOar in NADL (Lu. 14:17), érépos or 
éeraipos (Mt. 11:16 Syrian reading), rapeveyxe or —ar (Mk. 14: 36), 
etc. In Gal. 4:18 both 8 and B read ¢ndodcbe for fnrodcOa. B 
reads Aidautra in Ac. 2:9, from D>°v, the rest "EX. The author- 
ity according to Hort® is “usually preponderant” for é£édvns and 
épvidios instead of aid. So xepéa for xepaia is accepted’ in Mt. 5: 18; 
Lu. 16:17, and xperadn for kpartadyn in Lu. 21:34. Likewise 
W. H. receive Aacéa for Aacaia in Ac. 27:8. NAC in 2 Pet. 2:17 
read \éAazros, but AatAaw is the undoubted reading in Matthew, 
Luke. The uncials all have peé6n, not paidn, in Rev. 18:13. So 
all the early uncials but A have Luxouopeéa (not —aia) in Lu. 19: 4. 
Hort® accepts also gedovns for daidovns (2 Tim. 4:18), though 
Moulton ® doubts, because of the Latin paenula. 


1 W.-Sch., p. 47. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 150. Cf. on ac and e, Mayser, Gr., p. 107. 

2° GTOLeN es aK eee OF 4 W.-Sch., p. 47. 

5 ’En’ dvayxars “Alexandrian only” according to Hort, Notes on Orth., 
Deol 

Salty: 


7 Ib. Cf. the Western xavodwrias for xevodwrias in 1 Tim. 6:20. In 1 
Th. 3:3 instead of caivecbar FG read otévecbar. Nestle (Neut.-Zeit., 1906, 
p. 361) finds parallels in the forms cvawvouévwv and craves. 

8 Notes on Orth., p. 151. 

® Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 107. The pap. give ¢awédd\or. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 187 


(b) THe CHANGES WITH €. The interchanges of « and a have 
already been discussed under (a), but others took place with 7, ¢, o. 

e and ev. In the Beeotian these were freely interchanged! and 
the same interchange occurs in the Doric, New Ionic and Attic 
as mAewy or tAelwv. The Attic inscriptions? show this common 
phenomenon. The before a vowel easily and early loses its force 
and drops out. Before the adoption of the scholastic orthography 
at Athens (B.c. 403) e stood for e, 7, «. Sooner or later e became 
everywhere a monophthong (Buck, Greek Dialects, p. 28). But 
the xewn usually wrote e before vowels rather than « (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 81). The LXX MSS. reveal the same traits as the N. T. 
’Apeorayirns is in Acts 17: 34, but "Apes occurs (Ac. 17:19, 22). 
’Axpetos is uniform in the N. T., but in Ro. 3:12 we have 7jxpew- 
Crogvei NA Dye NU, tol eJOmob el oseACe 15228) W. H. 
print adeov (Attic has even mXéovos),? but elsewhere the N. T. has 
forms in e. The derivatives all have ¢« like wieovexrew. But the 
N. T. has only rédeos, reXecdw, though Herodotus always and the 
Attic usually used rededw. De has reXeoar in Heb. 10:1.4 Of 
words with e and e before consonants one may note that dzo- 
oteikw in Ac. 7: 34 is aorist subjunctive. (Cf. Ex. 3:10.) Both 
évexey and eivexey occur in the N. T. (both Ionic and Attic). The 
N. T. never has és, but always eis. However, éow is the uniform 
reading in the N. T. Homer used either efow or éow. 

€ andy. Numerous examples of long ¢ occur in the inscriptions 
like were (ujre).2 These changes are probably all analogical and 
not phonetic. But in the N. T. we have only the shortening of 
n, back to short € in some words like avaGeua, though this particular 
word (‘curse’) came to be distinct from avd0nua (‘votive offering’). 
’AvaOnua occurs only once in the N. T. (Lu. 21:5), and even here 
NADX, etc., have avafeua. Tisch. quotes Moeris as saying ava- 
Onua atTiKOs, avabewa éNAnvikds. But the use of davafeua as ‘curse’ 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 28, as dewds =0eds; Thumb, Handb., p. 220. 

2 Meisterh., Gr., p. 20 f. Cf. Schweizer, Gr. etc., p. 44f. The change 
in e and e was very common in vi/ill B.c. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. 

§ But even the Arcadian dial. has w\éova, rAedvwy (Solmsen, Inscr. Graec., p. 
4). W),éov is common in the N.T. Apoc. (Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. Apost. etc., 
p. 40). Cf. Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 40 f. On the whole subject of « 
and e in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 67-73. They are very numerous indeed, 
these changes in the pap., both ways. 4 Blass.Gr.. of NwlaGk: yp. 22: 

5 Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae etc., p. 1. Arcadian dial. Cf. also Meisterh., 
Gr., p. 3. In the Pontic dial. to-day there is a wide-spread use of ¢ instead of 
N, a8 in céroua (Thumb, Hellen. [Griech. Spr., referred to hereafter usually as 
Hellen.], p. 149). 


188 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“is not an innovation of biblical Greek”? (Moulton, Prolegomena, 
p. 46). In Ac. 11:11 NABD® read jyer, not juny. Perhaps this 
exchange between e and 7 bears on the use of orjxere with iva 
in Mk. 11:25; 1 Th. 3:8, and of MS. evidence for @avyafere in 
Jo. 5:20 and éfouodoynoerae in Ph. 2:11. Cf. also dynofe and 
dyeobe in Lu. 13:28. So in 13:25. Mayser (Gr., p. 64) thinks 
that sometimes ¢ represents an original open 7 as in zapeorexores. 
The xow?/ shows quite a preference for words in —eva rather than 
—nua (Mayser, Gr., p. 65 f.), and the LX X has new words in -eua, 
though some words have both forms (Thackeray, Gr., p. 80). 

In the papyri this shortening (as in the LX X) appears in words 
like érideua, tpdcbeua, etc.1 The interchanges between 7 and e., nu 
and ec will be discussed under 7 (c). Mayser (Gr., p. 63 f.) thus 
(n for €) explains 7\ypys as an indeclinable neuter form. 

e and t. Dieterich? mentions as one of the marks of the Attic 
and Egyptian xowy the fact that « and e interchange when used 
with \ and v. Cf. the modern Greek, and the Lesbian Greek used 
réptos for tpitos, and the Thessalian 616s for eds. It is a Doric 
characteristic. ‘This variation appears in the inscriptions? and in 
the papyri,‘ especially in the case of \eyuwv, which is also Aeyewv and 
even Aeyewv, not to mention a genitive Aeyidvws (o and w having 
the same sound). Aeyidv is the reading of the best N. T. MSS. 
(NBDL; cf. Latin legio), as in the papyri. Especially in the case 
of the Latin short 7 does the xown have e. ‘AXdeets, not adeZs, is the 
reading in the N. T. according to the best MSS. (Mk. 1: 16, etce.).° 
This is a natural assimilation after a liquid. The frequency of « 
for ein the Egyptian papyri may be due in part to the Coptic, 
which has no short % (Steindorff, Kopt. Gr., p. 13). Note a 
soldier’s use of xépav for xetpa(v), B.G.U. 423 (ii/a.p.). Aévrvopv 
(Jo. 13:4, Latin lintewm) is a change in the other direction, 
Latin 7 to Greek e. Blass® says that Nevreov would have looked 


1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 108. Cf. also Moulton, Prol., p. 46, and 
Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., pp. 47 ff., has good discussion of this short- 
ening of 7 to e and also w too. “E and 7 interchange times without number 
from v/B.c. down to ix/a.p.”’ (Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 36). Reinhold (De 
Graec. Patr. etc., p. 101 f.) shows how the confusion between 7 and é led to 
forms like éay ayayere. Cf. the mod. Gk. oréxw (o7hxw) and Oérw (O4Tw). 

2 Unters. etc., p. 136. 3 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 43 f. 

4 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 33, 434; 1904, p. 107. Cf. Mayser, Gr., 
p. 80 f. 

6 *ANe?s occurs in pap. also. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 307; Thackeray, 
p. 84. 

@ Gr OlgNet OK Gaeees 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 189 


unnatural to a Greek. Nydddvos also is alone well-attested,! not 
yvnpadeos (1 Tim. 3: 2, ete.). Toriodo. in Ac. 28:13 represents the 
Latin Puteoli, using c for e (cf. Dittenberger, p. 145). LeucxivOrov 
(not —eor) is the N. T. reading (Ac. 19 : 12) for Latin semicinctium. 
So T.Bépios (not TeBepios) is the N. T. rendition of Tiberius in Lu. 
3:1, though the later Greek writers used TeBepros, Aopuérpios, ete.” 
It is really surprising that more examples of this exchange of « 
and. donot appear. The interchanges between e and c are dis- 
cussed under (d), those between ev and v under (f). 

e and o. The Lesbian AXolic had o7pédw for the Dorie orpadw. 
The Ionic-Attic made it orpédw. Meisterhans’ gives numerous ex- 
amples of this change in ¢« and o: 68odés for dBedds as early as the 
middle of the fourth century B.c. Dieterich? mentions the assimi- 
lation of e and o as one of the marks of the Egyptian xown. In Ac. 
18:24 & 15. 180. Cop. arm. and in 19:1 8 180. read ’Azed)js for 
’Ato\Aws, though D has ’Amod\\wos in 18:24. The Doric and the 
Attic inscriptions® had ’Amé\X\wy, ’AmedAAwrios, "AmweANOs, etc. In 
1 Cor. and Titus we have only ’Avo\\ws. Indeed Blass® suggests 
that ’Azeddjjs is the reading of the a text in Acts and that ’Ato\Xaws 
is an interpolation from 1 Cor. It is more likely to think that 
the two old forms of the name were still in use, though ’Azo)- 
Aws is the correct text in Acts also. The MSS. of the N. T., even 
good uncials, have ddofpebw, é£ooPpedw, ddoPpevTHs aS well as the 
usual édcpebw, etc. (cf. dBoros for 6Bedds by assimilation), and 
Hort’ accepts the « form only in Ac. 3:23. The Syrian class 
has the o form. Blass,’ who usually cares little for such points, 
properly insists on the documentary evidence. In Heb. 11:28 
only ADE have the e form, while in 1 Cor. 10:10 DFG read e. 


1 Notes on Orth., p. 151. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. But always Tiros. Cf. Nachm., Magn. 
Inschr., p. 22, in discussion of ¢« for Lat.7. Both Xey.mv and dévriov are read in 
Magn. inscr. (Thieme, Die Inschr. von Magn. etc., p. 8). Cf. also Schweizer, 
Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 46. For assimilation between e and. in mod. Gk. see 
Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 272 f. 

SrGrecaaatyeinschr.p, 22.71, also K-bBL, Th 1, Bd.I, p. 118: 

4 Unters. etc., p. 185 f. Cf. Hirt, Handb. d. Griech. etc., p. 115. 

5 K.-BI., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 118, and Hirt, op. cit., p. 115. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. Cf. Mayser (Gr., pp. 94-97) for a discussion of 
the pap. situation. . 

7 Notes on Orth., p. 152. 

8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 21. He quotes Buresch, Rhein. Mus., p. 216 f., as 
in favour of ¢« in the N. T. as well as the LXX. ’O)dc@. appears in the Apost. 
Fathers (Goodspeed, Index) and 6\o0#. in N. T. Apoc. (Reinhold, p. 40). For 
assimilation between e and o in mod. Gk. see Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 274. 


190 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The LXX according to NAB reads e, though the modern Greek 
has foro0pebw. But ddeOpos is the uniform spelling in the N. T. 
and is the rule in the LX X (Thackeray, G., p. 88). 

In Mk. 8: 14 B has éveddevro as 1s common in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 89). Cf. also amédero (Heb. 12:16, LXX), 
étédero (Mk. 12:1), dredidero (Ac. 4: 35), mapedidero (1 Cor. 11: 28), 
and é£expéuero (Lu. 19:48 NB). Hort (Appendix, p. 167 f.) ex- 
plains these changes as “‘euphonic,”’ but it is a change of the root- 
vowel of 60, a confusion of thematic and athematic conjugations. 

éav and av. See also 1 (d) under Papyri. This is as good a 
place as any to say a word further on the interchange of these 
two forms, not strictly vowel-changes, however. We have also 
eidv (really ei+ av) as in P Eleph. 1 (B.c. 311). See also aidy for éay, 
B.G.U. 530 (i/a.p.). The use of é4v= modal ay in relative sentences, 
so common in the LX X, N. T. and papyri of i/ii A.D., is not an ex- 
change of vowels, but possibly a slurring over of the e before a. 
"Av=éav survives from the ancient Greek in a few instances, as Jo. 
5:19 (NB); 12:32 (B and accepted by W. H.); 18:20 DEFG, 
etc., have éav, but NBC dy and accepted by W.H.); 16: 23 (BACD, 
accepted by W. H.); 20 : 23 (twice and accepted by W. H., though 
AD have first é4v and SAD second). In Ac. 9:2 only SE have av 
and W. H. read éavy. Blass! thinks that as é4v made encroachment 
into the province of av “a kind of interchange of meaning between 
the two words” grew up. The modern Greek vernacular uses év for 
‘if.’ Hort? considers the whole subject of the interchange between 
éav and dy after relatives “peculiarly irregular and perplexing. 
Predominantly a is found after consonants, and éay after vowels, 
but there are many exceptions.” Cf. éav in Mt. 20:4 and a in 
Mt. 20:26 f. Moulton’ has shown that é&éy=4ay is scarce in the 
papyri save from 100 B.c. to 200 a.p. In the Magnesian inscrip- 
tions* only é4v appears, not dy nor jv, as 7v=édy is not in the 
N.T. But in the Herculaneum papyri these particles interchange 
freely.5 The Attic inscriptions uniformly have éy with relatives.® 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 60. Omitted by Debrunner in ed. 4. 

* Notes on Orth., p. 173. Hort has a curious error here, for the references 
under ay and édy should be exactly reversed. ”Av=édy (‘if’) is rarely found 
in the pap. also. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 434) gives av ui} arodaée (AP 43, 
i1/B.c.). Cf. also Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 32; Mayser, Gr., p. 152 f. Mayser gives 
exx. of é4v=dy and of av =édp. 3 Prol., p. 48; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 32, etc. 

* Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 68. See Gregory, Prol. (Nov. Test. Gr.), p. 
96, for the facts about the N. T. MSS. and éa». 

5 Crénert, Mem. Graeca Herc., p. 130. 

§ Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 326. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 191 


Indeed Attic often contracts this particle éav=jv.t But éav= 
modal ay is found in Xen. Mem., @ édv apyuorrn, in Lysias, ods éav 
Bovrnbdcw, etc. (see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 421). This use 
of édv occurs sixty-one times in the N. T. Examples occur in 
late Greek of «i — é4y as well as ei — ay, instead of éav. Cf. Rein- 
hold, De Graecitate Patrum A post. etc., p. 35; Moulton, Classical 
Review, 1901, p. 32. Thackeray (Gr., pp. 65 ff.) finds that in the 
ii/B.c. the papyri nearly always have és av, while in the i/a.D. they 
nearly always have és éav. In the books of Exodus and Leviticus 
he notes that in the first half of each book both forms occur 
while in the second part és é4v almost vanishes. Each book may 
have been written on two rolls. 

(c) THE CHANGES WITH y. The changes between 7 and a, 7 and 
e have already been discussed. 

y and. As already stated, originally H was merely the rough 
breathing, but the Ionic psilosis left a symbol useless, and héta was 
called éta.2. ‘Thus the new letter took the old long é value in Ionic 
and Attic and also largely supplanted the long a where d became @. 
The Sanskrit used long @, the Greek n and the Latin either é or 7. 
This new (in spelling) 7 (v/B.c.) gradually turned more to the 
sound in harmony with the growing itacism of the language, though 
there was some etacism on the other hand.* As early as 150 B.c. 
the Egyptian papyri show evidence of the use of . for 7.4 By the 
middle of the second century A.D. the confusion between 7 and 1, 
n and e., nu and e is very general. By the Byzantine times it is 
complete and the itacism is triumphant in the modern Greek.® 
Reinhold® thinks that the exchange between 7 and cv was natural 
in view of the relation between 7 and ¢ and the interchange be- 
tween e€ and v. As early as the fifth century B.c. the change 
between 7 and c is seen on vases and inscriptions. But the Ptole- 
maic papyri show little of it and it is rare in the LXX MSS. NAB 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 85). In the N. T. times the interchanges 
~ between yn and vu, 7 and e, ym. and « are not many. In 1 Cor. 4:11 
W. H. read yuumrebw, though L and most of the cursives have 7. 


1 Thumb, Hellen., p. 92. 

2 Hirt, Handb. d. Griech. etc., p. 63. 

3 Thumb, Hellen., p. 98 f. 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 29. Cf. also Thumb, Hellen., p. 188. In Beeotia 
also 7 and ¢ interchange in ii/B.c. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 46. Mayser (Gr., p. 82) 
cites from a Hom. pap. of i/B.c. écxe for €@nxe, and per contra (p. 84) adnxero. 

> Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 47. He gives ér7 for éri from a Byz. 
inscr. 

6 De Graec. Patr. etc., p. 41. Cf. also Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 34 f, 


192 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The N. T. always has énvapiov, though diwapiov appears very early.! 
For xdundos in Mt. 19: 24 and Lu. 18: 25 a few late cursive MSS. 
substitute xduuros (‘rope’), a word found only in Suidas and a 
scholium on Arist. But “it is certainly wrong,’’? a mere effort to 
explain away the difficulty in the text, an effort as old as Cyril 
of Alexandria on Luke. For Kupnyos B? it. vg. sah. have Kuptvos, 
while B* has Kupetvos and A has Kyptvos,-a striking example of 
itacism, 7, t, et, v having the same sound in these MSS. The 
N. T. MSS. give ovpexivrov in Acts 19 : 12, but Liddell and Thayer 
both suggest onu. as an alternative spelling like the Latin semi- 
cinctium. So also the best MSS. in Rev. 18: 12 read ovpixés, though 
some cursives have onpuxds (like Jos. and others), and still others 
cupixos.2 Indeed in 1 Pet. 2:3 for xpnords L and many cursives 
have Xpiords. The heathen misunderstood the word Xpiorés and 
confounded it with the familiar ypyordés, pronounced much alike. 
Suetonius (Claudius 25) probably confused Christus with Chres- 
tus. In Ac. 11:26 & 61 have Xpynoriavots, while B has Xpeuor. 
So in Ac. 26: 28 & has Xpnoriavov for Xpror., while B has again et. 
The same thing occurs in | Pet. 4 : 16. 

yn and e. The Boeotian and the Thessalian dialects early 
changed‘ » for e, rifeuc=TiOnu. Schweizer® gives rapadnoos for 
mapadecos (Byzantine inscription). In Lu. 14:18 (21) we have 
avamrepos (ABDEL), avarnpos (GHK, ete.), and -mip— (NR). This 
itacism is condemned by Phrynichus the Atticist as vulgar.6 In 
the LXX WN has dvarecpos in Tob. 14:2 and AV show it in 2 
Macc. 8 : 24 (Thackeray, Gr., p. 83). In Heb. 6:14 W. H. 
follow NABD in reading e wav rather than 7 yunv. This form 
occurs in the LXX and in the papyri. Moulton’ has shown that. 
several times in the papyri it is obviously for 7 uv by mere ita- 
cism, and so is not due to a confusion between the Hebraistic 
use of ef u7=D 728, thus correcting Hort. The uncials and the 


1 Blass, Ausspr. d. Griech., pp. 37, 94. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151. 

3 Ib., refers to oipuxorows in Neap. inser. (C. I. G. 5834). In the mod. 
Gk. y= in pronunciation. Cf. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volkerspr., p. 2. 
W.-Sch. (p. 46) mention O/B8nv, 6iBnv, OeiBnv in Ex. 2: 3-6. 

4 Cf. Blass, K.-Bl., Tl. I, Bd. I, p. 135. 

® Perg. Inschr., p. 47. Cf. also p. 56. See numerous exx. of this change in 
Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 47 f. 

6 Cf. Bekker, Anec., I, pp. 9, 22. It is found also in 2 Macc. 8:24. Hort 
(Notes on Orth., p. 15) shows that ae:pos (not &mnpos) is read in Herod. 
l, o2. 

’” Prol., p. 46; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 33. See also Thackeray, p. 83. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 193 


papyri here agree. Deissmann! calls attention to the use of «i 
uav in a Doric inscription of the first century B.c. Blass (Gr. 
of N. T. Gk., p. 306) observes that a papyrus reads xknpia for xeupia 
(cf. Jo. 11:44, kep—, xnp—, Ktp—iats). 

yniand ev. In the old Attic there was no m in writing, only ex, 
since 7 was not used asa vowel. As early as 400 B.c. the Attic used 
ne and e interchangeably, kAyw becoming kAetw, KAjs=KAels, AnTOUp- 
yos=etoupyos, etc.? This usage was not very common in Perga- 
mum? nor in Magnesia.* Croénert finds this interchange in the 
Herculaneum papyri only in the papyri copies of Epicurus and 
Polystratus.> Inthe N. T. Aeroupyds, —ia, —etv, —txos are taken over 
from the Attic, but they occur also in Pergamum® and Magne- 
sia.7_ The Attic indeed carried the fondness for e so far that it 
was used always in writing in the second singular indicative middle 
everywhere, the other dialects using 7 save the Ionic. The xo. has 
n save in Bob\eL, ole, Sve. In the N. T. 7 is universal according to 
W. H. save in Lu. 22 :42 where BotvAe is genuine, though some 
MSS. have e in other passages. Blass* observes that this is a 
literary touch in Luke for the colloquial #é\eas. Hatzidakis® notes 
how difficult this process made it to tell the difference between 
romons and rojoes, for instance, because of this Attic intermix- 
ture of the diphthongs. Blass! will not hear of this as a possible 
explanation in any cases, but one must remark how well this 
vowel-blending harmonized with the kinship in meaning between 
the aorist subjunctive and the future indicative (cf. dwon in 
some MSS. for duce in Jo. 17:2) and made it easy for the 
later so-called future subjunctive (cf. Latin) to develop. Winer- 
Schmiedel indeed accept as possible this vowel confusion in sev- 
eralinstances." In Mk. 8: 35 (Lu. 17 : 38) és dv arodeon, Lu. 12:8 
ds dv opodoynce, 2 Cor. 12:21 py} rarevwoa, Ro. 3:4 (Ps. 51 : 6) 


 12B.S., pp. 205-8. Cf. Dittenb., Syll., No. 388, p. 570. See also Mayser, 
Gr., pp. 74-79, for careful discussion. 

2 Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., pp. 36 ff. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 39 
and 49. See also Mayser, Gr., pp. 79 f., 126-131. 

3 Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 60 f. 

4 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 50 f. 6 Schweizer, op. cit., p. 60. 

5 Mem. Graeca Hercul., p. 37. 7 -Nachm., op. cit., p. 51. 

8 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8. Bobde, ote, erin Ap. Fathers (Goodspeed, Index). 

9 Finl. in d. neugr. Gr., p. 306. He gives exx. from the N. T. Apoc. 

ie GreoteNow ls Gk ps8. 

11 W.-Sch., p. 47. Moulton (Prol., p. 168) would take indifferently brave 
or trayy in Rey. 14:4. For many similar exx. in the inscr. see Dittenb., 
brws av brapxe (117. 17), eipeOnoay (352. 66), etc, 


194 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


vurnoers (cf. dixawwOfs), Ac.5: 15 wa émoxidcer, 8:31 eav ddnynoe. 
Winer-Schmiedel would find the aorist subjunctive and not the 
future indicative. This is possible but by no means certain, since 
the future indicative was undoubtedly used both with éay and 
iva (Orws). W.H. read ’Iwave instead of ny in Mt. 11:4= Lu. 7:18. 
T@ dvovxnret occurs in papyri Brit. Mus. I, Nr. 2. 135. In 2 Cor. 
2:9 AB 109 have # where e is probably correct. ~ 

ynand 4. Irrational Iota. ‘The iota subscript was iota adscript 
till the twelfth century A.D., but as early as the third century B.c. 
it was not pronounced.t. When e was practically equal to 7 in 
sound, it was natural that y (m.) should be. The was then dropped 
in sound long before it was subscript.? Gradually it was felt to 
be a matter of indifference in some words whether this iota was 
written or not. Examples of 7 instead of y occur in the inscrip- 
tions of Pergamum® as & 7 as well as in the Attic. Moulton 
finds irrational « adscript (éya, for instance) abundant in the 
Ptolemaic Tebt. Papyri (Classical Review, 1904, p. 106). Cf. 
Mayser (Gr., pp. 122-126) who gives many examples. In the 
N. T. « has dropped from 6yncxw. Indeed since the second cen- 
tury B.c. « adscript in the diphthongs a, 7, » had become mute. 
Hort,® however, argues for the retention of « in ¢4v® and infinitives 
in —av instead of the Doric-Attic form, as well as in d@éos, «ixq, 
Gor, ‘Hpwons, kpudf, AaOpa, wavTaxi, TavTn, Tpwpa, owlw, brepgor, 
¢Gov, though he hesitated to put cwfw in the text. It is just as 
well to finish the discussion of the iota subscript here, though 
some of these examples go beyond the range of y. The best edi- 
tors print also dyuocia, idta, wntpodkwats, TaTpoAwals, TaTpPGos, TECH, 
LapoOpaxn, Tpwas, though piuvyckw and mpaos. W. H. have forms 
in —oty also, as xatacxnvoty (Mt. 13: 32). Moulton’ gives a curious 
example of the loss of the irrational : in the case of the subjunctive 
nm which sometimes in the papyri appears as jv, having lost the c, 
and taken on irrational vy. As a matter of fact iota adscript (iota 


1 Blass, Pronun., etc., p. 50. 2 Hirt, Handb. d. Griech., p. 114. 

3 Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 65. 

4 Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 64. In the iv/s.c. the Attic often 
wrote e« for m, but not for y. In the Thess., Aol. and Ionic inscriptions 
the « with a, 7, w is freely omitted or wrongly inserted (irrational 1), as in 
TH 7ode, TA Spn, aS early as vi/B.c. Cf. K.-Bl., Tl. I, Bd. I, p.183f. Strabo 
(14. 41) says that many regularly dropped the « in spurious diphthongs. roA- 
Aol yap xwpls Tod t ypadovat Tas dortikas, Kal éxBaddovot 5é TO os Hvarky airiav 
ovx éxov. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 29f. Schweizer (Perg. Inschr., p. 47) 
cites rH ebyovay. 5<Introd):tosN.ls.Gk. p. ofA, 

6 Mayser, Gr., p. 121, finds no. with avin the pap. 7 Prol., pp. 49, 168, 187. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 195 


subscript not yet, of course) does not appear in the great uncials 
save jidicay In D (Mk. 1:34) and éddAw in K (Lu. 23:31). Forms 
with and without the mute iota appear in the Herculaneum pa- 
pyri,? as eixfe or exp. Blass* would also restore c to avrirépa(a). 
He doubts if « was written in such new optative forms as dwny 
(doinv Attic) though it should be put in the text. 

yn and v. Since these two vowels came to be pronounced alike 
as in modern Greek,‘ it was to be expected that some interchange 
would come, though any early examples are wanting. However, 
by the second century A.D. the inscriptions give many instances 
such as @npa (A@bpa), unotnpiov (uvoT.), cKOrTpov (oKyrTpov), etc.® It 
is already in the Egyptian xowyn according to Thumb.® Hence 
we are not surprised to see the N. T. MSS. get mixed over jets 
and buets. Especially in 1 Peter does this itacism lead to a mixing 
of the historical’ standpoint as in 1:12, where tyty is read by 
NABCL, etc., qutv by K and most cursives Syrs*? Cop. In 1 Pet. 
5:10 the MSS. similarly support tyuads and judas. In 2 Cor. the 
personal relations of Paul and his converts are involved in this 
piece of orthography as in 8:7 é& tyuav & july (NCDE, etc.) or 
é& nudy ev buty (B 30, 31, 37, etc.). See especially xaé’ juas in Ac. 
17 : 28 (B 33 Cop., etc.) which reading would make Paul identify 
himself with the Greeks on this occasion. 

(d) THe CHANGES WITH Lt. For c and e see under (0); for « and 
n see under (c); for iota subscript (adscript), mute or irrational 1, 
see under (c). For irrational iota see also Infinitive under Verb. 
The papyri show it in queer forms like dAnOfu, Neyar, P. Oxy. 37 
(A.D. 49). 

tand et. The interchange between these vowel-symbols began 
very early (certainly by the sixth century B.c.’) and has been very 
persistent to the present day. The inscriptions give numerous 
examples® in the fifth century B.c., such as azoxtivyn, ’Eradpddertos. 
This was apparently the beginning” of itacism which was extended 
to v, 7, and then to 7, o, w.. Jannaris" thinks that the introduc- 


1 Gregory, Prol. (New Test. Gr.), p. 109. 

2 Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 41 ff. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 7. The LXX phenomena are similar. Cf. Helbing, 
Griech. d. LXX, pp. 3 ff. 

4 Hatz., Einl. in neugr. Gr., p. 304. 

* Jann., Hist: Gk. Gr., p. 48. 6 Hellen., p. 171. 

7 Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 310. On the subject of 7 and v see Mayser, 
Gr., p. 85f. He denies (p. 86) that the itacising pronunciation of 7 prevailed 
in the Ptolemaic period. 

& Jann:, Hist. Gk. Gr., p.'47. BelD: Oe TD: BED +L. 


196 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tion and rapid spread of 7 contributed to this confusion as by 
that time e was pronounced like 1, and 7 was taken by many, not 
as long e, but equal tov. The confusion apparently began in the 
Beeotian dialect! and in postclassical times, but swept the field 
in all the dialects till every e (closed and open) was pronounced 
as t. By 100 s.c. the Attic inscriptions show a general inter- 
change between e and 7, and in the second century a.p.? the con- 
fusion exists between e« and t. Dieterich’ thinks that this itacism 
had its widest development in Egypt. The Ptolemaic papyri of 
ii/B.c. show itacism very frequently. It is only the more illit- 
erate scribes that use e for 1, though B has dpeov (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 86f.). Thumb? considers the interchange between ¢ and 
ec in the xowy on a par with that between o and w. In Pergamum® 
the change from c to e is much more common than that from e 
to v, though forms in —ia for —eia occur, as auedia. The same thing 
is true in Magnesia, where jquety (uty) is common.’ The Hercu- 
laneum papyri tell the same story,’ while it is so common in the 
Egyptian papyri that Moulton® is unable to set much store by 
the minutiz gathered by W. H. from the great uncials, “for even 
W. Hz. admit that their paramount witness, B, ‘has little authority 
on behalf of ec as against v.’”’ Clearly the partiality of & for c and 
of B for e throw them both out of court as decisive witnesses on 
this point.® So it is not merely itacism that we have to deal with 
in the numerous N. T. examples of exchange between c and ez, 
but “genuine peculiarities of original orthography” also.° What- 
ever Dr. Hort meant, all that is true is that different scribes 
merely preferred one or the other method of representing t. The 
whole matter therefore remains in doubt and one is prepared for 
all sorts of variations in the N. T. MSS., because the xow7 no 


1 K.-BL, p. 1381. Mayser (Gr., pp. 87-94) has a full discussion of the prob- 
lem in the pap. of the first three centuries B.c. and finds that in Egypt the 
pronunciation of e closely approached that of . 

* Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 49. In the succeeding pages he gives 
numerous exx. in chron. order of the various interchanges between « and «, 
many of them identical with the N. T. exx. 3 Unters. ete., p. 45. 

4 Hellen., p. 172. The next most common interchange of vowels in the 
N. T. MSS. are ae and e, 7 and c or e, o and v (Warfield, Text. Crit. of the 
Nee alla 5 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 53 f. 

6 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 35f. Cf. Egyp. pap. also. 

7 Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 27 ff. 

8 Prol., p. 47. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, pp. 7 ff. Thack. 
(Gr., p. 86 f.) thinks that the orthography in this point is older than that of 
Nand A. 9 Warfield, Text. Crit. of the N. T., p. 103. 

10 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 152. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS Gy 


longer insisted in the vernacular on the distinction between long 
or short u and e. ‘The examples here presented will give a fair 
idea of the situation. For the textual evidence see careful dis- 
cussion by Gregory.! Where e is written for « it is to be pro- 
nounced like v. Ex is shortened to c in some abstract substantives, 
—ia instead of —eia, as? ’ArraXia, ayvia (possibly), perhaps axpiGBia, 
ddatovia, avadia, apeckia, perhaps azeia, Wedobpnoxia (but Opyoxela), 
eldwAoXaTpia (but AaTpeia), eiAuxpwvia, perhaps éxrevia, émverkia, EprOia, 
épunvia, tepatia, Katoapia, xaxonbia, kaxorafia, koXakia, kvBia, Aaodrkia, 
payia, meBodia, d¢0adpodovria (Sovria doubtful), possibly qacdia (cf. 
Ps. 53 : 5), wodutia, wopia, mrwxia, mpaypyatia, mpairafia, probably 
Lapapia, Ledevkia, perhaps o7partia, dapuaxia, Piradeddia, wdeNdia. 
Deissmann® shows that it is \oyela, not Aoyia in the papyri and 
so in 1 Cor. 16:1f. Some MSS. have érapyera (for —1a), ebrpaédeva 
(for -ta), late MSS. xodwveia. 

The endings —eov and —eos appear sometimes as —1ov, —1os. So 
aiyios, “Apwos (Ilayos), doris, Savoy (cf. davifw, daviorhs), eidwduor, 
’Emxovpios, émirnovos, weyadia (cf. peyadtotns), mavdoxiov, orotxiov. 
Strong testimony exists for all these. So also —wwés for —evds 
appears in dpivds, cKoTiWds, PwTives. 

Further examples of c for e« are found as in the MSS. in aé.a- 
AuTTOS, aVEKALTTOS, ANimw, aTEw, aAmLONS, aria, ATodEdvyUEVOs, ” Apeotra- 
yitns, diya, é€aridu, katadedupevos (Ac. 25: 14), even kpioowr, Niwa, 
AtToupyos, papyapitns (cf. roXitns, TexviTNs), pEciTNS, OlKTIpw, Tapa- 
duypatifw, wos, brodtupa, piddvikos, Pidovikia, xpeodidrerns. This is 
not to mention the verb-forms iéov, iéav, iéevy which W. H. count 
alternate forms in Revelation, but which are pure examples of 
itacism. In the case of ’Ikovov (Ac. 13:51; 14:1) the inscriptions 
give both ‘Ix. and Eix.* 

The use of €t for t is seen in several ways also in N. T. MSS. 
In Mt. 28:3 W. H. give eidéa, not idea. Telvouar and yewwoxw are 
very common in the best MSS. ‘Huety and tyety are rarely seen, 
however. ’Ageivn, TadeAaia, "EXapeitns, Aeveitns, Aevertixds, delar, 
Nuwveveirns, IlevAaros, Dauapeirns all are found, as well as tparefeirns, 
Papewator. Taxewov appears in John and Hebrews. In the Pas- 
toral Epistles, Hort® finds —Aew— for —Aur— forms. Keipiars is 
correct in Jo. 11:44. Hort® also prefers qavoixet, but mayrdnbel 
is undisputed. Such verb-forms occur as pelyrumt, Teudw, TEiow. 


1 Prol., pp. 83-90. 

2 According to Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 153. 

S201, DD. Laat. 2L0'f: 5 Notes on Orth., p. 155. 
‘Blass, Gr. of N20. Gk:,-p. 8. 6 Tb., p. 154. 


198 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Semitic proper names in ’ have e as ’Addel, ’Apvel, "Eckel, 
"Hye, Medxel, Nypet. Cf. also! ’Adueiv, ’Axeiu, Berrapeiv, Aaveis, 
"EXtaxeiu, "Iwpelu, Keis, Aeveis, NepOadeiu, Dadein, Deweeiv, xepovPeiv, 
Xopacelv. So also ’EdXeoaBér, “Hrelas, Ovarerpa, “Iderpos, “leperxa, 
"Iwoels, "Ofelas, Lardepa, TaBeba. Cf. also jr, paBPet, paBBovvel, 
caBaxybaveil. But ? appears asc in ’ApivadaB, Medxuoedex, Diva, Diwv. 
Likewise the MSS. usually read ’Avavias, Bapaxias, ’Efexias, Zaxa- 
pias, “lepeuias, “lexovias, Maf@ias, Marradias, Ovpias. 

In many of these examples of changes in v and e the testimony 
is greatly divided and one must not stickle too much for either 
spelling. The papyri and the inscriptions have nearly all of 
them. See 1 (c) for remarks on the difficulty of relying on the 
uncials in the matter of orthography. It is impossible to be dog- 
matic on the subject. 

tando. It is a peculiar change, as Blass? observes, that we 
have in dpecpouevoe for tuepouevor (1 Th. 2: 8). It appears in the 
LXX (some MSS. for Job 3:21 and Symm. at Ps. 62:2). The 
only example so far brought to light is tzepoyeipecbar in Iren. 60. 
Winer-Schmiedel* sees no comparison in katavtpoxt for katavtixpv. 
Meisterhans* gives aravrpoxt for amavrixpt. 

tand ot. Jannaris® defends the exchange of . and o possibly as 
early as the fifth century B.c. Certainly in the first century B.c. 
Avyovorotvos occurs in the inscriptions. Oc was exchanged with 
ec and 7 as well as withe. In the N. T. the only example is in 
Mk. 11:8 where ACSVXT Or. have oroiBds for the usual ortBas 
(from oreiBw). N and a few other MSS. read orv8das. Zonar. 
illustrates this also by using oroBas. Cf. also croi8y, croBatw, 
etc. This word thus illustrates well the common itacistic ten- 
dency, showing forms in —., —o., -v and —e (in the verb). The 
LXX has only orixos and ortxifw, not orox. (Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 92). 

t and v. These two vowels sometimes have the force of the 
consonants’ 7 (y) and v (cf. Latin). Cf. av— (af) and ev— (ef) in 
modern Greek, and ¢ in zé\ews. In modern Greek “every 7- or 
e-sound which collides in the middle of a word with a succeeding 


1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 155. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. But it is quite possible (see 7) that this is a case 
of prothetic o. 

3 W.-Sch., p. 52. 4° Gr. d. att@Inschr..prst: 

5 Hist. Gk. Gr.; p..53. Cf om the other sideI-Bivel 3; p.oa: 

6 Jann., ib., p. 52. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 112. 

7 Jann., Hist: Gk. Gry pp. 2%, po,.cte. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 199 


vowel, loses its syllabic value and becomes consonanted” (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 10). So ayws=ayos. The ¢ is the last of the five 
original vowel-sounds in this order: a, 0, v, €, «. This relative value 
has persisted in modern Greek (Thumb’s Handbook, p. 12 f.). 
Jannaris! gives arwovuevor as an illustration of this gradation in 
sound. But as a matter of fact the interchange between c and v 
is not frequent. Meisterhans? finds only five examples in the 
Attic inscriptions, two of which, Bu8diov and MurvAnvatos, are found 
in N. T. MSS. (assimilation). Examples occur in the xow7 of Asia 
Minor, though Thumb?* agrees with Kretschmer in calling it a 
“barbarism.”’ Still the old distinction in sound between ce and v 
slowly broke down till in modern Greek the two vowels have the 
same sound. BnrpvAdos in Rev. 21: 20 is spelled also in MSS. 87- 
ptddos, BUpiAdros, BiptAXios, a fine illustration of itacism. D reads 
BvBros for Bi8dos in Mk. 12:26 and Lu. 20:42. In Ac. 20:14 
MurvaAnvn is the correct text for the old Mur., but AE have Murv- 
divyn and L MouzvAivyn. For the Tpwyttiov of Strabo and the By- 
zantine writers the Textus Receptus addition to Ac. 20:15 has 
TpwyvArla, other MSS. TpwytdAdtov, Tpwytrov.t The LXX shows 
also juvov in O Dan. 7:25 (B). The Ptolemaic papyri vary in 
this word (Thackeray, Gr., p. 95). In Lu. 19:8 D has juvoor. 

(e) THE CHANGES WITH 0. For changes with a see under (a), 
for o and e under (0), for o and c under (d). 

oand ov. The old Attic used Acécxopos, which Phrynichus® pre- 
fers, though Thucyd. and Plato have the form in —ovpos also (Epic 
or Ionic). In Ac. 28 : 11 only some of the cursives have the form 
in —opos. Both forms appear in the inscriptions. This exchange 
is rather common in the Ptolemaic papyri (Mayser, Gr., pp. 10 f., 
116f.). In the LXX & shows sometimes 6x for oix (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 91). The modern Greek dialects have much diversity of 
usage on this point. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 8. 


1 Tb., p. 84. 2 Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 28 f. 

$ Hellen., pp. 139, 193 ff. Cf. Kretschmer, Einl. in d. Gesch. d. griech. 
Spr., p. 225f. Crénert (Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 21 f.) gives exx. in Hercul. 
pap. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 100-103, for exx. like BiPdos, BuBdiov, etc.,in the pap. 

4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. In Athens before 403 B.c. o stood for 
o, w, ov (Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 24). 

5 Lobeck, p. 235; The New. Phryn., p. 310. Cf. K.-BL, I, p. 140 f., for this 
change in Old Attic and New Ionic. The N. T. Apoc. (Reinhold, De Graec. 
etc., p. 41) has exx. like é8oAéunv as the mod. Gk. vernac. (Thumb, Neugr. 
Volksspr., p. 6). Cf. Buresch, Phil. li, 89. Most common bet, vi/ili B.c. acc. 
to Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr.,. p. 37. 

6 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 66 f. 


200 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


o and v. The MSS. vary between! rpaos (Syrian) and mpaiis in 
Mt. 11:29; 1 Pet. 3:4, as well as between zpadrns and mpairns in 
Pauline Epistles. W. H. adopt the form in —-v. Von Soden varies 
between these forms, giving no reasons. It is the old distinction 
surviving in the xow7. The LXX has the v form. The papyri 
have other illustrations (Mayser, Gr., p. 97). Cf. Iloriodo in Ac. 
28:13 for the Latin Puteolr. 

oandw. Originally o represented both the short and long sounds, 
so that it was easy with careless pronunciation for more or less con- 
fusion to exist after w came into use. The Bceotian Pindar, for 
instance, has Avvycos instead of Acdvucos.2 The New Ionic {én 
(parox.) appears in lieu of ¢w7. However, the introduction of the 
Ionic alphabet in 403 B.c. kept the two vowels pretty distinct 
in Attic till the Roman time, though the change began in the 
third century s.c.2 After the second century B.c. the exchange 
of these two vowels was indiscriminate in the more illiterate 
vernacular.t’ The confusion was earliest in Egypt, but the Attic 
inscriptions kept the distinction well till 100 a.p. The early un- 
cials for the LX X and the N.T. show little evidence of the inter- 
change (Thackeray, Gir., p. 89). Jannaris finds it common. The 
modern Greek makes no difference in sound between o and w ex- 
cept medial o as in not. “In the early papyri the instances of 
confusion between o and w are innumerable.’”’® The inscriptions 
tell the same story about the xown in Magnesia® and Pergamum.’ 
In some instances,’ like doua for dua and rpdédoua, an w is shortened 
to o after the analogy of e« from 7 in déua. In the N. T. MSS. 
“probably the commonest permutation is that of o and w, chiefly 
exemplified in the endings —ovev and —wyev.’’® It is useless to fol- 
low the MSS. through their variations on this point. In Ro. 
5:1 éxwuev is supported by all the best documents and gives a 
difficult sense at first, though a better one on reflection than 
éxouev. In 1 Cor. 15:49 the evidence is so nearly balanced that 


1 Gregory, Prol., p. 82. 2 K.-BI., I, p. 141. 

3 Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 24 f., gives numerous exx. of the exchange 
in inscr. of various dates. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. Jann. quotes a Louvre pap. (165 B.c.) which 
has 76 a’ré tpérar. Mayser(Gr., pp. 97 ff.) finds only two exx. of this confusion 
of o and w in the Ptol. pap. of ili/B.c., but seventy in the next two. 

5 Ib. Cf. Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 19 f. 

6 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 64. 

7 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 95. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., pp. 148, 172. 

8 Reinhold, De Graec. Pate p. 41, and AGRON Cl. Rev., Aa p. 108. 

9 Hort, Intr. to Gk. Nesl..paoug: 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 201 


W.H. cannot decide between dopécwuev and dopécouer (the latter 
in the margin). Von Soden gives -ow-. This difficulty of dis- 
tinguishing between o and w in the indicative and subjunctive 
increased in later xow7n times.! Several further N. T. examples of 
interest are ayopacwyev (Lu. 9:18), va avaranoovra (Rev. 14:18), 
iva avarravoovrat (Rev. 6:11), éav arobvnckouev as read by Lachmann 
(Ro. 14:8), ta yuwoKxouev (1 Jo. 5: 20), a duwxovrac according to 
Tisch. (Gal. 6 : 12), iva drepxouar according to Treg. (Jo. 4 : 15), 
dwowuev according to Treg. and Tisch., and preceded by ayopa- 
owyuev (Mk. 6: 37), iacoua (Mt. 13:15; ef. Is.6:10), va xavdnowpar 
or kavxnowuat (1 Cor. 13:3), tva Evpnoovrar (Ac. 21:24). In all 
these instances syntactical questions enter also besides the mere 
question of vowel interchange.? 

The o appears instead of w in zoua (1 Cor. 10 :4; Heb. 9 : 10), 
mpotyos (Jas. 5:7), Lrotkos (Ac. 17: 18),? cuxouwopea, not —uwpea (Lu. 
19 : 4), xpeoduderns according to W. H. and not xpeoderderns (Soden) 
nor xpewderdAérns according to LU, etc. (Lu. 7:41; 16:5). Butw is 
correct apparently in ayabwotvn, aywotvy, évdwunors (Rev. 21:18, 
Soden —dou-), tepwobvn, yeyadtwotrvn, tpwivos. So also the LXX, but 
apotuos (Thack., Gr., p. 90). Codex B shows others in the LXX 
(2b.). In Lu. 18:5 and 1 Cor. 9:27 the MSS. vary between 
vrwmiatw (from tr-wmrov) and bromatw (—mrietw old form), though 
the best MSS. read trwr.4 In Ro. 13:3 7G aya8G Evyw may 
possibly be 7d ayafoepyG. So in 2 Pet. 3:6 &’ ay may be? for 
du’ dv. In Rev. 4:7 f. éywv, not éxov (Soden), is read by the best 
MSS., though the substantive is [Gov. Now second century B.c. 
papyri have trournua éxwv where w and o are exchanged.® 

(f) THe CHANGES witTH v. For the changes with v and ¢ see 
under (d), v and o under (e). 

v and ev. Only one example of this exchange appears in the 
N. T., that of mpecBirns in Phil. 9. Here the sense seems to 
demand zpecBevryjs. Bentley suggested it long ago and Lightfoot 
(comm. in loco) collected a number of instances of the omission 


1 Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. Patr., p. 102; Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 306. 

2 W.-Sch., p. 48. 

$ Hort thinks so “perhaps.” The Doric had oroad. Blass (Gr. N. T. Gk., 
p. 22) prefers the correct Zrwikéds, Von Soden Lroikés. 

4 Acc. to W.-Sch. (p. 48 f.) this is not orthographical at all, but etymolog- 
ical. Why not both? 

§ Ib. p; 48: 

6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 37. Doubtless other vowel-exchanges in Rev. 
may have a similar explanation and so do not violate concord of gender. 


202 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of « from ev in single MSS. Hort! thinks it due to a scribe and 
not to Paul, since the earlier Greek shows no examples of this 
interchange. However, Wood? has found rpeoBebrepos for rpeoBi- 
repos in an Ephesian inscription (analogy: in modern Greek 
ev=ef). Thackeray (Gr., p. 97) finds this “natural error’ in the 
LXX MSS. 

v and ov. This has always been a rare exchange in the Greek, 
the Boeotian dialect having retained the original v sound of v 
after the Attic gave it up.? The Zaconian preserves it in the 
modern Greek.* The xow? has sometimes xpovads for xpuads.2 But 
ov was rather frequent in the xown to represent the Latin wu as 
Apotaos.6 In Rev. 3:18 the MSS. have koddotvprov, KoAdXUpLov, KovA- 
Novprov, etc. (Latin collyriwum). W. H. prefer xoddovpov, though 
NBC read —ipiov (so Soden). Blass’? observes that we have long 
dD in —vpuov. B in the LXX shows the same variations (Thack., 
Gr., p. 92). The Ptolemaic papyri have few instances. Cf. change 
of v and ov (Mayser, Gr., p. 118). Thumb (Hellen., p. 193 f.) thinks 
that v in the xowyn was pronounced like German wi, 7 and also wu. 
In Rev. 1:5 the distinction between Atcavre (NAC) and dovcarre 
(BP) is more than mere orthography, though the confusion was 
rendered easy. YI is always so written in the N. T. uncial MSS.,’ 
though the iota was sometimes dropped in the inscriptions. 

(g) THE CHANGES WITH ®. For changes with w and a see under 
(a), for w and o under (e). 

o and ov. The Thessalian dialect® changed w to ov as in rod 
Kowod for t& xow®d. This change reappears in Rhodes and the 
AKolic-Doric. Buresch™ finds the change between w and ov 
common in the Egyptian vernacular, as in the Sahidie dialect oo 
is often used for w." It is, of course, possible, according to the 
view of Winer-Schmiedel,! that some indicatives in ov may really 


1 Notes on Sel. Read., p. 136. 2 Disc. at Ephesus, App., p. 24. 
+. Thumb, Hellen., p. 31, > Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., 4th ed., p. 327. 
4 Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 103. 5 Thumb, Hellen., p. 85. 


6 Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 62. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 71 f. 
7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 22. Cf: Mayser, Gr., p. 118. 

8 Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 46 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 9 f., ob- 
serves that B occasionally divides thus 6/cés at end of a line and so practically 
A and D. 

* K.-BL., I, p. 185. Common in mod. Gk. (Thumb, Handb., p. 8). 

10 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 70 f. 

" Jahrb. f. klass. Philol., 1891, p. 4384. 2 Tattam’s Egyp. Gr., p. 5. 

% P. 52. Reinhold (De Graec. Patr. Apost., p. 41) gives similar exx. uvkv- 
p&vra appears in Egyp. pap. (B. M., vol. II, cliv), Cf, Mayser, Gr., p. 99 f. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 203 


be subjunctive as a result of this vowel-interchange. The con- 
tract form for the present participle 74 vixobdyre is read by AC in 
Rev. 2:17 and A in 2:7, a change more likely due to confu- 
sion of —a4w and —ew verbs. So with iva fndodre (Gal. 4:17) and 
iva dvovovobe (1 Cor. 4 : 6), but the present indicative can be used 
with iva, and one is slow to credit this form to a mere vowel- 
exchange. The same remark applies to iva tpéfovow (W. H. marg. 
Rev. 12:6) as well as tva ywwoxovow (Tisch. and Treg., Jo. 17:3) 
and iva cwopovifovow (Tisch. and Treg., Tit. 2:4). The future 
indicative with iva as xatadovAwoovow (Gal. 2:4), mpooxuynoovow 
(Rev. 9:20), cravpwoovow (Tisch., Treg., Lach., Mk. 15:20), 
opatovot (Rev. 6:4) has rival readings with w, aorist subjunctive. 
It is hardly mere vocal similarity. Similar instances are pyore 
kataratnoovow (Mt. 7:6), éav weravonoovow (Rev. 2: 22), @ éav dov- 
Netcovow (Ac. 7:7). In these and similar examples where the 
MSS. vary between w and ov it is. probable that, as with 7 and e, o 
and w, the difference in mode may have been blurred by the ten- 
dency to exchange these vowels. But the syntactical question is 
not essentially altered by this incidental orthographical problem. 

» and wv. Lachmann, Tregelles, W. H. all write wv in Mavojs, 
but Thayer urges that the word is a trisyllable Mwiojs (Fritzsche, 
Gesenius, Tisch., Soden). The Ionic éwurod is a trisyllable. Cf. 
-Mayser, Gr., p. 138. Blass! indeed says that the diphthong wv 
is non-existent in the N. T. as in the Attic. The Text. Rec. 
reads Mwo7s, following Strabo and Josephus in the Anéequities, 
though in the LXX and Josephus elsewhere we have Mwiajjs. 

(h) CONTRACTION AND Syncope. In general the xown uses 
contraction of vowels from the standpoint of the Attic,” though a 
strong Ionic infusion? is present also as in forms like yxev\ewy, dpewy, 
etc. The N. T. examples of unusual contraction find illustration? 
in the xown. In the N. T. contraction is rarely neglected, as 
Winer? saw, though édeero (NC for Lu. 8:38, though BL 33 read 
édetro), vot (1 Cor. 1:10, etc.), dcrea (Lu. 24:39), dcréwy (Mt. 
23:27, etc.), dpewy (Rev. 6:15, Attic as well as Ionic), yeewy 
(Heb. 13:15), xpvcewy (Rev. 2:1, Lach., Treg.) show that the 
N. T. in this respect. was like the xow7 and not the literary Attic. 
Blass® observes that the N. T. Greek did not go quite as far in 


pir Oly Nook Gk. op...10; 2 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 100. 

3 Thumb, Hellen., p. 237. Cf. also ib., p. 68. For the mod. Gk. contrac- 
tion see p. 249. Cf. K.-Bl., Bd. I, pp. 201-218. 

4 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 100 ff.; Nachm., Magn. Irschr., pp. 68 ff. 

5 W.-Th., p. 46; W.-M., p. 51. CeGra Ol Ne beGk.\p.22 1, 


904. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


contracting vowels as the Attic did. In illustration can be men- 
tioned dyaboepyetv (1 Tim. 6:18), though ayafoupyay is the cor- 
rect text in Ac. 14:17. But we have duedoupyds, iepoupyetr, 
Kakodpyos, oixoupyos, tavodpyos, not to mention the conjectural read- 
ing ayaboepyos for Ro. 13: 3 on the other hand. In Col. 2:16 
veounvia for the Attic vovunvia is read by W. H., though supported 
only by BFG 121 fgvg. So the LXX (Thack., Gr., p. 98). In 
the case of é\evds W. H. have the regular form in Rev. 3 : 17, but 
éxeevds in 1 Cor. 15:19. Blass! reminds us, however, that even 
é\ewds may represent édetvos. The N. T. likewise has vooods in Lu. 
2:24 (like the LX X) and voocia (or vooord) in Lu. 13:34; Mt. 23: 
37. Phrynichus? condemned this dropping of € in veocods. Kapptw 
(Mt. 13:15; Ac. 28:27, both from Is. 6: 10) comes from the Epic 
and the old vernacular. Kar was an old form parallel with xara. 
There are several noteworthy points about v. The ¢ is retained 
in é&ddortptericxoros (1 Pet. 4:15). The same thing is true with 
Autwpov (Rev. 8 : 1), like 7uceBorov in the Attic inscriptions.? The 
form écOwv in Mk. 1:6 (already in Homer) is a twin rather than 
a syncopated form of écfiwy (Mt. 11:19).4-In the N. T. the 
is not dropped in such forms as Biwoecbe, Evitrioy, ciwmay, vids. 
Blass® calls the contraction of ve=i%=t “an entirely new kind,” 
though it appears in the xow7, as in érekdas, Ttapetov, byeta, etc.® 
When eu came to be equal to x, the two sounds naturally blended 
into one. Cf. the Ionic dative vod: for rodu. So in the N. T. we 
find wety (BCD), even rtv (NAL) for ety in Jo. 4:9, and else- 
where in the N. T. In Mt. 6 : 6, etc., rayetov is read for tapcetov.’ 
On the other hand in Rev. 21:20 A reads capéiorvvé for capdovvé. 
W. H. read rerpaapxew, Terpadpyys rather than rerpapxyew, etc. The 
use of yAwoodxouov instead of the earlier yAwoooxoueov (—tov) should 
be noticed also. For the use of é4v=modal av see under (0), p. 190. 
(1) DrpHtHOoNGs AND Dtra#resis. The Bceotians monoph- 
thongized the diphthongs a, «, o., ov in the fourth and fifth 


1; Gre oti Ns Ghee pesos 

2 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 287. For other syncopated forms in the 
LXX see Thack., Gr., p. 99. 

* Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 23. 4 Hort., Notes on Orth., p. 145. 

* Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 23. Omitted by Debrunner. 

6 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 101. Cf. Dittenb., Or. Graec. Inscr. Sel., 
érek@s (565. 19), rauetov (515. 26 ff.), byetas (618. 2). For the same phenomena 
in the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 10f. 

7 See Deiss., B. 8., p. 183, for pap. illustrations of wetv, riv, raetov. Moul- 
ton, Prol., p. 45, calls this coalescence of two successive « sounds “a universal 
jaw of Hellenistic phonology.” Cf, for the LXX Thack., Gr., pp. 22, 63 f., 98. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 205 


centuries B.c.! The Boeotians pronounced yaipee=chért as the 
vernacular xow7 did. Thumb (Hellenismus, p. 228) objects to “this 
emphasizing of Boeotian’”’ by Kretschmer (Die griech. Vasenin- 
schriften; Einleit. in d. Gesch.). Moulton (Prolegomena, p. 33 f.) 
allows this Boeotian influence on the xo.wn with a “perhaps.’’ The 
itacising process still further developed this use of the diphthongs 
as monophthongs. Indeed Jannaris? insists that the term 6iddoy- 
yos as applied to ovA\aBn concerned the eye rather than the ear 
and meant more biliteral than bivocal. The spurious diphthongs 
show the process in a state of completion. The papyri, unlike the 
inscriptions, do not dissect a diphthong at the close of a line.’ 
Where two vowels do not blend into one syllable, it is necessary 
to indicate it. Hence from very early times marks of dizresis 
were used to show that each vowel has its own sound. The mark 
is put over the « or v which might otherwise be considered to 
unite with the preceding vowel. ‘These marks are found in the 
oldest N. T. MSS. with such words as adAndobia (Rev. 19:1; 
but in the case of proper names transliterated from the Hebrew 
or Aramaic W. H.. follow the Hebrew or Aramaic spelling. 
Cf. Hort, Intr., p. 313. So in other examples below), ’Axaia, 
’Axatkos (1 Cor. 16:17), BynOcatéa, Taios (also Tatos in Ac. 20:4, 
etc., but ef. Allen, Harvard Studies in Class. Philol., 11, 1891, pp. 
71 ff.), dwriter (Mt. 23:24), ’EBpatori, ekwt (Mk. 15:34), ’E¢- 
paiu, however, or ’Edpéu (NL in Jo. 11 : 54), "Hoatas, though B usu- 
ally without,* Iovdatkéds, icxir (2 Pet. 2:11), Katadas, Katy (W. H. 
Kaiv), so W. H. Kawav (not Katvay nor —ay), Aeveitns and not Aevirns 
in W. H., Awits (W. H. -is), Mwvofs in W. H., not Mwiofs, Nuveveirns 
and not Nuvevitns, mpotuos according to W. H., but mrpwi, rpwuvds. 
W. H. have IIro\euatda in Ac. 21:7 and ‘Pwuyatori in Jo. 19: 20. 
D reads Xopafaivy. The Semitic etymology complicates the matter 
with some of these words.’ Many of the MSS. use dizresis at 
the beginning of words as in iva.6 NA regularly write nv, while 
wi is correct also.’? See Giles® on the subject of diphthongs. Tor 
iota subscript see under (c). 

(j) APHARESIS AND PROTHETIC VOWELS. Oédw, not édrw, 1S the 
only form in the N. T., as it is the common form in the xow7 and 
is that used in modern Greek. It is as old as Homer, and since 


1 Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 304. Cf. K.-Bl., Bd. I, pp. 2483 ff. 


2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 29. | 3 Ib., p.43. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 153 f. 
4 eBlasa” Greoten le Gk pylia  So/ilecoal. 
5 Ib. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 34. 7 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. 


6 Gregory, Prol. etc., p. 108. + 8 Comp. Philol., pp. 158 ff. 


206 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


250 B.c. is the only form in the Attic! and Ionic? inscriptions. 
The augment, however, is always 7. Cronert? finds é€é\w after 
consonants. The xow7n does not follow the Ionic in the use of 
xetvos for éxetvos. Apheeresis is frequent’ in the modern Greek 
vernacular, xec and éxe?, de for ovdev, etc. But the N. T. has 
only éx#és (so LXX) in the best MSS. (cf. Jo. 4:52 NABCD; 
Ac. 7:28 NBCD; Heb. 13:8 NACD), the usual Attic form, 
though the papyri sometimes have x6és instead of the common 
éxdés. The N. T. does not have dvpoua, Kéed\d\w, pelpouds, where 
o is dropped. Cf. Kiihner-Blass, Tl. I, Bd. 1, p. 186. The form 
petpouar (Cf. depouevor in 1 Th. 2:8) occurs in Nicander for 
iuetpouat. It is possible that in 6(6)uelpouac we have prothetic o 
instead of apheresis. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 152; Winer- 
Schmiedel, p. 141. See Additional Notes for full list. 

(k) Existon. Besides the use of the movable final » and s the 
Greeks had two other methods of obviating hiatus (elision, cra- 
sis). The hiatus was distasteful to the finished writers, though 
more freedom was exercised in poetry. The avoidance of hiatus 
was always a more or less artificial matter.and hiatus was un- 
avoidable in the most careful Attic writers, as in the case of. drt, 
rept, mpd, Ti, Tt, the article, relative, the small “form-words” (kai, 
ei, un), etc. But the harsher hiatus like édi6070 air would be 
avoided by the literary xown writers as well as by the Atticists. 
The inscriptions and the papyri show far less concern about hia- 
tus than do the literary writers of the xown. As might be expected 
the N. T. books agree in this matter with the vernacular xown7 
and the MSS. vary greatly among themselves. Blass® considers 
this situation in harmony with the tendency to greater isolation 
of the words in the later language. Indeed he thinks that only 
one® book in the N. T. (Hebrews) shows the care of an artistic 
writer in the avoidance of hiatus. By omitting the O. T. quota- 
tions and chapter 13 he finds that hiatus where there is a pause 
is a matter of indifference, as also with xai. He finds fifty-two 
other instances of hiatus, whereas Romans goes beyond that num- 


1 Meisterh., Gr., p. 178. 

2 Smyth, Ionic Dial., p. 482. Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 155. 

3 Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 1383 f. 

4 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 13. 

5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. Cf. on hiatus K.-BL., I, pp. 190 ff. 

6 Ib., p. 296f. On indifference of later Gk. to hiatus see Bischoff, Neut. 
Wiss., 1906, p. 268; Thieme, ib., p. 265. Moulton (Prol., p. 92) quotes Kaelker 
(Quest., p. 245 f.) as saying that Polyb. uses dors for 4s merely to avoid 
hiatus. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 160. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 207 


ber as far as ch. 4:18. But even then Blass has to admit cases 
of harsher hiatus in Hebrews, like ddeddot ayror, Evoxor joav, ete. 

The Attic inscriptions show that the vernacular tongue did not 
care much about hiatus. The lighter elisions like 6’ were used or 
not at will, while the heavier ones like dixav’ drws were rare. The 
same indifference to elision appears in the xo. inscriptions? and 
in the papyri.’ In general in the N. T. elision takes place regu- 
larly before pronouns and particles and before nouns in combina- 
tions of frequent occurrence? like kar’ ofxov. Blass® has carefully 
worked out the following facts in the N. T. MSS. Te, otve, ujre, 
Ga, apa, ye, ee, ETL, wa, Wore, etc., do not undergo elision nor do 
noun- or verb-forms. The verse of Menander quoted in 1 Cor. 
15:33 is properly printed xpynora éuirtiaa by W. H.§ Even the 
compound words teccepaxovtaerns (Ac. 7:23) and éxarovraerns 
(Ro. 4:19) do not suffer elision, while rerpa-apxns has no eli- 
sion in NCA (Alexandrian, Hort). Todr’ éor: or rovréore is the only 
example in the pronouns that we have in the N. T.’ It is in the 
particles then that most N. T. elisions occur, though there are 
comparatively few. ’AddAa, according to Gregory,® has elision in 
215 cases and fails to have it in 130, though the MSS. vary much. 
Hort® observes that in 4\4 elision is usual before articles, pro- 
nouns and particles, but rare before nouns and verbs. Ro. 6: 
14-8 : 32 has many non-elisions of a\\a, and the elision varies be- 
fore the different vowels except that it is constant before 1. Aé 
rarely suffers elision outside of és 6’ av, but here frequently, while 
W. H. read 6 airé in Ph. 2:18 after NBP. In 2 Cor. 3:16 
W. H. put jvixa 6’ dy in the margin, text jv. dé éav (So Tisch., 
Nestle). In ovdé elision takes place several times, as in ov’ ap 
(Heb. 8:4), ot6’ ef (Ac. 19:2, NAB), 006’ twa (Heb. 9: 25), ot6’ 
drt (Ro. 9:7), 006’ ob (Mt. 24:21; Heb. 13: 5), 006’ otrws (1 Cor. 
14:21). Blass” further notes that prepositions seldom use elision 

1 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 69 f. 

2 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 184; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 71 f. 

3 Cronert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 138 f. Cf. also Thumb, Hellen. etc., 
p. 82. 4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 146. — 

5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. Cf. also Gregory, p. 93 f. 

6 Moulton (Cl. Rev., Feb. 31, 1901) finds that the pap. like the Lat. have 
a vowel not used in the metre. The inscr. concur in this practice. Moulton, 
Prol., p. 45. Cf. also Mayser, Gr., pp. 155-158, 160-162. He shows that in 
the pap. it is largely a matter of indifference. On the scarcity of elision in the 
LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, p. 12 f.; Thackeray, pp. 22, 136 f. 

7 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 306) refers to the Oxyrhynchus pap., which 


have rotr’ eizav in Jo. 20: 22. 8 Prol., p. 93 f. 
9 Notes, p. 146. 10 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. 


2908 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with proper names, since it was thought better, as on the in- 
scriptions, to keep the name distinct and readily discernible; 
though W. H. read 6’ ’ABpadu in Heb. 7:9. Elision is most 
common with 6d as 6’ écdrtpov (1 Cor. 13,: 12), “because there 
were already two vowels adjacent to each other” Blass! thinks. 
*Avri has elision only in av@’ dy (Lu. 1:20, etc.). Elsewhere the 
prepositions show elision with pronouns and in current phrases, 
as In am’ apxns, am’ apt, am’ alTov, am’ Euovd, em’ a’T@, KaT’ Eué, Kar’ 
idtay (kad’ tdiav), Kat’ otxov, per’ Euod, map’ av, bh’ Hudv’ (budv), br’ 
ovdevds (1 Cor. 2:15).2 So the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 137). 

(l) Crasts. The Attic official inscriptions make little use of 
crasis, though it is fairly common in the vase-inscriptions of the 
fifth century B.c.2. In Magnesia Nachmanson finds only a few 
examples of xat and the article.t| The same thing is true of Per- 
gamum.> In the N. T. it is confined also to xai and the article. 
And in the case of xai crasis only occurs if the following word is 
a pronoun or a particle. Kati thus often, though not always, 
coalesces with éyw and the oblique cases, as Kayw, kauol, kaye. If 
there is a “distinct co-ordination of éyw with another pronoun or 
a substantive,” crasis does not take place.6 Even the MSS. vary 
greatly.”? Kaxetvos also is found as well as xaxe? and xaxetbev. Kai 
likewise blends only occasionally with éay in the sense of ‘and if,’ 
as in Mk. 16:18; Lu. 13:9; Jas. 5:15. In the sense of ‘even 
if? the crasis is more common, as in Mt. 26:35; Jo. 8:14. In 
the sense of ‘if it be but’ or ‘if only’ the crasis is uniform as in 
Mk. 5:28; 6:56; 2 Cor. 11:16. Cf. xaév—kal éav (Jo. 8:14, 
16). The article suffers crasis very often in the older Greek, but 
in the N. T. it is seldom so. Hort?® declines to accent raira for 
Tatra in 1 Cor. 9:8 or ratra for ra a’ra in Lu. 6: 23, 26; 17:30, 
though supported in Luke by some good MSS. He does, how- 
ever, accept rotvoua in Mt. 27:57 and rotvaytiov in 2 Cor. 2:7; 
Gal. 2:7; 1 Pet. 3:9 (“stereotyped as a single word,” Blass?%). 
Crasis is quite rare in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 137). 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18. See Additional Notes. 
2 For more minute details about the prep. see Gregory, Prol., pp. 94 ff. 


3 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 70 ff. 4 Magn. Inschr., p. 74. 
5 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 1383. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 158 ff., for the 
common pap. exx. like cay, radnées, etc. 6 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 145. 


7 See Gregory, Prol., p. 96; Von Soden, I, p. 1380. 

8 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18, and W.-Sch., p.38; Von Soden, I, p. 1380. 
Blass gives xareOiwe from D (Lu. 15: 16). ® Notes on Orth., p. 145. 

10 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19. For scarcity in LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, 
Dole tk: 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS © 209 


III. Consonant-Changes (oTotxeta otppwva). The Greek, like 
other Indo-Germanic tongues, wrote out both vowels and con- 
sonants save in the case of iota adscript, which was not always 
used. But, as with the Phoenician and Hebrew, which wrote only 
consonants, the consonants form the backbone of the language. 
Both consonants and vowels are originally pictographic. “ Beth”’ 
(G77a) is ‘house,’ “gimul’’ (yauua) is ‘camel,’ “daleth”’ (6€\7a) is 
‘door,’ etc.1_ The Greek indeed developed the vowels a, e, 1, o out 
of the Phoenician consonants aleph, he, yod, ayin.? | 

(a) ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF THE CONSONANTS. Though 
the Greek consonants undoubtedly come chiefly from the Phoeni- 
cian symbols, they were not all used at once nor in the same 
places. At first the digraphs KH, TH, [18 were used for the later 
X, 0, ®, and even after these letters won a foothold K>, Xz, 
II>, 2 were used in Attic for £, y. It is only since 403 B.c. that 
the Greek alphabet (ada 67a) has had regularly twenty-four 
letters. Jannaris* gives an interesting study of the way the 
Greek letters looked in eighth, sixth, fifth and fourth centuries 
B.c. aS shown by the inscriptions. In the inscriptions, however, 
komma continued to be used (like Latin Q) and Bad or diyaypya. 
This last, though called double yauua, perhaps represents the Phoe- 
nician vau. On the use of digamma in Homer see Kiihner-Blass.4 
It is a half-vowel in fact, asc and v are partly consonant in force, 
like Latin wu (v) and 7 (7).2 The dropping of digamma affected 
many words, some of which have the rough breathing, though 
Thumb® and Moulton’ think that this is an aecident simply, and 
the rough breathing is due to analogy and not to the digamma in 
cases like xa@’ éros, etc. But changes in the use of the consonants 
did not cease when the Euclidean spelling reform was instituted 
403 B.c. As the vowels underwent steady development, so it was 
and is with the consonants. B early began occasionally to have 
the force of v, and y sometimes the 7 value of « as in modern Greek, 
and it was even inserted (irrational y).2 In general in the xow7 the 


ICT. Jann., Hist, Gk. Gr., p. 21; 2 Ib. Cf. Meisterh., Gr. etc., p. 3. 

3 Ib., p. 24f. On the whole subj. of changes in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., 
pp. 163-248. For general remarks about consonant-changes in LXX MSS. 
see Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 301. 4 Bd. I, pp. 85-101. 

5 Ib., pp. 77-85, 101-103. The mod. Gk. pronounces airés=aftos. The 
inscr. give the form afurod. Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 34. 

6 Hellen., pp. 245 ff. 

7 Prol., p. 44. But Sommer, Gr. Lautstudien, shows that the rough 
breathing is sometimes due to digamma. 

8 Thumb, Hellen., p. 187 f.; cf. p. 134 f. for intervocal y. 


210 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


consonant-changes are much fewer than those of the vowel. Such 
peculiarities as oo, yivouat, Aju~ouar are common (Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 100). 

(b) THr INSERTION oF Consonants. In the older Greek 6 
is inserted in dp-6-pds, and so with B in wpeony-G-pia.1 The 
Attic used either form in éu7i(u)rAnu, éuri(u)rpnuc. So in Ac. 
14:17 DEP read éuriurddv (D e&-), and in Ac. 28:6 N°BHLP 
most cursives have ziurpacba. The LXX MSS. show the same 
variation. D in Lu. 2 : 32, etc., has ’Io-7-pand. The retention of 
uw in all the forms. (derivatives also) of AauBavw (root AaB) is in ac- 
cord with the usage of the papyri (“almost invariably’’)? and the 
inscriptions of the cow, and is due to the Ionic \aupoua.? Hence 
Anupoua, éEnudOnv, etc. In the Ptolemaic age (iii/i B.c.) the 
papyri give both forms. From i/iv a.p. the papyri and uncials 
(LXX and N. T.) give almost wholly » forms. In the Byzantine 
period (vi/vili A.D.) the classic AnPoua. reappears. Cf. Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 108 f.; Mayser, Gr., p. 194 f.; Crénert, Mem., p. 66. 
In the LXX the uncials give the spelling of their own date, not 
that of the translation. In Mk. 7:32 the extra y in poy(y)Addov 
is inserted by the Syrian class only and is not to be accepted. In 
Heb. 11:32 7 is added to Layowv (Lay~wv). So also in Ac. 3:7 
(NABC) 6 is added to odv(6)pov which is as yet “unexplained.’’4 
In the case of ‘AdpayuvTnvd (Ac. 27:2), read by W. H. on author- 
ity of AB 16 Copt. instead of ‘Adpayurrnvd, a slightly different 
situation exists. Two ways of pronouncing and spelling the 
name of the city existed. 

(c) THe Omission oF Consonants. ‘There are not many 
cases where a consonant drops out of a N. T. word. In Rev. 
13:2 the correct reading (all the uncials) is undoubtedly dpxov, 
not a&pxrov. This form is found also in the LXX and in inscrip- 
tions of the first or second century a.p.2 W. H., following B and 
XN, also (save in Mk. 3: 22) read BeefeBovdr instead of BeedCeBornr. 
Tivopa and ywawoxw are the exclusive forms in the N. T., though 
some MSS., as in the papyri and inscriptions, have yew-. Nach- 


1 Blass compares the insertion of consonants in Semitic names like ”Eo-é- 
pas, Map-B-p7. 2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 

3 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 179 f. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 64, for full references 
concerning the use of uw with AauBarw. Cf. Gregory (Prol., p. 72) for list and 
references of the various compounds of \auBavw and dAfuyrs in the N. T., 
a@va—, avemt—, avTi—-, aT0-, KaTa-, pera-, twapa—, tpo— mpoo—. The LXX MSS. 
have AjnuPoua (Q AnWovrar) and €hudOnv. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 22. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 24; W.-Sch., p: 64. 

§ Ib3p265: 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 211 


manson! states clearly the facts. The Ionic as early as the fifth 
century B.c. used the yw forms, and the Doric shows the same 
situation in the fourth century. Even in Athens the yw forms 
appear, and in the xown the yyv forms vanish. ToAyo#a follows 
the Hebrew 2322 rather than the Chaldaic 877323 in having 
only one A. According to Winer-Schmiedel? the two forms xatéa 
and xdadéa (Ac. 27:16) represent two different islands near each 
other, which were confused in the MSS. It is hardly worth while 
to remark that capécov (correct text in Rev. 4: 3) is a substantive, 
while capéuvos (Text. Rec.) is an adjective. 

(d) SINGLE oR DovuBLE Consonants. Blass? and Winer- 
Schmiedel* comment on the obscurity concerning the use of single 
or double consonants in the xown. The phenomena in the N. T. 
in general correspond to the situation in the xow7.’ In the modern 
Greek vernacular (cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 27) the double con- 
sonants, except in Southeastern Greek dialects, have the value of 
only one. In the oldest Attic inscriptions in most cases where 
the doubling of consonants was possible the single consonant was 
used. The rule with initial 6 was that when it passed to the 
middle of a word as a result of reduplication or the prefixing of 
a preposition, etc., it was doubled. But pepavricuevos is read by 
NACDP in Heb. 10: 22 as in Ionic and late Greek, pepiypeévor in D 
(Mt. 9 : 36), and zreprpepaypevos in N (Rev. 19:13). Blass’? observes 


1 Magn. Inschr., p. 108. Cf. also Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. III, p. 173; 
Meisterh., p. 128; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 165; Schmid, Atticismus, Bd. 
IV., p. 579 (for the Atticistic yeyv); Croénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 91 f.; 
Reinhold, De Graec. Patr. etc., pp. 46-48. In the LXX yivoua and ywaooKw 
are uniform. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 21. Thack. (Gr., p. 111 f.) finds 
illustrations of the omission of intervocalic y in the LXX uncials as in the 
pap. (Mayser, Gr., p. 167 f.). 

2 P. 65, where a full discussion of the geographical points is given. 

a5(GGr.-ol Ne LAGK:p.. 10. 

4 P. 55; cf. also Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 225 ff. 

5 See Thumb, Hellen., pp. 20ff.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 122 ff.; 
Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 88 ff.; Croénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., pp. 74 ff. 
Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 211-219. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 
14-16. The MSS. of the LXX are largely the same as those of the N. T. and 
show similar phenomena in orthography. So in Ex. 7:10 B has épwe, ’App. 
Both déppaBav and dpaBwv occur, and it is in the pap. that we can often find the 
true Ptolemaic spelling. A curiously has usually yévnua and B yévynua. 

6 Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 93. 

7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 10, 328. Similar variations in usage as to p or pp 
appear in the inscr. of the xow7 (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 124, avartiphrws, 
etc.; Nachm., Magn. etc., p. 91) and even in the Attic inser. (Meisterh., p. 95, 
dvapnbevres, etc.). Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p.42, for exx. of épbcaro, etc. 


mie A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


that the Syriac versions use 827 for ‘Pun, though some Attic 
inscriptions use initial pp. In Mt. 9:20 aipuoppootca is correct 
(NL one p). In Ac. 10:29 BD 61 read avavripytws, and in Ac. 
19:36 BL have avavtiphrwv. In Ac. 27:43 W. H. follow NC in 
aropiavras, and in Lu. 19:35 all but the Syrian class read ém- 
piWayres and NAB have the same form in | Pet. 5:7. In Mt. 9:36 
the Neutral (and Alexandrian) class has épcuueévor, the Syrian épp., 
while D has pepywp-. In Mt. 15:30 NDL read épwav, while B 
and the rest have éppufay, but see Ac. 27:19. But in Lu. 17:2 
éppirrac is supported by all MSS. save II and ps. In Jo. 19:23 
a&pados is read by W. H., though B has app. In 2 Cor. 12:4 dppnra 
is right as appworos in Mk. 6:5, 13, etc. In 2 Cor. 1:22 W. H. 
follow BCD vs. NAL in reading appaB8dva, a Semitic word which 
in its Semitic form has the doubling of the consonant and the 
metrical prosody —~-— according to Blass,! who compares also 
the Latin arrha. W. H. have écapnéas in Mk. 14:63 after BN, 
while in Lu. 8:29 dvapnocwv is supported by ABCRUA. In Mt. 
26:65 W. H. give déonte on the authority of only Ot according 
to Tisch., though BL read écepnocero in Lu. 5:6. But rpocepntev 
in Lu. 6:48 is supported by NBDL and in 6:49 by BDL. In 
Ac. 16:22 repipntavres is the reading of all uncials save P, but 
most cursives follow P. But in Ac. 14:14 all MSS. have é:app7- 
favres and in Lu. 9 :42 the same thing is true of éppytevr. In Mk. 
2:21 émipamre: is read by all the best MSS. and the Syrian class 
is divided, and the same is true of Mt. 26:67 épamicav. In 2 Cor. 
11:25 épaBdicOny is correct, while likewise épavticey (Heb. 9: 19, 
21) has all save late Syrian support. So —pp-— in éppén (BD éppnén, 
not W. H., Mt. 5:21, etc.) is the constant reading in the N. T. 
In Eph. 3: 17 (18) and Col. 2: 7, all MSS. have éppitwuévor. W.H. 
follow B alone in 2 Cor. 1:10; 2 Pet. 2 : 7 with épicaro, while in 
Col. 1:13 B is joined by FGP. In 2 Tim. 3:11 AD read épicazo, 
and NAC 37 give éptoOnv in 2 Tim. 4:17. All MSS. have éppwode 
(Ac. 15:29). Mdppa (B) is changed to Mipa in the Syrian text (Ac. 
27:5; cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 160), but Winer-Schmiedel (p. 58) 
found only Mipa in the inscriptions. Tapapv@uev (Heb. 2: 1) is read 
by all the pre-Syrian classes. Tappycia, rappnovdtouar (from zap- 
pnoia), not rapy-, is the usual reading in the N. T. (see Additional 
Notes), as occasionally in the inscriptions.2. W. H. read Tuppos in 


Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 10. ’ApaBav “only Western,” Hort, Notes on Orth., 
p. 148. But the pap. (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 33; Deiss., B. S., p. 183 f.) 
frequently have apa8av, and, as Deissmann remarks, people are not always par- 
ticular to preserve mere etymology. 2 CIGII, 2722. 5. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 56, 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 213 


Rev. 6:4 and 12:3, though the evidence is pretty evenly balanced.1 
The Alexandrian class has rupafe in Mt. 16:2, but W.H. reject the 
passage. The MSS. all have Xe:uappouv in Jo. 18:1. 

The other instances outside of p are not so numerous. The 
MSS. (all but late Syrian) support BaddAdvriov, not Badavriov, as 
do the papyri.? Blass? argues for it also on metrical grounds. 
Tevnua, because given by no grammarian, was “attributed by 
Fritzsche (on Mark, pp. 619 ff.) to the carelessness of transcribers”’ 
(Thayer), but as sometimes in the LXX (Ezek. 36: 30) so in the 
N. T. the best MSS. distinguish between yerynua (from yevvaw), 
‘living creatures,’ as yerynuara éx.dvav (Mt. 3:7) and yévnua (from 
yivouat), ‘the fruits of the earth,’ as é rod yevfuaros ris dumédou (Mk. 
14:25). Phrynichus* condemns the use of yévynua=xapros (Dio- 
dorus, Polybius, ete.). Root of both verbs is yev. This distinction 
between yevnua and yevynua appears in the papyri also, though yevy- 
devra occurs in the Fayim Papyri (B.U. 110. 14) “undoubtedly 
from yervaw.’”’® So N. T. MSS. vary® about yevynua. The gram- 
marians (Lobeck, ad Phrynichum, p. 726) reject éxxtvw for exxéw, 
but the best MSS. give éxxivyw everywhere in the N. T. W. H. 
accept this Aolic form in Mt. 23:35; 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lu. 
11: 50 marg.); Lu. 22: 20 (bracket the passage); and Ac. 22: 20. 
So also ovvxivyw (W. H.) in Ac. 9 : 22; 21:31. Cf. brepexyuvvoue- 
‘voy in Lu. 6:38. Likewise MSS. support dvaBaivryvw, drravvomat, 
while the AZolic aoxrevyw is received by W. H. in Rev. 6:11 and 
amoxtevyiw in Mk. 12:5, though rejected elsewhere in N. T. on 
divided testimony. "Evatos has been restored throughout the 
N. T. by W. H. instead of @&varos of the Text. Rec. The inscrip- 
tions support the N. T. MSS. in this change (Thayer). So W. H. 
give évevnxovra (Mt. 18:12 ff.; Lu. 15:4, 7) but eévéea always. 
’Eveds, not évveds, W. H. give (Ac. 9: 7) as the LXX (Is. 56:10), a 
word possibly identical with dvews (dvaos). W.H. present’ xpaBar- 
tos instead of the xpaBBaros of the Text. Rec., though xpaBaros 
would more nearly represent the Latin grabatus as it appears 
in Etym. M. (154. 34; 376. 36). KpaSarpuos is found also for the 


1 The inscr. show rupés also (Dittenb., 177. 15; 748. 20). 

2 Croénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 76. $: Grol a GK alt 

4 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 348. 

5 Deiss., B. S., pp. 109f., 184. Cf. Thackeray, p. 118. 

6 Gregory, Prol., p. 79. 

7 In Mk. B (5) has xpéBaros, but is not followed by W. H. in Jo. and Ac. 
(6). Thumb, Hellen., p. 22, argues for 86 as the correct form from mod. Gk. 
usage. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328) cites both xpaBarros and kpaBarvov from 
Arrian’s Diss. Epict. and xpéBarros from the pap. Cf. Moulton’s note in Hinl. 


214 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Latin grabatarius (CIGH 2114 d 1). &, however, has 10/11 times 
the strange form xpaBaxros (—r7r— only in Ac. 5:15). Aaceéa (Ac. 
27:8) is Aaccaia in some MSS. Maywvas, from Aramaic 827580, 
is correct. Macdoua is the right reading in Rev. 16:10 (NACP). 
Only the Western class has awAyuipns for aAnumtpys in Lu. 6: 48. 
W. H. properly have faxos, not paxxos, from pyyvum (Mt. 9 : 16; 
Mk. 2:21). In the Western interpolation in Ac. 20:15, W. H. 
read Tpwytdvov, not —vAAvoy nor —iAvwv. Some Latin MSS. read 
hysopus for ioowros in Jo. 19:29 and Heb. 9:19. tyeros, not 
—eddos, is read in 2 Tim. 1:15 by all save A and most cursives. 
Cf. buyedvos in CIGIL 3027. 

The Hebrew and Aramaic proper names call for special re- 
mark. “Avvas=2" (Josephus “Avavos) may be due to the drop- 
ping of a or to the analogy of “Avva=nin. W. H. (Ac. 1: 23; 
15:22) prefer BapoaBBas (from X2U72, ‘son of the Sabbath’) to 
BapoaBas (from X2U 73, ‘son of Saba’).!. The Text. Rec. has Tevn- 
caper (W. H. Tevynoaper) in Mk. 6: 53, elsewhere —vy—.2  Touoppa is 
read in LXX and N. T. (Mt. 10:15, etc.), sia». W. H. accept 
’EXicatos, not ’EXwoo. (Syrian) in Lu. 4: 27= 9055. ’Iecoal 
(Lu. 3:32; etc.) comes from 7°w7. The N. T. and 1 Mace. have 
‘lormn, but the ancient grammarians and lexicographers pre- 
fer ‘*Iorn.2 In Lu. 3:27 ’Iwavay (indeclinable) is the right text. 
W. H. prefer ’Iwava (1977) to Iwavva in Lu. 8:3; 24:10. But more 
doubt exists concerning “Iwavys, which W. H. read everywhere 
save in Ac. 4:6; 18:5; Rev. 22:8, following B and sometimes 
D. The single v prevails in D in Luke and Acts, while "Iwavyns is 
more common in D in Matthew, Mark, John. & has the single 
vy in the part written by the scribe of B.6 The inscriptions have 
it both ways. Blass® finds the explanation in the Hebrew termi- 
nation —an, which was treated as a variable inflection in the Greek, 
the LX X MSS. having now ’Iwavay and now ’Iwavov. This fact 
opposes the derivation of the name ‘Iwavyns from ’Iwavdv-ns, leaving 
the —ys unexplained.” Mapiay (2797) = Maprauun in Josephus.’ 
Mecoias is from the Aramaic sn>22= Hebrew own, but the Syr- 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 57. 

2 Cf. Pliny (Nat. Hist., V, 15. 71 for Te.) also. In W.-Sch., p. 57, the 
point is made that the unpointed Targums do not distinguish between 70°23 
and 70°3), 

3 W.-Sch., p. 56, =19! or 12’. Cf. on this subject Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
Dacoue 4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328, quoting E. Lippett. 

5 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159. 7 W.-Sch.; p. 57; E. Bibl, p. 2504 f. 

SS GreolmNeG kere £-Blass,oGr, of Nigle Gk pas 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 215 


lan class reads Megias in Jo. 1:41 (42); 4:25. Zappa, Heb. 
mw (feminine of 7%), is read by MSS. generally in N. T., though 
L has Yapas in Ro. 4:19 (vulg. Sarae). All the MSS. have w 
in Lovodvva (Lu. 8: 3) after the Heb. n204w (‘a lily’). Xappdav is 
supported by most MSS., though D and a few cursives have 
Xapav in Ac. 7:2 after the Hebrew 77. The LXX has Xappay 
and the Greek writers (Strabo, etc.) have Kappa, Latin Carrhae. 

Doubling of the Aspirate. As a rule the aspirated mutes (6, x, 
@) are not doubled in more correct writing either in early or late 
Greek, but N. T. MSS. give examples of 60, xx, ¢¢. In Philemon 
2 D has ’A¢¢ia, while 3 has ’Arzia (so vulg.) and FG, etc., even 
"Audia. In Mk. 7:34 all MSS. have éddaba (or éppea) save A 
and two Coptic MSS. which have érdaba. W.H. give Ma66atos = 
Hebrew 37572 in the N. T. (Mt. 9:9ff., etc.), and Maféav in Mt. 
1:15. W.H. read Maréar in Lu. 3:24, but Ma@ar in Lu. 3:29. 
In Ac. 1: 23, 26 W. H. have Maé@ias, but in Lu. 3: 25 f. they pre- 
fer Marrafias to MaOabias. In Ac. 5:1, W. H. consider Yaddecpa 
Western and read Lardepa (either Aramaic 871559, ‘beautiful,’ or 
Hebrew 155d, ‘precious stone’).!. The LXX MSS. show the same 
variations. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 121. 

(e) ASSIMILATION OF CoNSONANTS. In the early period of the 
Greek language the inscriptions often show assimilation of con- 
sonants between separate words. The words all ran together 
in the writing (scriptura continua) and to some extent in pro- 
nunciation like the modern French vernacular. Usage varied 
very early, but the tendency was constantly towards the dis- 
tinctness of the separate words (dissimilation). However, é 
came finally to be written é before consonants, though éy, éxk, ex, 
éyx and even é (cf. Latin) are found in Attic inscriptions,” as ey 
vnowy, etc. Only sporadic examples outside of é€& and é appear 
in the N. T. as avéyNurtos in D (Lu. 12:33), areydtoe in B (Col. 
2:11), €yyova in D (1 Tim. 5:4), eggona, not engona.? The Attic 
inscriptions even have s assimilated in todd Aifovs. The most 


1 On the whole subject see Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159, and Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 11. Cf. also Schweizer, Perg. etc., pp. 110f., 114f. Cf. for 
the pap., Mayser, Gr., pp. 190-224; Soden, I, pp. 1372 ff. 

2 Cf. Meisterh., pp. 105-109. In North Engl. one hears “ith wood’ for 
“in the wood.”’ The MSS. of the LX X show the same phenomena as one 
~ sees in the N. T. MSS. and the pap., like éy yaorpi, éu uéow, cvyypaper, etc. Cf. 
Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 16 f.; Thack., Gr., pp. 130 ff. 

8 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12; Ausspr. etc., p. 123. Alexandrian 
writers followed the Attic in this assimilation. Blass compares the guttural 
use of a in 479A (Mt. 27: 46) in L and in the LXX ’Aepyar, ’ Aevddp. 


2916 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW: TESTAMENT 


common assimilation between separate words is in words ending 
in —v, especially with the article and é&. Examples like rjy 7édu, 
TOA Adyov, TOp ‘Pddiov, EX AEoBw, Eo idan, etc., are very common.! 
Similar phenomena occur in the xow7 inscriptions, though the 
failure to assimilate is far more noticeable. See list of examples 
in Nachmanson.2 As a rule the papyri do not assimilate such 
cases In the N. T., as in the later xown generally, only a few 
remnants survive of this assimilation of »y between words. Blass,* 
who has used the MSS. to good purpose, finds several, as, for in- 
stance, éy yaorpi in A (Lu. 21: 23), ey Kava in AF (Jo. 2:11), éu 
peow in AC (Rev. 1:18; 2:1, etc.), in AP (Heb. 2712)in LA 
(Mt. 18:2; Lu. 8:7), éu mpatrn7e in N (Jas. 1:21), ody Mapidu in 
AB, ete. (Lu. 2:5), ody raow in HG, ete. (Lu. 24:21). The earlier 
papyri (up to 150 B.c.) show a good deal of this assimilation be- 
tween words (Thackeray, Gr., p. 131). This assimilation between 
separate words is common in modern Greek (cf. Thumb, Handb., 
pp. 16 ff.).. So rov raréepa=tombatéra. But a much more difficult 
matter is presented in the case of & and ovv in composition, 
though in general “assimilation is the rule in compounds of @, 
retention of v in those of otv.”’> But in 1 and 2 Peter assimila- 
tion is the rule (only two clear exceptions) for both civ and , 
due possibly® to the absence of uncials. The later papyri as a 
rule do not assimilate civ, though often e.7 In the N. T. no ex- 
amples occur of & or oty before — or p.2 Hort® gives a list of what 
he: considers “the certain and constant forms” of & and oty in 
composition. “All other compounds of oty and éy are included in 
the list of alternative readings.’”’ Hort thus reads éu— before the 
labials (a, B, ¢) and the liquid p except éyrepiurarnow (2 Cor. 6: 16), 
possibly evrvewy (Ac. 9:1), and e&zpocbev once (Rev. 4:6) and 
Western class elsewhere. So assimilation takes place before the 
liquid \, as €\Aoyaw. But before the palatals x, y the usage varies, 
though before x we have éyxpiow (Rev. 3:18) with N reading é. 


1 Meisterh., p. 110f. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 97. 

2 Magn. Inschr., p. 100f. Cf. also Schweizer, Perg. etc., p. 127; Jann., 
Hist: GksGr rp.702: 

* Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 57; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12. 

‘Ib pp.el ite c0G: ® Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. 

® Ib. In general see Wecklein, Curae Epigr. ad Gr. Graecae etc., 1869, 
p. 47 f. 

’ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 12. Cf. Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 61. 

8 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. See for LXX Thackeray, pp. 132 ff. 

* Ib. For the inser. see Nachm., Magn., p. 104 f. The Coptic shows similar 
variation. For the loss of final y in mod. Gk. vernac. see Thumb, Handb., p. 24f. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 217 


We read évyeypaupevn in 2 Cor. 3:2f. (NABCDFG) and &xai- 
via, EvKaifw, EvKATOLKEW, EVKaVXHmal, evKevTpifw, evKplvw, though éy- 
Kahéw, €yxAnua, etc., and éyxaradeirw except in Acts. As to oty 
here is Hort’s decision. Yuvm— he accepts save in cuuréoia. On the 
other hand Hort has only cvvBacirtebw, cvvBi.Barw, elsewhere ovpb— 
as in cuuBaivw; only civdnm, cvvdbw, but cvud—as in cuvudépw. With 
the palatals Hort reads ovve— always, as in ovvkd6nuat, only ovyye- 
yns, cvyKkadtrrTw, but cvvxpGuar and ciyxvors. He has both curAaréew, 
ovvAuToduar and cvdAdAapuBarvw, gvdANyw; curypabynrhs, etc., but cvupop- 
gifw, cbupopdos. Hort has ovvfd, ete., but cbfvye; cbvvxos, but 
has both cuvoravpdw, etc., and cvotpedw, etc. For the detailed 
MS. evidence see Gregory.” Hort also prefers tadwyevecia, but 
is doubtful about xevypeai, tavrdnOel. 

(f) INTERCHANGE AND CHANGING VALUE OF CONSONANTS. One 
cannot here go into the discussion of the labial, palatal, dental, 
velar stops, the spirants, liquids, nasals. One can give only the 
special variations in the N. T. The b sound was rare in the older 
Indo-Germanic languages and easily glided into u or v.3 The Greek 
Baivw is like venio in Latin, Bios is like vivus though different in his- 
tory. In modern Greek 8 has sound of v. In the N. T. as in the 
LXX all the uncials have v in Aaveié (W. H.) where the minuscules 
read AaGis.t In the case of Bediap (2 Cor. 6:15) it is from 7197 33 
(‘lord of the forest’), while the Text. Rec. Bediad is from 32752 
(‘worthlessness’).6 The variation between po and pp, Moulton® ob- 
serves, runs down to modern Greek. The Attic pp did not displace 
the Ionic and early Attic po entirely in the Attic inscriptions.’ In 
the N. T., like the rest of the xo.wyn, usage is divided.* Hort (p. 149) 
prefers apony except appnv perhaps 4/4 times in Paul. In the Gos- 
pels and Acts @apcos and the two imperatives Oapcer, Papoeire are 
Unio. Outi 2oors(b..G, 87:16; 10: 1, 2) and: Heb.:(13:: 6) 


1 About & in composition see Gregory, Prol. etc., p. 76 f.; Soden, I, 
p. 1383. ’Ev in MSS. appears in composition as é—, éy— and even é-, as 
éxxérnv. On &rpocbey in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., p. 45. 

2 Prol. etc., p. 73 f. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 91-97, for the history of 
this subject during various stages of the language. 

3 Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 98, 124 

4 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 66 note. 

5 Cf. ib., p. 58 note, for further discussion. 

6 Prol., p. 45. Cf. also Thumb, Theol. Literaturzeit., XXVIII, p. 422. 

7 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 99 f. 

8 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 125; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 94. In the 
pap. a&ppnv “greatly preponderates over dponv’’ (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 
33). Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 44f. Thumb, Hellen., p. 77 f. 


218 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Oappetv is the correct text. ¢ displaces o in a few words. Voiced 
o in union with voiced consonants had the sound of 2, and ¢ was 
pronounced o6.! “Afwros (Ac. 8:40) 71708, Ashdod. Lagarde’s 
LXX has ’Acedéw6 in Josh. 11:22 (A has ’Aonédwd, B ’Aceddw). 
nary is rendered also "Efpas or "Eodpas. But in the N. T. period 
¢ is changing from the ds sound to z. ‘Apydtw, not the Attic 
dpudrrw, is the N. T. form.? Lachmann has patos for paordés in 
Rev. 1:13. In 1 Th. 5:19 BDFG (Western class) read ¢Bévvure,3 
simply phonetic spelling. Hort‘ considers Zutpya as Western 
only in Rev. 1:11; 2:8, but the papyri and inscriptions both 
give it.» The most noticeable feature of all is, however, that 
the Attic and Bootian 77 did not hold against the Ionic oo 
(though even Thucydides and the Tragic poets used oc). Papyri, 
inscriptions and N. T. MSS. all unite in using oo as the rule, 
though all occasionally have 77. It does not seem possible to 
reduce the usage to an intelligent rule. ’Exdnrrouevos is ac- 
cepted by W. H. in Ac. 13:12, elsewhere oc. Both é\dacowv 
(Jo. 2:10; Ro. 9:12) and édarrwy (1 Tim.’ 5:9; Heb.-7:7) are 
found, but only the “literary” (so Blass) words é\arrow (Jo. 3 : 
30; Heb. 2:7, 9) and éd\arrovew (2 Cor. 8:15). Similar diversity 
exists between jocov (1 Cor. 11:17; 2 Cor. 12:15) and joowbnre 
(2 Cor. 12:18) on the one hand and frrnua (1 Cor. 6:7; Ro. 
11:12) and jrracbau (2 Pet. 2:19f.) on the other. In Heb. 6:9; 
10:34 W. H. read xpeiccova, elsewhere xpeitrova (Heb. 1:4; 7:7, 
19, 22; 8:6; .9: 28; 11:16; .35, 40; 12:24), and Hebrews: has 
some literary influence, an argument for Blass’ idea above. Paul 
has xpeitrrov only in 1 Cor. 7:9, while xpetooov is found in 1 Cor. 
7:38; 11:17; Ph. 1:23. Hort accepts xpetrrov in 1 Pet. 3:17 


1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 113, 115. On the whole subject of the 
exchange of consonants in the pap. see Mayser, Gr., pp. 169-188, 219-224. 
For the LXX exx. (obde, otf; yMdooa, yAGTTA; Pvrdoow, PvrdaTTw; E\doowr, 
élaTTwr; appnv, Oapp&, etc.) see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 17-20; Thack., Gr., 
pp. 100-124. 

2 Cf. Rutherford, New Phyrn., p. 14. 

3 Cf. &fBeoros in N (Mk. 9: 48), Eyrwfueévos, etc., in pap. (W.-Sch., p. 59). 

4 Notes on Orth., p. 148. 

5 Deiss., B. S., p. 185. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 45; Dittenb., 458. 41, & 
Zpvpry. 

6 Cf. Thumb, Hellen., pp. 53, 78 ff.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 125; 
Nachm., Magn. etc., p. 95f.; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 32; Prol., p. 45; 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 23; Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148; Reinhold, De 
Graec. ete., p. 43 f. Giles (Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 115) thinks that the oo 
in Athens was a literary mannerism and pronounced just like rr. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS | 219 


and 2 Pet. 2:21 (doubtful). Cf. onuepov for the Attic rhyepor. 
"Opvé (Lu. 13:34) is called Western by Hort, though Moulton! 
observes that it has some papyrus support and is like the modern 
Greek (Cappadocian) dpvix. 

(g) ASPIRATION OF CONSONANTS. There is besides some fluc- 
tuation in the aspiration of consonants. See under (d) for the 
double aspirates like ’A¢d¢ia, etc. This uncertainty of aspiration is 
very old and very common in the inscriptions and papyri,”? though 
the N. T. has only a few specimens. W. H. read ‘AxedXdaudy in 
Ac. 1:19, 823 Spm. So faxa (Mt. 5:22), xprn, but caBaxGavei 
(B has -x7r-) in Mt. 27:46. Tevvnoapér is correct; the Syrian 
class has -€@ in Mt. 14:34. W. H. have uniformly Kadapvaoiyn, 
and read Natapeér save in four passages, NatapeO in Mt. 21 : 11; 
Ac. 10:38, and Nafapa in Mt. 4:13; Lu. 4:16. In Lu. 11:27; 
23:29 DFG have pac6oi for waoroi, likewise Nin Rev. 1:13. ’E6v6n 
is read by cursives, Clem., Or., etc., in 1 Cor. 5:7. In ov@eis and 
unOeis after elision of « the 6 has blended with the eis as if it were 
r and become @. It is first found in an inscr. 378 B.c. and is the 
usual form in the pap. in ili/B.c. and first half of ii/B.c. By i/a.p. 
the 6 forms are supreme again (Thack., Gr., pp. 58 ff). Blass? finds 
ovfevos in Lu. 22:35 (ABQT); 2 Cor. 11:8 (RNBMP); ove in Lu. 
2314 (NBT) 7Ac#15:9,(BHGLP): 19227 (NABHP)+:26: 26.(NB)- 
1 Cor. 18 :2 (NABCL); undev in Ac. 27:33 (NAB). But e£ovdevéew 
in the LXX and the N. T. prevails, though W. H. (after BD) read 
éfovdevnf9 in Mk. 9:12. & and ND read the Attic ravéoxeiov, —evs 
in Lu. 10:34 f., but W. H. accept ravéoxetov, —ebs (from d€éxouat). 
Laperra in Lu. 4:26 is the LXX rendering of nD". Tporodopéw 
and rpododopéw are two distinct words, though the MSS. differ 
widely in Ac. 13 : 18, the Neutral and Western supporting rpoz-. 
Hort considers cgupis for orupis right (Mt. 15:37, ete.). It is 
well attested by the papyri.4 W. H. read 68nOporv, not pd8nrpor, 
in Lu. 21: 11. 

(h) VARIABLE FINAL CoNSONANTS. The use of v édedxvoTiKor 
(paragogic v) cannot be reduced to any clear rule. The desire to 
avoid hiatus extended this usage, though it probably originally had 
a meaning and was extended by analogy to cases where it had none. 
Cf. English articles a, an (Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 208). 


1 Prol., p. 45. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 90. 2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 59. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 24; W.-Sch., p. 61. Cf. Meisterh., p. 48, for this 
interaspiration in the old Attic inser. Cf. Mayser, pp. 180 ff. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 45. The Ptol. pap. have both spellings, Deiss., B. S., 
p. 185. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 173. 


990 =A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The same thing is true of movable finals. In the old Attic before 
403 B.c. this movable v was seldom used. It is more frequent in the 
new Attic up to 336 B.c., and most common in the xow7;'vanishing 
again in the modern Greek, as v easily disappears in pronuncia- 
tion. Meisterhans! has an interesting table on the subject, show- 
ing the relative frequency in different centuries. This table 
proves that in the xow7 it came to be the rule to use the movable 
y both before consonants and vowels. This is shown also by the 
inscriptions? and the Ptolemaic papyri. Per contra note the dis- 
appearance of final y in modern Greek vernacular, when not pro- 
nounced (Thumb, Handb., pp. 24 ff.). However, as a rule, this 
movable final vy occurs only with the same classes of words as in 
the Attic as after —o1, éo7i and ¢ in verbs (8d sing. past tenses). 
~The irrational » mentioned as common later by Hatzidakis® is 
rare. The older N. T. MSS. (NABC) are in harmony with the 
kon and have the movable v and s both before consonants and 
vowels with a few exceptions. The later N. T. MSS. seem to 
feel the tendency to drop these variable consonants. Moulton+ 
mentions peitwr (Jo. 5:36) as a good example of the irrational v 
in N. T. MSS. (ABEGMA). Cf. also the irrational.» with the 
subjunctive in the papyri. So éav jv dpoevoy P. Oxy. 744 (i/B.c.) for 
n- see Moulton, Prol., pp. 168, 187, for further examples. The 
failure to use this v was originally most common in pause, some- 
times even before vowels.> Blass® observes that it was only the 
Byzantine grammarians who made the rule that this »v should be 
used before vowels and not before consonants, a rule of which 
their predecessors did not have the benefit, a thing true of many 
other grammatical rules. We moderns can teach the ancients 
much Greek! Since the N. T. MSS.’ show no knowledge of this 
later grammatical “rule,” W. H. follow a mechanical one indeed, 


1 Att. Inschr., p. 114. 

2 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 137, whose table confirms that of Meisterh. 
Cf. also Thieme, Inschr. von Magn., p. 8; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 110, 
with similar table. The pap. agree, Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 137, and 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 236 ff. In the LXX p égerx. occurs before con- 
sonants also. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 22 ff.; Thack., Gr., pp. 134 ff. 
So as to movable s. Cf. péype tudv and péxpis od in LXX. 

3 inl. ete., p. 111, like ioropnOnv 6 vads. Cf. Schweiz., Perg. Inschr., p. 137. 

4 Prol., p. 49. Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec., p. 37. 

5 W.-Sch., p. 62. 8 Groot Ne Pi Gk pelo: 

7 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 147 f.; Gregory, Prol., p. 97 f. In simple truth 
v movable was not so uniform in the earlier Gk. (esp. Thuc.) as the grammars 
imply. . Cf. Maasson, De littera » Graec. parag., 1881, pp. 47, 61. 


-. ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS | 221 


but the only practical guide under the circumstances. They go 
by the testimony of the oldest uncials. Hort gives a considerable 
list of examples where the v is wanting in one or more of the older 
uncials, but where W. H. have », as in dpotow (Mt. 4:6), raow 
(Mt. 5:15), etc. But in Lu. 1:3 éoke is read by NBCD.: In Ac. 
24:27 xarédure 18 Supported by NB. There are about a dozen 
more instances in Hort’s long list of alternative readings where 
W. H. prefer the form without v, rather more frequently after o, 
than after «1 W. H., however, have etxoo. everywhere, as was 
usually the case in the Attic inscriptions and always in the Ptole-+ 
maic papyri and the LXX MSS. both before vowels and con- 
sonants.2, So éumpoobev, éEwhev, dricOev in the N. T. Likewise 
mépvot is correct in 2 Cor. 8:10; 9: 2.3 

The variable s calls for a few words more. All good MSS. give 
dvrixpus Xiov in Ac. 20:15.4— But as in Attic, the N. T.. MSS. 
usually have axpc and péxpe even before vowels. "“Axpe (always 
before consonants) thus precedes vowels some fifteen times, and 
once only do we certainly® have axpis (Gal. 3:19), though it is 
uncertain whether it is followed by day or od. Mexpi is always used 
in the N. T. before a consonant and once before a vowel, weéexpe 
"Iwavov (Lu. 16:16). The early N. T. editors used to print otrw 
before consonants and ottws before vowels, but W. H. print ottws 
196 times before consonants and vowels and only ten times otrw 
(all before consonants). These ten instances are Mk. 2:7; Mt. 
aU ence lot); 2611s Ror lslb; 6219 tPhe3al/;Heb. 
IZ Rev 1618. 

(1) METATHESIS. ®acdovns (2 Tim. 4:13), Latin paenula. See 
Additional Notes. 

IV. Breathings. 

(a) ORIGIN OF THE ASPIRATE. As is well known, in the mod- 
ern Greek no distinction is made in pronunciation between spiri- 
tus asper and spiritus lenis, or rvedua dacb and rvedua Yrrov. That 


1 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19; Gregory, Prol., p. 97. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 328, and references there given. Cf. Thack., 
Cr Apel: 

3 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 19) quotes Attic usage for répvow before vowels. 

4 For the Hom. déyrixpv and further items see W.-Sch., p. 63 and note. 
"Avtixpus (katravrixpt) in Attic is ‘downright,’ not ‘over against’ (Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 20). Cf. for the pap. Mayser, Gr., pp. 242 ff. 

5 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 148. But W. H. read axprs ob in Heb. 3 : 13, else- 
where axpce ov. For further discussions of éxpc and pexps see W.-Sch., p. 63 note. 

6 For illustrations from the xow7 inser. see Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 112. 
Cf. Reinhold, p. 37 f. 


22) A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is to say, the “rough” breathing is only a conventional sign used 
in writing. This sign is indeed a comparatively modern device, 
‘ and ’, in use in the MSS. generally since the eleventh century 
A.D This form was an evolution from H (Phoenician H, he), 
then f and 4, then L and 4.2. This breathing (rough or smooth) 
did not find a place in the Greek alphabet, and so is not found in 
the early uncial MSS. It becomes therefore a difficult question 
to tell whether the modern ignoring of the rough breathing was 
the rule in the first century A.D. The MSS., as Hort® points out, 
are practically worthless on this point. The original use of H as 
equal to h or the rough breathing was general in the old Attic 
and the Doric, not the Aolic and Ionic. And even in the Attic 
inscriptions the usage is very irregular and uncertain. Numerous 
examples like HEKATON occur, but some like HEN also, so that 
even H was not always rough.t The modern English cockneys 
have no monopoly of trouble with h’s. In French h is silent as 
Vhomme. The Greeks always found the matter a knotty prob- 
lem. The use of H=y in the Ionic and Attic (after 403 B.c.) 
left the Greeks without a literary sign for h. The inscriptions 
show that in the vernacular H continued to be so used for some 
time. 

(b) INCREASING DE-ASPIRATION (Psilosis). But there was a 
steady decrease in the use of the h sound. The Ionic, like the 
Aolic, was distinguished by psilosis, and the xow7 largely® fol- 
lowed the Ionic in this respect. More certain is the use of the 
aspirated consonants x, 0, ¢, which succeeded the older KH, TH, 
IIH. But certainly the rough breathing was in early use as the 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 63. The marking of the rough breathing was 
general in the earlier forms in vii/A.D., ib., p. 65. 

2 Cf. Bekker, Anec., II. 692, and Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 63. 

3 Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 310. Cf. also Sitterley, Praxis in MSS. of the Gk. 
Test., 1898, p. 32. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 25 f., for remarks on breath- 
ings in the LXX MSS., where A£olic and Ionic psilosis occur in ér’ 6500 
kat’ éva as Well as exx. of aspirated consonants like kad’ é6@8adpobs, kab’ écavror, 
ép’ eldev, not to mention obk éwpdxaow and ovx téov. For further remarks on 
breathings in the LXX see Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 302. 

* Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 81, 91. The stop for the opening of the 
glottis (lenis) easily becomes breathed (rough). Cf. also Thumb, Unters. 
tiber d. Spir. Asper. im Griech., 1888, p. 63. 

® Cf. Thumb., p. 73 f. The Laconic Gk. used H in interaspiration as well 
as at the beginning (ib., p. 8). Dawes (Pronun. of the Gk. Aspirates, 1894, 
p. 103) is not able to reach a final decision as to whether the Gk. aspirates are 
genuine aspirates like the Sans. according to Brugmann, Curtius, etc. 

6 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 91. On the whole subject of the aspirated 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 223 


inscriptions show, though not with much consistency.! Some- 
times the rough breathing may be due to the disappearance of a 
digamma, though sometimes a smooth breathing displaces it, as 
épyov from Fépyov? (cf. English ‘work’). Then again the disap- 
pearance of o has the same result, as icapos=tepés.? It is not strange 
therefore that usage in the xow7 is not uniform. Examples like 
im’ abrod, bd’ abrod, oik éwpSper, etc., appear in the Pergamum in- 
scriptions, not to mention xa’ éros, xa’ idtay, etc. The same 
story of uncertainty is told elsewhere in the xow7 as in Magnesia,® 
Herculaneum.’ Some of this variation is probably due to anal- 
ogy,’ so that though “de-aspiration was the prevailing tendency,” ® 
yet the N. T. shows several examples in the opposite direction. 
(c) VARIATIONS IN THE MSS. (Aspiration and Psilosis). The 
aspiration of the consonants x, 7, 7 in case of elision is therefore 
a matter of documentary evidence ® and occurs in the case of arti, 
émi, Kata, pera, ovk, bro. The N. T. MSS. vary considerably among 
themselves as in the LXX, though some like D in the Gospels 
and Acts are wholly untrustworthy about aspiration.!? In general 
Attic literary usage cannot be assumed to be the xowy vernacular. 
Hort" prefers ‘Adpauuyrnvos (Ac. 27: 2) like Hadrumetum. ’Adodaw 
(1 Cor. 9:9 f.; 1 Tim. 5:18) is connected with a@dws or ddwf and 
may be compared with amndwwrns (jdv0s)." Hort (p. 144) prefers 
— @dvots (Mk. 5:3), but etdAccpuns and eidArccpwia, though efd\. has 
ancient authority. ’Adedmifovres is read by DP in Lu. 6:35 
and the LXX has several similar instances," not to mention one 


consonants see Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 194 ff., and for the dialects and 
interaspiration see K.-Bl., Bd. I, pp. 107-114. 

1 Cecil Bendall, Jour. of Philol., 1904, pp. 199 ff. 

2 R. Weiss, De Dig. etc., 1889, p. 47. Cf. also Paues, De Dig. Hesiodes 
Quest., 1887, p. 48. 

3 Cf. Sommer, Griech. Lautstudien, 1905, p. 2. On metathesis in aspiration, 
as éxw (€xw), see Meisterh., p. 102, exx. of éyw in Attic inscr. v/B.c. See also 
article by Pernot in Rev. des Et. Grq., 1906, pp. 10-23, on La Métathése 
dans les Dial. de Chio. 

4 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr. etc., pp. 116 ff. The Attic had only ié.os, but 
éoprn (Meisterh., p. 87). 5 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 83. 

6 Crénert, Mem. Graec. Hercul., p. 152 f. 

7 Thumb, Hellen. etc., p. 64. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p.44. Cf. also for the inscr., Dittenb., ép’ éros (458. 71), 
xa0’ idiay (233. 49), and for the pap., Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901 (pp. 33, 434) and 
1904 (p. 106). Cf. also Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 312. 

2 Ahoy oh 2530 be 10 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. 

1 Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 313; App., p. 160. 

122 W.-Sch., p. 40. 48 Gregory, Prol., p. 91; Thack., p. 125. 


224. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Hermas and in the Attic! In Ro. 8: 20 W. H. accept é¢’ 
é\riét, while various MSS. support it in Ac. 2:26; 1 Cor. 9:10; 
Ro. 4:18; 5:2; Tit. 1:2, and FG have xa@’ é\rida in Tit. 3:7. 
Hort2 thinks this is due to digamma, dropped as well as in the case 
of adidw (Ph. 2: 23), but analogy to ag¢opaéy may be the explana- 
tion’ "Edide is read by a few MSS. in Ac. 4:29 as éptdey in 
Lu. 1:25. Gregory‘ gives many examples of ad-, é¢-, xa$— with 
é\rifw and efdov in the LXX. W.H. offer odx dod as an alternative 
reading in Ac. 2:7, while B reads odx tddvres in 1 Pet. 1: 8 and obdx 
eldov in Gal. 1:19. A has ody dfeo#e in Lu. 17:22. W. H.*® put 
obx ‘Iovéaikds in the margin in Gal. 2:14. Kaé’ idiay appears in & 
once, in B eight times, in D three times, in A once (Mt. 14: 23; 17: 
1,19; 20:17; 24:3; Mk. 4:34; 6:31; 9:28; 13:3). But W. H. no- 
where accept it, not even when B combines with 8 or D. NB have 
it in Mt. 24:3. The form xa’ fSiav is common in the xow7 inscrip- 
tions and the papyri. Kaéetéwdov is read by M in Ac. 17: 16. On the 
other hand xaé’ éros, So common in the xown (cf. Latin vetus), is 
not found in the N. T., all MSS. in Lu. 2:41 reading xar’ éros. 
Hort® considers otk éornxev (Jo. 8:44) to be merely the imperfect 
indicative of ornxw. So also as to éornxey in Rev. 12:4. N has 
édiopxnoes in Mt. 5:33, a form common in the Doric inscrip- 
tions.’ DP have édlopxos in 1 Tim. 1:10. In Rev. 12:11 A 
reads obx Wyarnoev, while obx 6dtyos is read in the LXX and pa- 
pyri as well as a number of times in Ac. (12:18 by NA, 14: 28 
by &, 17:4 by B, 19:23 by NAD, 19:24 by &, 27:20 by A). 
In Ac. 5:28 D has édayayetv. W.H. print on the other hand 
amoxatioravee IN Mk. 9:12 rather than dzoxatracrave though with 
hesitation. So likewise W. H. give ézicrara: instead of édicrarat 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 16. Cf. Thumb, Unters. d. Spir. Asper, p. 65. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 148. 

§ Moulton, Prol., p. 44; Thumb, Spir. Asper, p. 71. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 
Mar., 1910, p. 53) now says: “I am quite willing to be convinced that the 
long-lost digamma was an accessory here if no better explanation turns up.” 
Thumb (Spir. Asper, pp. 11, 71) admits the possibility of the digamma ex- 
planation in some cases. 4 Prolp.91; 

5 Cf. Intr. to Gk. N.T., p. 313 f., where Hort really favours ody ‘Iovs. and 
the rough breathing for all the forms of ’Iobéas, ’Iovéatos, etc. For the varia- 
tions in the LXX MSS. see Thack., p. 125. 

SsIntr. (to Gk Nes Lenses | 

7 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 363. For this transfer of aspiration cf. 
Curtius, Gk. Verb, II, 109. Nestle (Am. Jour. of Theol., July, 1909, p. 448) 
urges that, since the Gk. of the Bible is an “east-west language,’ attention 
must be paid to oriental tongues. He notes that the Coptic has aspiration in 
helpis, hisos, for édzris, ioos, § Notes on Orth., p. 168. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 225 


in 1 Th. 5:3 (like B in Sap. 6 : 8), a wholly unusual! absence of 
‘aspiration in compounds of tornmw. For the LXX phenomena 
see Thackeray, Gr., p. 127f. It is wholly doubtful whether dyei- 
powat OF duetpouae is right (1 Th. 2:8). Ovx edpov in some MSS. 
in Lu. 24:3, and otk &vexev in 2 Cor. 7: 12, Blass? considers as cler- 
ical errors, though they are common in the LXX and in the in- 
scriptions.2 N.T. MSS. (late cursives) even have airéw, daTewr, 
dxAos, etc. For pnfeis, oifets see this chapter 111, p. 219, the Inter- 
change of Consonants and chapter on Pronouns, pp. 750 f. 

(d) TRANSLITERATED Semitic Worps. The aspirate in the 
case of transliterated Semitic words (chiefly proper names) causes 
some difficulty. Blass* calls it “insoluble,” though he accepts 
Hort’s practice as rational,® expressing & and Y by the smooth 
breathing and J and ff by the rough breathing. The MSS. dis- 
agree and are not consistent, but Blass calls the result of this 
procedure “strange.” Hence Hort argues for “AGed (77), “ABpadu 
(N), "AyaBos (YP), “Avap (77), ‘AxeAdauax (FI), dAAnrAovia (77), “AAdaitos 
(ft), ‘Avavias (773), “Avva (fF), ‘Aperas (FT), “Apeuabata (77), “Ap Mayedav 
(17), EBép (J), EBpatos (Jf), "EBpais (Y), EBpaicri (J),° Edcoaios (Y), 
"Eduaday (N), eXwt (N), “Eupop (F71), “Evox (F7, but Eves, &), ‘Eppa 
(77, but ’Eovel, &), Eva (FI), pret (N), but ‘Hre! (77), “Hrelas (N), “Ho 
(Y), voowmos (N),7 woavvd (77), ‘Qoné (71). Hort® gives, moreover, 
the smooth breathing to all names beginning with % as ’Hoaias. 
Besides he considers it a “false association’ ® to connect. ’Iepeuias, 
Tepecxw, "lepooddupa (—peirns), "lepovoadnu with fepds, though Blass 
retains ‘Iepoco\vya rather inconsistently.” 

(e) THe Use or BREATHINGS WITH p AND pp. W. H. follow 
Tischendorf and Lachmann in dropping the breathings in pp as in 
a&ppnra (2 Cor. 12:4), though retaining the rough breathing with 
initial p as in pyyata (1b.). Winer!! argued that the Romans 
heard an aspiration with pp, since they used Pyrrhus, Tyrrhenus, 
etc. W.H. seem justified in using the smooth breathing with the 
first p in the word pepayticuevor (Heb. 10 : 22) by old Greek cus- 


1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144. 3 W.-Sch., p. 39. 

7A GTO IN: sue ke .L0: <i OF NL sGkep, 10; 

’ Hort, Intr. to N. TI. Gk., p. 313.. Cf. also Gregory, Prol., p. 106 f., for 
list of these words. 

6 Strange as it may seem, “ Hebrew” rather than “Ebrew”’ is modern (Hort, 
Tite tak eNO La) 

7 Hort (Notes, etc., p. 144), however, merely follows custom and prints toc. 

SSlitr, PON s) crks, Daolo. ° Ib. 

10° Gr. of NT. Gk., p. 16, Cf. Helbing, Gr, d. Sept., p. 30.f, 

11 W.-M., p. 53. 


226 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tom.! The MSS., of course, give no help in the matter. The 
breathing with p is not written in the modern Greek vernacular 
text as in Pallis or Thumb. 

(f) THe QuESTION oF Avrod. This is somewhat knotty. It 
seems clear that as a rule a’7od and not atrod is to be printed in 
the N. T. A number of reasons converge? on this point. The 
older Greek often used ai7vod rather than éavrod as shown by the 
aspiration of the prepositions like a¢’ atrod, etc. In the N. T. 
there is not a single case of such aspiration after elision save in a 
few single MSS. Add to this the fact that the N. T. uses the re- 
flexive pronoun much less than the earlier Greek, “with unusual 
parsimony”’ (Hort). Besides the personal pronouns of the first 
and second persons are frequently employed (Buttmann) where 
the reflexive might have been used. Buttmann urges also the 
point that in the N. T. we always have ceavrod, not cavrod. The 
earliest uncial MSS. of the N. T. and the LXX that use the dia- 
critical marks belong to the eighth century, but they all have 
avrov, not avrod. Even in the early times it was largely a matter 
of individual taste as to whether the personal or the reflexive pro- 
noun was used. Blass (p. 35) indeed decides absolutely against 
airot. But the matter is not quite so easy, for the xow7 inscrip- 
tions give examples of bd’ airod in first century B.c. and a.p.? 
Mayser‘ also gives a number of papyri examples like xa6’ atrod, 
uel’ avtot, bd’ abr&év, where the matter is beyond dispute. Hort 
agrees with Winer in thinking that sometimes airod must be read 
unless one insists on undue harshness in the Greek idiom. He in- 
stances Jo. 2:24, abros dé "Inaots otk ériorevoey adtov atrots, and 
Lu. 23:12, rpovrjpxov yap év €xOpa bvres mpds abrots. There are 
other examples where a different meaning will result from the 
smooth and the rough breathing as in 1 Jo. 5 : 10 (ai7@), 18 (ai- 
tov, avrov), Eph. 1:5 (atrév), 10 (airs), Col. 1:20 (airév), 2:15 
(ai7G). W. H. print atrod about twenty times. Winer leaves the 
matter “to the cautious judgment of the editors.” 

V. Accent. 

(a) Tue Acre or Greek Accent. The MSS. are worth as lit- 
tle for accent as for breathings. The systematic application of 
accent in the MSS., like the regular use of the spiritus lenis, dates 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 40 f. 

* On the whole matter see Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144 f.; W.-M. » D. 188 £.3 
Buttmann, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 111; Blass, Gr. of N. T: Cie 35. 

s Nashra! , Magn. insehee pp. 84, 144; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 161. 

eared Tata Pap., p. 306. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 227 


from the seventh century a.D.! Hort? caustically remarks that 
most modern grammarians have merely worked out “a consistent 
system of accentuation on paper” and have not recovered the 
Greek intonations of voice, though he has little to offer on the 
subject. Chandler* indeed laments that modern scholars scatter 
their Greek accents about rather recklessly, but he adds: “In Eng- 
land, at all events, every man will accent his Greek properly who 
wishes to stand well with the world.’ It is a comfort to find one’s 
accents irreproachable, and Chandler rightly urges that the only 
way to use the accents properly is to pronounce according to the 
accent. The ancients were interested in Greek accent. Herodian 
in his KafoXrxn rpocwdia investigated the accent of 60,000 words, 
but the bulk of his twenty books is lost. Chandler* found most 
help from Gé6ttling, though others have written at length on the 
subject.> There are no accent-marks in the early inscriptions and 
papyri; in fact tradition ascribes the invention of these signs as a 
system to Aristophanes of Byzantium in the third century B.c., 
though the beginnings appear in the preceding century. He and 
his disciple, Aristarchus, made the rules at any rate.” The Alex- 
andrian grammarians developed these rules, which have shown a 
marvellous tenacity even to the present day in the modern Greek, 
though, of course, some words would naturally vary in accent 
with the centuries.2 There is the Harris papyrus of Homer in 
the first century A.D. which has accents, and clearly the word had 
the accent in pronunciation like English long before it was writ- 
ten out. After the fourth century a.p. the use of accentual 
rhythm in Greek in place of quantitative rhythm had a tendency 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 66. Cf. also pp. 507 ff. on the Origin and History 
of Accent. 

ePlntr. 10 Uk N-wk., pe ole 

3 Gk. Accentuation (1881), p. xxiii. sale pas vile 

6 Cf. Meister, Bemerk. zur dorischen Accentuation (1883); Hadley, On the 
Nat. and Theory of the Gk. Accent. (Ess. Phil. and Crit., pp. 110 ff.); Wheeler, 
Die griech. Nominalaccente (1885) ; Bloomfield, Study of Gk. Accent (Am. Jour. 
of Philol., 1883); Wack., Beitr. zur Lehre vom griech. Akzent; Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr. (1900), pp. 150 ff.; K.-BL., I, pp. 317 ff.; for further lit. see Brug- 
mann above. On accent changes in mod. Gk. see Hatz., Einl., pp. 418-440; 
Thumb, Handb., p. 28f. For the accent in the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 24. Here the same MSS. present the same problems that we have 
in the N. T. 

¢ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 62. 7 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 77. 

8 Krumb., Beitr. zu einer Gesch. der griech. Spr., Kuhn’s Zeitschr. fiir 
Sprachl., 1885, p. 521. Cf. also Hatz., Einl. etc., p. 418; Chandler, Gk. Accen- 
tuation, p. v; Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 150. 


928 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


to make the accent rather more stable. “Of all the phonetic 
peculiarities of a language accent is the most important.’”’? The 
earlier use of accents and breathings was probably “for the text 
of poetry written in dialect’’® (cf. our reading-books for children). 
They were not written out “in ordinary prose till the times of 
minuscule writing,’ though Euthalius (a.p. 396) made use of 
them in his edition of the N. T.4 The Christian hymns early 
show signs of changing from tone (pitch) to stress as is the rule in 
modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 6. 

(b) SIGNIFICANCE OF ACCENT IN THE Kowy. In Greek it is 
pitch, not stress, that is expressed by the accent, though in mod- 
ern Greek the accents indicate stress. “In the ancient Sanskrit 
and the ancient Greek the rise and fall in musical tone was very 
marked.’’® In English we are familiar with stress-accent. “ Had- 
ley has ably argued that the compass of tone used by the Greeks 
was a musical fifth, i.e. from C=do to G=sol, involving also the 
intermediate third or E=me.’’® It was nota stronger current of 
breath,’ but a higher musical note that we have. It was in a 
word “das musikalische Moment.’ Hadley (“‘ Nature and Theory 
of Gk. Accent,’ H’ssays Philol. and Crit., p. 111 f.) points out that 
mposwdia comes from a root meaning ‘to sing’ (like the Latin ac- 
centus) and so 6és and Bapis answer to our high and low pitch. 
Giles® thinks that in the original Indo-Germanic language pitch 
and stress-accent were more evenly balanced. ‘The accent singles 
out one syllable sharply and raises it higher than the rest, though 
as a matter of fact each syllable in a word has an accent or pitch 
lower down in the scale. Cf. the secondary accent in the English 
“incompatibility.” The Harris papyrus of Homer even accents 
every syllable in each word.’ Then again “the accent of a sen- 
tence is as much under the influence of a law of some kind as the 
accent of the word.’’!! Language without accent or musical va- 


1 Sophocles, Lex. of Rom. and Byz. Period, p. 48. 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 91. 3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 14. 

4 Ib. Cf. Gregory, Prol., p. 114, for specimen from Euthalius. 

5 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 92. 

6 Harris, MS. Notes on Gk. Gr. Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 77 f., 
for a discussion of the musical aspect of the matter. 

7 Arnold and Conway, The Restored Pronun. of Gk. and Lat., 1895, p. 18. 

8 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 129. 9 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 94. 

10 Jann. sist. tak sGr.) paoo. 

1 Bloomfield, Study of Gk. Accent, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1883, p. 22. Cf. 
Plato, Crat., 399 A-B. Hirt (Der Indoger. Akzent, 1895, p. 17) contends for 
the two-tone principle. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 7 229 


riety in tone would be hopelessly monotonous and ineffective. 
An instance of the importance of accent and breathings is seen in 
ov ov, Ac. 19: 40. 

(c) Stans or Accent. In practical usage (in our school gram- 
mars) there is only one distinction, the accented syllable and the 
unaccented syllables. The Greeks themselves distinguished the 
pronunciation of the acute and the circumflex. The differ- 
ence is well illustrated by efu: and eiyi. The three signs (acute 
or ofeta, grave or Bapeia, circumflex or epiotwyévn) come to 
symbolize the higher pitch of the accented syllable! Originally 
the accented syllable was marked by the acute and all the unac- 
cented syllables by the grave (merely the absence of the acute), 
but by and by this use of the grave accent was felt to be useless 
and was dropped.2, Then the grave accentual mark of falling in- 
flection was used for the acute when an oxytone word comes before 
another word (not enclitic), though this “grave” accent has the 
pitch of the unaccented syllable. Similarly in contraction of two 
syllables with acute and grave ('‘) arose the circumflex, the grave 
and the acute making acute still. The actual use in pronunciation 
of both acute and grave in the contracted syllable disappeared, so 
that the circumflex in pitch differed little, if any, from the acute. 
The difference, for instance, between the acute in 6nAwoa and the 
circumflex in 6nAdécar was not perceptible in sound. The Greek 
and the Latin agree in having the accent only on one of the three 
last syllables and thus differ from English and French for instance. 
It is not necessary here to go into the rules (not wholly arbitrary) 
which the Greeks developed for the accent of words. In the use 
of unaccented words (proclitics or enclitics) Greek does not. differ 
radically from English. If the Greek has év oixkw, the English has 
“at-home.” If the Greek has eiré wor, the English has “tell-me.’’ 4 

(dq) LATER DEVELOPMENTS IN AccENT. ‘There was not in- 
deed uniformity among the dialects in the use of accent. They 
agreed only in‘the one point of not accenting further back than 
the third syllable from the end. “In other respects the Greek 
dialects show the widest divergencies in their accentuation. The 
two antipodes are AXolic and Doric, which are so closely allied 
phonetically: AZolic throws the accent as far back as possible in 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 66. 2 Ib., pp. 65, 68. 

3 Hadley, Uber Wesen und Theorie der griech. Beton., 1872, pp. 409, 415. 

4 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 96. Giles thinks that words like édepducba 
originally had the accent further back. Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonc¢t., 
p. 80, for Plato’s word of 17 syllables and Aristophanes’ word of 78, 


230 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


all words, e.g. Bacidevs=Baorrels, . . .; Doric, on the contrary, 
faithfully preserves the original oxytone accent. Between these 
two dialects lie Ionic and Attic, which, however, are much nearer 
to Doric than to Aolic. But all the dialects, including Doric, 
observe the rule that, in those forms of the verb which are capa- 
ble of being conjugated, the accent goes back as far as possible.”’! 
AXolic, for instance, has 7 on where the Attic has 7 07. But all 
the dialects? have éyw, éywye. On this point in general see 
Kiihner-Blass, I, pp. 323 ff. The Dorians even had avOparo, 
é\voav, etc. Perfect uniformity was no more possible in Greek 
than in English. The modern Greek preserves the three-syllable 
accent rule. Examples like ériace, é8padvace are not exceptions, 
since the « and v count as consonants. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 28. 
French follows tone like the ancient Greek. Pécheur is ‘fisher,’ 
while pécheur is ‘sinner,’ for example, a difference only in quality, 
not in accent. 

(e) N. T. Pecuniaritres. Where so much is in doubt, ex- 
cessive refinement is certainly not desirable. But the follow- 
ing points call for remark, and Gregory’ can be consulted for the 
actual evidence (very slight) from the N. T. MSS. on the subject 
of accent. D alone among the older uncials has the accent (and 
that the occasional circumflex) save by the hand of a corrector. 

1. Shortening Stem-Vowels. There is quite a tendency in the 
kon towards shortening some of the stem-vowels, especially in 
words in —ua. Hence W. H. do not follow the Attic accent here, 
but that of the xowy, and give us kAiwa, xpiwa, plyya (cf. &vyua), 
Toua, xpicua, though as to xpicua Blass? suggests that yptcua is 
correct because of xpicrds and because B (1 Jo. 2:20, 27) has 
xpetoua. Analogy plays havoc with rules. Herodian® says that 
. and v were usually shortened before —& So W. H. give us xjpvé, 
knpv&ar, ornpiéar (Ro. 16:25), probably gotmé, yotné. Accord- 
ing to Winer-Schmiedel® this rule applies to y also, but W. H. 
and Blass’ do not agree. So W. H. have Odiyis, pivay (Lu. 


1 Henry, Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., Elliott’s transl., 1890, p. 93f. Cf. 
Meister, Bemerk. zur dorischen Accentuation, p. 1. 

2 Cf. Wheeler, Griech. Nom. etc., p. 11, and Wack., Beitr., p. 19. 

3 Prol., p. 99 f. 

* Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 67, for further parallels. Also 
W.-M., p. 57. & Blass: GraorsN Grkee pales Sa Ose 

7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 15. Blass urges that B has @\etyus, but W. H. refuse 
to follow B in matters of orthography. But the Herculaneum rolls here rein- 
force B with ea before y. On the whole subject see Lipsius, Gr. Unters., pp.. 
31 ff.; Lobeck, Parall., pp. 400 ff.; Cobet, N. T. Vatic., pp. xlix ff. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS ea | 


4:35). By parity of reasoning W. H. reject the circumflex ac- 
cent in éAktoat, Aivov, wUpov, omidos, aTvAos, auvTeTpidOar (Mk. 5: 4), 
though cuvrptBov (Lu. 9:39) and oxida (Lu. 11:22). Cf. pidos, 
papyaptrat, viKos, otros, adxov, etc. W. H. read ytxos also. The 
length of v in xtrrw is uncertain; avaxiYoar and mapaxifar usually 
appear in the N. T. W. H. have, however, xpa@fov in Gal. 4:6 
and Aatday in Mk. 4:37. But éorava: (Ac. 12: 14) is right, though 
dpat (Mt. 24:17), @vpcdcar (Lu. 1:9) because of long @. Cf. also 
érdpat (Lu. 18:18), émipadvar (Lu. 1:79), mpaéac (Ac. 26:9), but 
maca (Jo. 7:30). So xaraddoa (Mt. 5:17), carevOtvar (Lu. 1 : 79) 
and kwAdoa (Ac. 10:47). 

2. Separate Words. These are not so easily classified. W. H. 
read ayopato, not aydpator; avtixpus, Not avrixpl; avtimepa, NOt avri- 
mépa(v); amodextos, NOt amodextos but éxAexTos, evAoyNTOs, pLcOwTos; 
apecxia (from dapecxebw), with which compare éplia (from épiHetw) ; 
axpetos (Attic axpeos), as also épnuos (Attic épjuos), éroruos (Attic 
érotuos), mwpos (Attic udpos), duoros (Attic duotos), xAwpds (Attic xAG- 
pos); Bpadutns (3d decl.), but adpdorns (38d decl.); yafoduAdkov, not 
—eiov and eidwdvov, with which compare reAwriov, yAwoodxouov being 
for the earlier yAwoooxomov; déoun, not decun; dterns (Mt. 2: 16), 
not derns (Attic), and so with other compounds of —erys, like 
éxatovtaerns, etc., but éxarovrapxav (Ac. 23:17) is from —dapyns, not 
—apxos; eizov is the imperative (Mt. 18:17), for efrov is only 
Attic, and Charax calls ei7ov Syracusan,! with which one may 
compare ide (i6é only Attic according to the Alexandrian gram- 
marians, though Bornemann urged iéé when verb and ide when 
exclamation) and dae (AaBE only Attic); ApnoKds (Jas. 1: 26), not 
Opjaoxos; idpws (Lu. 22:44), not lps; tuavra (Mk. 1:7), not the 
Attic iuavra; icos, not the Epic tcos?; ixéis (Mt. 7:10), not ixAds; 
oodts (Mt. 3:4), not dcdds; icxis, not icxds; xXeis In Nominative 
singular (Rev. 9:1), though xre7?s (1:18) and xretdas (Mt. 16: 19) 
in accusative plural, etc., with which compare rots (Mk. 9:45), 
not zoids, and ons (Mt. 6:19), not ofjs; xriorns (1 Pet. 4:19), 
not krisTHs, AS yrworns, etc.; KptaTn, not KpyaTn (Lu. 11:33); pwoy- 
hados (Mk. 7:32), not —Addos; wpvdwy (Mt. 24:41) is read only by 
DHM and most of the cursives, uidos being correct; puvpiddwy (—as) 
as in Lu. 12:1; Rev. 5:11, not the Attic pvpiaddv, and so as to 
xiALabwy; dpyua (Ac. 27:28), not dpyua; ota (Mk. 15:29), not 
ova; moiuviov (Lu. 12:32), not romuviov, and rpvBAv.ov in Mk. 14: 20 

1 Cf. W.-M., p. 58. 


2 As shown in W.-M. (p. 60), the N. T. MSS. have éow, not eiow, though eis, 
not és. 


Dow, A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(called no diminutive by some),! but rexviov always; wAnumuvpa (Lu. 
6:48) is preferred by Winer-Schmiedel? as nominative to m)qu- 
ubpns rather than —ubpa; rovnpds always, not zévnpos in the physical 
sense (Rev. 16:2) and zovnpés in the moral (Gal. 1:4); rpdpa 
(Ac. 27:41), not mpwpa; ometpa (Mk. 15:16), not ozeipa; pdrdbapos 
(1 Tim. 5:18), not @dvapés. The compound adverbs éréxewa, trep- 
éxerva have thrown back the accent. 

3. Difference in Sense. With some words the accent makes a 
difference in the sense and is quite important. We have, for in- 
stance, “Ayia, not ayia, in Heb. 9:2. W.H. read adnda, not ada, 
in Jo. 6:23. In Jas. 1:15 W. H. have dzoxvet (from —éw), not 
dzroxver (from —kiw). So W.H. print dpa (interrog.) in Gal. 2:17, 
- not dpa (illative). Avr and ain are easily confused, but W. H. 
prefer airn to airy in Mt. 22:39 (air7 in margin); Ro. 7: 10; 
1 Cor. 7:12; and air7 to atry in Lul2237; 7212; 83422 Ro. 
16:2. In Rev. 2:24 the adjective Ba6éa is correct, not the sub- 
stantive Bdadea (uncontracted from Babos). AeEwodAdBos or deEOda- 
Bos is possible in Ac. 23:23 (cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 69). So 
W. Hz. give us éyxptoa (infinitive) in Rev. 3:18, not éyxpuicae 
(imperative). Cf. also émityunoa (Jude 9), optative, not infinitive 
—joa. Note the difference between doBn6jre (subjunctive) and 
go8nOnre (amperative) in Lu. 12:5. In Jo. 7:34, 36, W. H. prefer 
eiui rather than e?ue (not elsewhere used in the N. T. save in com- 
position with prepositions dz, eis, é&, éri, otv). In Mk. 13:28 
and Mt. 24:32 W. H. have éxdin (present active subjunctive), 
not éxduv# (second aorist passive subjunctive). In Lu. 19:29; 
21:37 W. H. prefer ’Edaév, not ’EXawy (the correct text in Ac. 
1:12, and possibly in Luke also according to the papyri, though 
’EXaava would be the form expected).4 In Mk. 4:8, 20, W. H. put 
ev in the text and & in the margin. “Ev, not éi, occurs with oix 
several times, once (1 Cor. 6:5) otk é& &. In Lu. 9:38, W. H. 
read émiBrevar (infinitive), not ériBAelar (imperative). In 1 Cor. 
5:11 W. H. read 7 (subjunctive), not # (conjunction as Ree.). In 
Ro. 1:30 W. H. follow most. editors in giving @eoorvyeis (pas- 
sive), not deorrbye:s (active sense of the adjective). In Mk. 5: 29 
all editors have the perfect tarar, not the present iérac. In Lu. 
22:30 W. H. read xaéjobe (subjunctive), not xa6ncbe (indicative) 
nor xa$oecbe (future, margin). In. 1 Cor. 9:21 W. H. prefer 
xepdav® (future indicative) to xepdavw (aorist subjunctive), and in 

1 Cf, W.-S.; p. 73. 2 Ib., p. 72. 3 Ib., p 69. 


* Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 69. On accent of the vernac. see Apostolides, 
TAwoorxai Mederar (1906). ; 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 2090 


1 Cor. 6:2 xpwotow (future) to kpivovow (present indicative in 
marg.). In Mk. 12:40 we have pwaxpa, not waxed. In 1 Cor. 3: 14 
W. H. prefer yeve? (future) to weve: (present), and in Jo. 14: 17 they 
have peve. In 1 Cor. 4:15 (14:19) and Mt. 18: 24 no distinction 
can be made in the accent of wvpioe (‘innumerable’) and pdprou 
(‘ten thousand’) because of the cases. Dr. E. J. Goodspeed, of Chi- 
cago University (Expository Times, July, 1909, p. 471 f.), suggests 
apednbns in Mk. 7: 11 instead of adednOfs. It is entirely possible. 
In 1 Cor. 14:7 duws is correct, not 6uds=dyuoiws. In Jo. 18:37 
W. H. give oixody, not otxovy, in Pilate’s question. In Ac. 28:6 
W. H. print wiurpacbar (ue verb), not miumpacbar (w verb). In 
Rev. 17:5 zopvév (feminine) is probably right, not ropywy (mas- 
culine). Ipwrdroxos (Col. 1:15), not mpwrordxos, is manifestly 
right. The difference between the interrogative ris and the in- 
definite ris calls for frequent attention. In Heb. 5:12 W. H. 
have'riva, not tiva, but in Heb. 3:16 rives, not ries, and in 3:17 
tiow, not ticity, while in Mt. 24:41, 1 Th. 4:6, 1 Cor. 15:8 and 
16:16 the article 7é is to be read, not the indefinite tw, which 
form does not occur in the N. T. In 1 Cor. 10:19 ri éoru (twice) 
is not interrogative, but the enclitic indefinite with the accent of 
éotw. In Jas. 3:6 rpoxos (‘wheel’) is properly read, not tpdxos 
(‘course’). In Mk. 4:12 W. H. read ouviwow, not cundcow, as 
ovviovow in Mt. 13:13. Winer! considers the suggestion of dwrdv 
for ¢wrwy in Jas. 1:17 “altogether absurd.” 

4. Enclitics (and Proclitics). Proclitics are regular in the N. T. 
‘The accent of enclitics calls for comment. As arule W. H. do not 
accent them. So we have atrév twas (Mk. 12: 18), efvat twa (Ac. 
5: 36), i600 rues (Mt. 28:11), d60v eiow (Lu. 8:12), dodbveroi éore 
(Mk. 7:18), yap éore (Mk. 18:11), wai dynor (Ac. 10:31; 25: 24). 
However, plenty of cases call for accent on the enclitic, as, for 
example, in ebpety tivas (Ac. 19:1) for emphasis, yap, dnoiv (Heb. 8:5 
andrci. Mtr 14-8; Ac. 25 : 5; 22°26 725: 1 Cor. 6 +16; 2 Cor: 10: 10) 
for clearness in punctuation, xal eiciv (Mt. 19: 12 and ef. Ac. 5: 25) 
for emphasis, Oeod éopev (1 Jo. 3: 2), br6 twadv (Lu. 9:8) likewise, 
ok eiui (JO. 1:'21). In dzov epi (Jo. 7 : 34, 36) the accent is regular, 
though some critics wrongly prefer efu. 

The use of éoriv and éorw demands special comment. When 
unemphatic, not at the beginning of a sentence, not preceded by 
adr’, ei, Kal, obK, STL, TOUT’, Or a paroxytone syllable, as, for example, 
in lovéaiwy éoriv (Jo. 4:22), we have unaccented éorw as in aypds 
éorwy (Mt. 18: 38, 39), xabws éorw (1 Jo. 3:2), etc. In some ex- 

1 W.-M., p. 62. 


234 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


amples of mild emphasis W. H. have éoriv, as in viv éorly (Jo. 
4:23; 5:25), rod éoriy (Mt. 2:2; Mk. 14:14). But the cases 
are numerous where éo7w is correct, as when it is emphatic, and 
expresses existence or possibility, as in eides éorw (Rev. 17 : 18), 
abtod éorw (Ac. 2: 29), ayrov éorw (Ac. 19: 2), 6 eis Eorw (Rev. 
17:10), ovdets Zor (Lu. 1:61; 7:28; 18:29). “Ear is also the 
accent at the beginning of sentences, as in Jo. 21 : 25; 1 Cor. 15: 44; 
1 Jo. 5: 16'f.5 Heb? 11: 1 Gieorizains Colely ova tec ctv 
1:17. Then again we have, according to the usual rule, éo7ru 
after adn’ (Jo. 13 : 10), ef (1 Cor. 15 : 44), cat (Mk. 12 : 11; 2 Cor. 
4°: 3); 8re (2 Th. 24;> Mk 6:55; Heb-91126)s bute orevecriy 
(Ac. 23 : 5) when the idea of existence is not stressed, ovx (1 Cor. 
11 : 20; Ro.8': 9) ete); zoir’ (MKT: 259Ronses8) Wee cive 
only éoriv after zod (Jo. 9:12; 11:57; Mk. 14: 14). 

Sometimes two enclitics come together. Here the critics differ 
and W. H.! do not make clear the reasons for their practice. In 
Ac. 18:15 W. H. have e ris éorw, and in Gal. 6:15 zeptroun re 
éoriv, because they take éorw to be emphatic in both instances. In 
Jo. 6:51 W. H. have capé wou éoriv. But in many examples the 
first enclitic is accented and the second unaccented as in Lu. 8 : 46 
nWato pov tis, 10:29 ris éoriv pov, Jo. 5:14 xetpdv coi mr, 8:31 
padnrat pov éore, 12 : 47 dy Tis wou, 14: 28 pelfwv pot éotw, Ac. 2: 25 
deEvav pov éotw, 25:5 el tri éotw, 25 : 14 avnp ris éorwv, 1 Cor. 10:19 
elOwdOOuTOV TL éoT and eEldwddv Ti éeorw, 11: 24 TodTd pob éatwD, 
2 Cor. 11:16 py tis we, Ro. 3:8 xabws daciy res, Heb. 1:10 
xetpav cov eto, 2:6 6€ rov Tus, Tit. 1:6 & ris €orev. Modern Greek 
only has a second accent when the accent is in the third syllable 
as in 7’ dpyara pas (Thumb, Handbook, p. 29). 

The personal pronouns now have the accent in W. H. and 
now are without it, as 6¢@aduG cod and 6¢0adyod cov (both in 
Mt. 7:4). Cf. also éyw oe (Jo. 17:4), ob we (17:8), but ri eyo 
kat col (Lu. 8 : 28). With prepositions generally the enclitics are 
accented, as év got (Jo. 17: 21), though é€umpoabeév pov and dziaw pou 
(Jo. 1:30 both, and so continually with these two prepositions). 
"Evwrov éuod (Lu. 4:7) and évwmiov pou (Ac. 2 : 25) both appear. 
With the prepositions usually éuod, not pov, occurs as é&vexa éuod 
(Mt. 5:11). It is only with zpés that we have much trouble. 
The N. T. editors have generally printed mpés ce, but W. H. have 
that only in Mt. 25:39, elsewhere mpds cé as in Mt. 26:18. 
Usually we have, according to W. H., zpés ve as in Mt. 25: 36; 
Jo. 6:65; 7:37, etc., and where the “me” is emphatic in sense, 

1 Cf, W.-Sch., p. 77. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 235 


as Mt. 3:14; 11: 28, in the first of which Tisch. and Griesbach 
have mpds we, a usage not followed by W. H., though kept in the 
LXX text of B, as in Is. 48 : 16, etc.1 W. H.a few times prefer 
mpos éue (not enclitic) as in Lu. 1:43; Jo. 6:35, 37 (both ways 
here), 44 (marg.), 45; Ac. 22:8, 13; 23:22; 24:19. Occasionally 
the enclitic vives is found at the beginning of a sentence, as in Mt. 
Bie Af bus62 2; Jo“13 729 Phil :15; Le Lim. 6: 24. 

5.. Proper Names cannot always be brought under rules, for in 
Greek, as in English, men claim the right to accent their own 
names as they will. On the accent of the abbreviated proper 
names see chapter V, v. It is difficult to make a clear line of 
distinction as to why ’Avrimas (Rev. 2 : 13) is proper, but ’Apreuds 
(Tit. 3:12), save that in ’Apreuidwpos the accent was already 
after uw. But cf. KXeoras (Lu. 24:18) and Kidoras (Jo. 19: 25).? 
In general one may say that proper names (geographical and 
personal) throw the accent back, if the original adjectives or sub- 
stantives were oxytone. This is for the sake of distinction. ’Adegav- 
dpwos (Ac. 27:6; 28:11) is the adjective. “Agaos (Ac. 20: 13 f.) 
is doubtless correct, though Pape gives ’Acods also.? In ’Axatkds 
(1 Cor. 16 : 17) the accent is not thrown back nor is it in ’AzoAdws 
(1 Cor. 16: 12). ’Actrvxpitos (Ro. 16: 14) retains the accent of 
the adjective, like Tpodiuos (Ac 20:4) and ‘Tuevacos (1 Tim. 1: 
20). But we have Bddoros (Ac. 12 : 20), Acorpedns (8 Jo. 9), ’Ezai- 
veros (Ro. 16:5), "Epacros (16:23), ‘Epyoyerns (2 Tim. 1: 15), 
Eirvxos (Ac. 20:9), Kapzos (2 Tim. 4:18), probably ’Ovncidopos 
(2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19), Ilarapa (Ac. 21:1), Ilbppos (Ac. 20:4), 
Luvtbxn (Ph. 4:2), Lwobevyns (1.Cor. 1:2), Tiuwy (Ac. 6:5), Ti- 
xixos (Ac. 20:4) Bidnros (2 Tim. 2:17). But Xpiords always re- 
tains the oxytone accent whether proper name (1 Tim. 1:1) or 
verbal adjective (Mt. 16:16). In 2 Tim. 4:21 Aivos, not Atvos, 
is read. So Tiros (2 Cor. 2: 13, etc.). In Ac. 27:17 Zupris is read 
by W. H. But @9ré in Ac. 24 : 22, ete. 

6. Foreign Words. These always give occasion for diversity 
of usage in transliterating them into another tongue. Blass* 
lets the quantity of the vowel in Latin determine the accent in 
the Greek equivalent for Latin words. So Marcus, MGpxos, etc., 
but W. H. do not accept this easy principle and give us Mapkos 
in Ac. 12 : 25, etc., Kpiomos (1 Cor. 1:14), etc. W. H. likewise 


1 Cf. Lipsius, Gr. Unters., p. 61. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 78. 

2 In W.-Sch., p. 74 f., see remarks on the subject. 

3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 73. This word is, of course, not to be confounded with 
déaoov (Ac. 27:13) as Text. Ree. did. *eGre OL“ at Ghar peal, 


9236 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


throw the accent back on Latin names like Kovapros (Ro. 16:23), 
Ipioxidda (Ac. 18:2), Lexouvdos (Ac. 20:4), Tepruddos (24: 2), but 
we have on the other hand Taios (Ro. 16 : 23), not Datos, Ovp- 
Baves (Ro. 16:9), LeAovavds (2 Cor. 1:19), Dkevds (Ac. 19: 14).? 

But not even Blass attempts to bring the Semitic words under 
regular rules. Still, it is true, as Winer? shows, that indeclinable 
Semitic words (especially proper names) have the accent, as a 
rule, on the last syllable, though the usage of Josephus is the con- 
trary, because he generally inflects the words that in the LXX 
and the N. T. are indeclinable. So ’Aapwy, ’ABaddav, ’AB.ia, ’AB.ovd, 
"ABpadu, to take only the first two pages of Thayer’s Lexicon, 
though even here we find on the other side “ABed and ’Afabap. 
If you turn over you meet "“Ayap, ’ Adam, ’Addet, "Adyuetv, “Afwp, etc. 
It is not necessary here to give a full list of these proper names, 
but reference can be made to Lu. 3:23-88 for a good sample. 
In this list some indeclinable words have the accent on the penult, 
as ’Enéfep (29), ZopoBaBer (27), Aduex (36), Parex (35).2 The in- 
flected Semitic words often throw the accent back, as ”“Afwros, 
"ldxwBos, Adgapos. Many of the Aramaic words accent the ultima, 
as ’ABBa, Todyoba, KopBav, ’Edwi, caBaxOavel, etc. For further re- 
marks on the subject see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 26-31. The 
difficulties of the LXX translators are well illustrated here by 
Helbing. 

' VI. Pronunciation in the Kowy. This is indeed a knotty 
problem and has been the occasion of fierce controversy. When 
the Byzantine scholars revived the study of Greek in Italy, they 
introduced, of course, their own pronunciation as well as their 
own spelling. But English-speaking people know that spelling is 
not a safe guide in pronunciation, for the pronunciation may 
change very much when the spelling remains the same. Writing 
is originally an effort to represent the sound and:is more or less 
successful, but the comparison of Homer with modern Greek is a 
fruitful subject.4. Roger Bacon, as Reuchlin two centuries later, 
adopted the Byzantine pronunciation. Reuchlin, who intro- 
duced Greek to the further West, studied in Italy and passed on 
the Byzantine pronunciation. Erasmus is indirectly responsible 
for the current pronunciation of ancient Greek, for the Byzan- 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 75. 2 W.-M., p. 59. 

§ Cf. also Gregory, Prol., p. 102f.; W.-Sch., p.75; Westcott, Notes on 
Orth., pp. 155, 159; Thackeray, pp. 150 ff. 

4 Blass, Ausspr. des Griech., 1888, p. 7. 

$6 Nolan, The Gk. Gr. of Roger Bacon, p. xx. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS Dal 


tine scholars pronounced ancient and modern alike. Jannaris! 
quotes the story of Voss, a Dutch scholar (1577-1649), as to how 
Erasmus heard some learned Greeks pronounce Greek in a very 
different way from the Byzantine custom. Erasmus published a 
discussion between a lion and a bear entitled De Recta Latini 
Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione, which made such an impres- 
sion that those who accepted the ideas advanced in this book were 
called Erasmians and the rest Reuchlinians. As a matter of fact, 
however, Engel has shown that Erasmus merely wrote a literary 
squib to “take off” the new non-Byzantine pronunciation, though 
he was taken seriously by many. Dr. Caspar René Gregory 
writes me (May 6, 1912): “The philologians were of course down 
on Engel and sided gladly with Blass. It was much easier to go 
on with the totally impossible pronunciation that they used than 
to change it.” Cf. Engel, Die Aussprachen des Griechischen, 
1887. In 1542 Stephen Gardiner, Chancellor of the University 
of Cambridge, “issued an edict for his university, in which, e.g. 
it was categorically forbidden to distinguish a from e¢, e and ot 
from ce in pronunciation, under penalty of expulsion from the 
Senate, exclusion from the attainment of a degree, rustication 
for students, and domestic chastisement for boys.’’? Hence 
though the continental pronunciation of Greek and Latin was 
“Erasmian,” at Cambridge and Oxford the Reuchlinian influence 
prevailed, though with local modifications. Geldart,? however, 
complains that at Eton, Rugby and Harrow so little attention 
is paid to pronouncing according to accent that most Greek 
scholars handle the accents loosely. The Classical Review (April, 
1906, p. 146 f.) has the scheme approved by the Philological So- 
cieties of Cambridge and Oxford for “The Restored Pronuncia- 
tion of Latin,” which is the virtual adoption of the Continental 
principle. The modern Greeks themselves rather vehemently in- 
sist that ancient Greek should be pronounced as modern Greek 
is. Miller, for instance, calls the “Erasmian’”’ pronunciation 
“false”? because it treats Greek “as dead.” Geldart (Modern 
Gk. Language in Its Relation to Ancient Gr., p. vii) says: “Mod- 
ern Greek is nothing but ancient Greek made easy.” It is not 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 81f. Cf. Mayser, Gr., pp. 138-151. 

2 Blass, Pronun. of Anc. Gk., Purton’s transl., p. 3. 

3 Guide to Mod. Gk., p. x. 

4 Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr. (pp. 26, 36). In pp. 35-40 he states the case 
against the squib of Erasmus. Cf. Engel (Die Ausspr. des Griech., alt who 
defends the mod. Gk. method, as already stated. 


238 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


quite as simple as that. Foy! properly distinguishes between the 
old Greek vocal sounds and the modern Greek and refers to the 
development of Latin into the several Romance languages. There 
is this difference in the Greek, however, that it has only one 
modern representative (with dialectical variations) of the ancient 
tongue. One must not make the mistake of comparing the pro- 
nunciation of the modern Greek vernacular with the probable 
pronunciation of the literary Attic of the fifth century B.c. Then, 
as now, there was the literary and the vernacular pronunciation. 
The changes in pronunciation that have come in the modern 
Greek have come through the Byzantine Greek from the xo.vy, 
and thus represent a common stream with many rills. The vari- 
ous dialects have made contributions to the pronunciation of the 
xown and so of the modern Greek. In cultivated Athens at its 
best there was a closer approximation between the people and the 
educated classes. “Demosthenes, in his oration sept credavov, 
called Aischines a pcdwrov, but had accented the word erroneously, 
namely, wicOwrov, whereupon the audience corrected him by cry- 
ing w.oOwrdv.”’? Like the modern Italian, the ancient Greek had a 
musical cadence that set it above all other European tongues.’ 
We can indeed appeal to the old Greek inscriptions for the popu- 
Jar pronunciation on many points. According to this evidence 
in the first century B.c. in Attica a.=ae, ee=1, n=t, v=, w=v, o1=t, 
B=v (English v).6 Clearly then in the xow7 the process of ttacism 
was‘already at work before the N. T. was written. What was 
true of the xowf vernacular then does not of course argue conclu- 
sively for the pronunciation of cultivated Athenians in the time 
of Socrates. In versatile Athens “a stranger, if introduced on the 
stage, is always represented as talking the language or dialect of 
the people to which he belongs.”* Blass’? indeed thinks that in 
Tarsus the school-teacher taught Paul Atticistic Greek! “”Icyer, 


1 Lautsystem der griech. Vulgarspr., 1879, p. 83 f. 
2 Achilles Rose, Chris. Greece and Living Gk., 1898, p. 61. 
. §.Cf. Mure, A Crit. Hist. of the Lang. and Lit. of Anc. Greece, I, p. 99; 

Bolland, Die althell. Wortbet. im Lichte der Gesch., 1897, p. 6. Cf. Pronun. 
of Gk. as deduced from Graeco-Latin Biling. Coins. By Cecil Bendall in 
Jour. of Philol., vol. X XIX, No. 58, 1904. Here the rough breathing is 
represented by h, 0=th, ¢=ph. 

4 Thumb, Unters. etc., 1888, p. 1. Cf. Sophocles, Hist. of Gk. Alph. and 
Pronun., 1854. 

6 Télfy, Chron. und Topog. der griech. Ausspr. nach d. Zeugnisse der 
Inschr., 1893, p. 39. 

6 Rutherford, The New Phryn., p. 32. 7 Philol. of the Gosp., p. 9, 


s 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 239 


lore, tcacw, he must have said, are the true forms which you 
must employ if you care to be considered a cultivated speaker or, 
writer.” Yet in Paul’s Epistles he constantly has otéayev, —are, 
—aow. The Atticistic pronunciation was no more successful than. 
the Atticistic spelling, forms and syntax. We may be sure of one, 
thing, the pronunciation of the vernacular xowy was not exactly. 
like the ancient literary Attic nor precisely like the modern Greek 
vernacular, but veering more towards the latter. In Greek as 
in English the pronunciation has perhaps varied more than the 
spelling. Giles! observes that English pronunciation “is really 
a stumbling-block in tracing the history of the English language.” 
Hadley? has a very able and sane discussion of this matter of. 
changes in Greek pronunciation. He insists on change all through. 
the centuries (p. 1389), which is the only rational position. If we 
turn to the earliest N. T. MSS. we shall find undoubtedly traces 
of this process of change from the old Attic toward the Byzantine 
or modern Greek pronunciation. Indeed in the fourth and fifth 
centuries A.D.,?> the date of the earliest uncials, the process is 
pretty well complete. The N. T. scribes make no hesitation in 
writing ac or €; t, €, 7, n; oc or v according to convenience or indi- 
vidual taste.4 Blass,> contrary to his former view about Tarsus, 
says that it is impossible to suppose that there was anybody in 
the schools at Tarsus who would have taught Paul the correct 
historical spelling or pronunciation. To the student of the xoww7, 
as to us, in a sense “the Greek ypayyara were dead symbols, 
from which must be recovered the living sounds.’’® Of one thing 
we may be sure, and it is that other dialects besides the Attic 
contributed to the xowyn pronunciation. The xow would be 
dialect-coloured here and there in its pronunciation. Alexan-_ 
der’s conquest, like the railroad and the steamship of the present 
day, levelled the dialectical variations in many points, whereas 
before every valley in Greece had its own pronunciation of 
certain words.’ One taught the xowy in a Doric environment. 


1 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 103. Cf. also Ellis, Early Eng. Pronun. 
2 “Gk. Pronun.” in Ess. Philol. and Crit., pp. 128-140. 
3 Hatzidakis, Einl. etc. 
4 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 34 f. SpblassyGry ofe Nal. Gk pede. 
6 Nicklin, Cl. Rev., Mar., 1906, p. 116. This is precisely the objection that 
Une (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 33) brings against the ancient grammarians ‘as 
‘‘pnost-Christian scribes” and unable to “speak with authority of the pro- 
nunciation of classical Greek.” 
7 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 75. Cf. Oppenheim und Lucas, Bys. 
Zeitschr., 1905, p. 13, for exx. of Bharetic spelling. 


240 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


would show it somewhat. As a matter of fact the Boeotian 
dialect contributed largely to the xowy vernacular pronunciation 
(and so the modern Greek) in points where the Beeotian differed 
radically from the old Attic... Boeotian Greek ‘‘modified its 
vowel-system more than any other Greek dialect.”? Thus 
already in Boeotian we find both a and ae in the earliest in- 
scriptions and finally 7. So in Boeotian n became?’ e: in sound, 
as émiel=éreidn. The early Greek generally, as already shown, 
made no distinction in sign between o and w, and 7 was a slow 
development from €. ‘The Ionic dialect never took kindly to 
the rough breathing and greatly influenced the xow7n and so the 
modern Greek. By the Christian era 8 is beginning to be pro- 
nounced as v, as the transliteration of Latin words like Bepyidtos 
shows. Z is no longer ds, but z, though 6 seems still usually d, 
not th. Who is right, therefore, the ‘‘Krasmians” or the Reuch- 
linians? Jannaris* sums up in favour of the Reuchlinians, while 
according to Riemann and Goelzer® the “‘ Erasmians” are wholly 
right. As a matter of fact neither side is wholly right. In 
speaking of ancient Greek one must recognise other dialects 
than the literary Attic of the fifth century B.c. If you ask for the 
pronunciation of the vernacular xowy of the first century A.D., 
that will be found as a whole neither in the literary Attic alone 
nor in the N. T. MSS. of the fifth century a.p. The papyri and 
the inscriptions of the time throw light on a good many points, 
though not on‘all. But even here the illiterate papyri do not fur- 
nish a safe standard for the vernacular of a man like Paul or 
Luke. It is small wonder therefore that N. T. MSS. show much 
confusion between —cea (future indicative) and op (aorist subjunc- 
tive), —owev (indicative) and —wyuey (subjunctive), —c@a (infinitive) 
and —o6e (indicative middle), etc. It is possibly as well to go on 
pronouncing the N. T. Greek according to the literary Attic, since 
we cannot reproduce a clear picture of the actual vernacular 
xown pronunciation, only we must understand frankly that this 


1 Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 41. 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 540. ~ 

3 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 41, 46. Thumb (Hellen., p. 228) warns 
us against overemphasis of the Bceotian influence. 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 31. ‘The pronunciation of ancient Gk. in the manner 
of the present Greeks had been traditionally accepted at all times, before 
and through the Middle Ages, as a matter of unquestioned fact.” 

6 Phonét., p. 56. ‘‘En résumé, la prononciation grecque ancienne était, 
sur presque tous les points, différente de la prononciation moderne.” 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS DAL 


is not the way it was done. On the other hand the modern Greek 
method misses it by excess, as the literary Attic does by default. 
There was, of course, no Jewish pronunciation of the xown. The 
Coptic shows the current pronunciation in many ways and prob- 
ably influenced the pronunciation of the xown in Egypt. Cf. a 
German’s pronunciation of English. 

VII. Punctuation. In the spoken language the division of 
words is made by the voice, pauses, emphasis, tone, gesture, but 
it is difficult to reproduce all this on the page for the eye. Many 
questions arise for the editor of the Greek N. T. that are not easy 
of solution. Caspar René Gregory insists that whenever N. T. 
MSS. have punctuation of any kind, it must be duly weighed, 
since it represents the reading given to the passage. 

(a) THE ParacrapH. As early as Aristotle’s time the para- 
graph (xapaypados) was known. A dividing horizontal stroke was 
written between the lines marking the end of a paragraph. Some 
other marks like > (6:74) or 7 (kopwvis) were used, or a slight 
break in the line made by a blank space. Then again the first 
letter of the line was written larger than the others or even made 
to project out farther than the rest... The paragraph was to the 
ancients the most important item in punctuation, and we owe a 
debt to the N. T. revisers for restoring it to the English N. T. 
Cf. Lightfoot, Trench, Ellicott, The Revision of the N. T., 1873, 
p. xlvi. Euthalius (a.p. 458) prepared an edition of the Greek 
N. T. with chapters (ke¢dadara), but long before him Clement of 
Alexandria spoke of zepixorai and Tertullian of capitula. These 
“chapters” were later called also ritXo..2 The orixos of Kuthalius 
was a line of set length with no regard to the sense, like our prin- 
ter’s ems. W.H. have made careful use of the paragraph in their 
Greek N. T. The larger sections are marked off by spaces and 
the larger paragraphs are broken into smaller sub-paragraphs 
(after the French method) by smaller spaces.* Another division 
is made by W. H. in the use of the capital letter at the beginning 
of an important sentence, while the other sentences, though after 
a period, begin with a small letter. This is a wholly arbitrary 
method, but it helps one better to understand W. H.’s interpre- 
tation of the text. 


1 On the paragraph see Thompson, Handb. of Gk. and Lat. Palxog., 
pp. 67 ff. Occasionally the double point (:) was used to close a paragraph. 

2 Cf. Warfield, Text. Crit. of N. T., pp. 40 ff. 

’ Hort, Intr. to Gk. N. T., p. 319. For the orixos see further Gregory, 
Prolipp.l12.1, 


Dab) A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


W. H.! have also printed in metrical form passages metrical in 
rhythm like the Magnificat of Mary (Lu. 1: 46-55), the fragment 
of a hymn in 1 Tim. 3:16, ete., while Lu. 2:14 and the non- 
metrical hymns in Revelation are merely printed in narrower 
columns. The Hebrew parallelism of O. T. quotations is indicated 
also. 

(b) SenrTENcES. The oldest inscriptions and papyri show few 
signs of punctuation between sentences or clauses in a sentence,’ 
though punctuation by points does appear on some of the ancient 
inscriptions. In the Artemisia papyrus the double point (:) occa- 
sionally ends the sentence. It was Aristophanes of Byzantium 
(260 B.c.) who is credited with inventing a more regular system 
of sentence punctuation which was further developed by the 
Alexandrian grammarians.‘ As a rule all the sentences, like the 
words, ran into one another in an unbroken line (scriptura con- 
tinua), but finally three stops were provided for the sentence by 
the use of the full point. The point at the top of the line (°) (arrypy 
tedeia, ‘high point’) was a full stop; that on the line (.) (rogrvyun) 
was equal to our semicolon, while a middle point (orryu) péon) 
was equivalent to our comma.® But gradually changes came over 
these stops till the top point was equal to our colon, the bottom 
point became the full stop, the middle point vanished, and about 
the ninth century A.D. the comma (,) took its place. About this 
time also the question-mark (;) or épwrnuarixoy appeared. These 
marks differed from the orixo. in that they concerned the sense 
of the sentence. Some of the oldest N. T. MSS. show these marks 
to some extent. B has the higher point as a period, the lower 
point for a shorter pause.® But still we cannot tell how much, if 
any, use the N. T. writers themselves made of punctuation points. 
We may be sure that they did not use the exclamation point, 
the dash, quotation-marks, the parenthesis, etc.’?. Parenthetical 
clauses were certainly used, which will be discussed elsewhere, 
though no signs were used for this structure by the ancient 
Greeks. W. H. represent the parenthesis either by the comma 
(Ro. 1:13) or the dash with comma (1 Tim. 2:7). Instead of 


1 ‘Intri to GkeaNetl pe olOt 3’ Thompson, Handb., ete., p. 69. 

2 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 62. 4 Ib., p. 70; Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 67. 

5 I follow Thompson (Handb., etc., p. 70) on this point instead of Jannaris 
(pp. 63 and 67), who makes the brooreyuj =Our comma. 

6 Cf. Gregory, Prol., pp. 345, 348; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. D has 
the orixo. in the way of sense-lines (Blass, ib.). 

7 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 67. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 243 


quotation-marks W. H. begin the quotation with a capital letter 
with no punctuation before it, as in Jo. 12:19, 21. One way of 
expressing a quotation was by 76, as in Ro. 13:9. In the case 
of O. T. quotations the Scripture is put in uncial type (Jo. 12 : 18). 
The period (zepiodos) gives very little trouble to the modern edi- 
tor, for it is obviously necessary for modern needs. Here the 
editor has to make his interpretation sometimes when it is doubt- 
ful, as W. H. give &. 6 yeyover &, not & 6 yeyover. &v (Jo. 1:4). So 
W. H. read @davyatere. 61a TrotTo Mwvo7s in Jo. 7:22, not davuatere 
' 61a todTo. Mwvofs, etc. The colon (x&dov),! ‘limb of the sentence’ 
formed a complete clause. See Jo. 3:31 for example of use of 
colon made by W. H. The comma (xouua) is the most common 
division of the sentence and is often necessary, as with the voca- 
tive. So Avédackare, ti romnowpev; (Lu. 3:12) and many common 
examples. In general W. H. use the comma only where it is 
necessary to make clear an otherwise ambiguous clause, whether 
it be a participial (Col. 2:2) or conjunctional phrase (Col. 1 : 28), 
or appositive (Col. 1:18), or relative (Col. 2:3). The first chap- 
ter of Colossians has a rather unusual number of colons (2, 6, 14, 
16, 18, 20, 27, 28) as Paul struggles with several long sentences, 
not to mention the dashes (21, 22, 26). The Germans use the 
comma too freely with the Greek for our English ideas, leaving 
out the Greek! Even Winer defended the comma after kapzov in 
Jo. 15:2 and 6 uxév in Rev. 3:12, not to mention Griesbach’s 
“excessive” use of the comma, Winer himself being judge.2, My 
friend, Rev. 8S. M. Provence, D.D. (Victoria, Tex.), suggests a full 
stop before yadwy in Ac. 23 :27f. That would help the character 
of Claudius Lysias on the point of veracity. 

(c) Worps. The continuous writing of words without any 
space between them was not quite universal, though nearly so.? 
The oldest Attic inscription (Dipylon vase, probably eighth cen- 
tury B.C.) is written from right to left. With the common method 
it was not always easy for the practised eye to distinguish between 
words. Hence there arose the dvacrodn or brodvacToAn, A COMMA 
used to distinguish between ambiguous words, as 6, 7, not 67. 
But W. H. make no use of this mark, not even in 4, 7: to dis- 
tinguish it from the conjunction é7. They print uniformly é7c 
(Lu. 10:35; Jo. 2:5; 14:18; 1 Cor. 16:2, ete.), not to men- 


1 Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 81. So Suidas. The colon is the main semi- 
division of the sentence, but mod. Eng. makes less use of all marks save the 
period and comma. 

2.W.-M., pp. 63, 67. ’ Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 67. 


944 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tion doubtful cases like those in Mk. 9:11, 28; Jo. 8:25; 2 
Cor. 3: 14.1 As to the marks of dizresis (") reference may be had 
to the discussion of diphthongs and dizresis in this chapter under 
i (i). W.H., like other modern editors, use the apostrophe (’) (or 
smooth breathing) to represent elision, as am’ apxfs (Mt. 24: 21)? 
The coronis is the smooth breathing used also to show when crasis 
has taken place, as in xayot (Lu. 1:3).3 The hyphen, a long 
straight line, was used in the Harris-Homer MS. to connect com- 
pound words, but it is not in the N. T.4 The editors vary much 
in the way such words as aAAa ye, tva Ti, TodT’ éort, etc., are printed. ' 
The MSS. give no help at all, for rotro 6€ éorw in Ro. 1: 12 is not 
conclusive against tob7’ éorv elsewhere.> W.H. prefer adda ye (Lu. 
24:21; 1 Cor. 9:2), dpa ve (Ac. 8:30), dia ye (Lu. 11:8; 18: 5), 
el ye (2 Cor. 5:3, etc.), kai ye (Ac. 2: 18; 17:27), ds ye (Ro. 8:32), 
dua wavros (Mk. 5: 5, ete.), dua vt (Mt. 9: 11, etc.), va ri (Mt. 9: 4, 
etc.), ef mws (Ac. 27:12), un wore (everywhere save in Mt. 25:9 
where pnrore), un mov (Ac. 27: 29), un rus (1 Cor. 9: 27, ete.), un 
tus (1 Cor. 16:11, etc.). So also 6qdov dre in 1 Cor. 15: 27, darts 
ow (Mt. 18:4). But on the other hand W. H. print 6:67: as well 
as ire, ore, unte, Wore, Kalwep, pnmore (ONCE), mNderoTeE, unde, 
OvSETOTE, MNKETL, OVKETL, UNTW, OUTW, pNTLye, even unye (Mt. 6:1), 
Kaba, Kad, Kabws, KaDamep, KaBOTL, KaMddOV, GoTEp, Wael, Womepei (1 Cor. 
15:8), etc. But W. H. give us xa@’ eis in Ro. 12 : 5, ava peéoov in 
Mt. 13:25, etc.; xara wovas in Mk. 4:10, xaé’ dcov in Heb. 3: 3. 
Adverbs like éréxewva (Ac. 7 : 48), brepexerva (2 Cor. 10: 16), tapexros 
(2 Cor. 11: 28) are, of course, printed as one word. W. H. prop- 
erly have imep eyo (2 Cor. 11:28), not trepeyw. In Ac. 27:33 
TecoapeckatoeKatos 1S one word, but W. H. have ‘Iepa HoXrs in Col. 
4:13 and Néa rods in Ac. 16:11. It must be confessed that no 
very clear principles in this matter can be set forth, and the effort 
of Winer-Schmiedel® at minute analysis does not throw much light 
on the subject. 

(d) Tur Epiror’s PREROGATIVE. Where there is so much con- 
fusion, what is the editor’s prerogative? Blass’ boldly advances 


1 W.-Sch., p. 35. 

2 See this ch. 11 (k) for discussion of elision. For origin and early use of 
the apostrophe see Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 73. . 

3 See this ch. m (J) for discussion of crasis. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 
p. 88. 4 Thompson, Handb., etc., p. 72. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 14. For the usage of Tisch. in the union and 
the separation of particles see Gregory, Prol., pp. 109-111. In most cases 
Tisch. ran the particles together as one word. ~ % Paso: 

’ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 17. Left out by Debrunner. 


ORTHOGRAPHY AND PHONETICS 245 


the German idea: “The most correct principle appears to be to 
punctuate wherever a pause is necessary for reading correctly.” 
But Winer! shrinks from this profusion of punctuation-marks by 
the editors, which “often intruded on the text their own interpre- 
tation of it.” The editor indeed has to interpret the text with 
his punctuation, but certainly good taste demands that the mini- 
mum, not the maximum, of punctuation-marks be the rule. They 
must of necessity decide “a multitude of subtle and difficult 
points of interpretation.”? Hort indeed aimed at “the greatest 
simplicity compatible with clearness,’’ and this obviously should 
be the goal in the Greek N. T. But the editor’s punctuation may 
be a hindrance to the student instead of a help. It is the privi- 
lege of each N. T. student to make his own punctuation. 


1 W.-M., p. 63. 2 Hort,Intr to.Gk. NoI., p. 318. 


CHAPTER VII 
THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIZ) 


Space will not be taken for the inflection of the nouns and pro- 
nouns, for the student of this grammar may be assumed to know 
the normal Attic inflections. Aristotle! used the term “‘inflection”’ 
(rr@ots) of noun and verb and even adverb, but practically inflec- 
tion is applied to nouns and conjugation (kXtous pnuatwv = ov¢vyia) 
to verbs. Noun (évoua) does, of course, include both substan- 
tive and adjective without entering the psychological realm and 
affirming the connection between name and thing (cf. Plato’s 
Cratylus). 


I. THE SUBSTANTIVE (TO "ONOMA) 


The Substantive (76 évoua) is either concrete (cGua) or abstract 
(rpayua), ordinary appellative (dvoua rpoonyopixov) or proper (dvoya 
KUptor). 

1. History of the Reclensinne! It is only since the seventeenth 
century A.D. that modern grammarians distinguish for conveni- 
ence three declensions in Greek. The older grammars had ten 
or more.? In the modern Greek vernacular the first and third de- 
clensions have been largely fused into one, using the singular of 
the first and the plural of the third? Thumb (Handbook, pp. 
43 ff.) divides the declension of substantives in modern Greek 
vernacular according to gender simply (masculine, feminine, 
neuter). This is the simplest way out of the confusion. In San- 
skrit five declensions are usually given as in Latin, but Whitney? 
‘says: “There is nothing absolute in this arrangement; it is merely 
believed to be open to as few objections as any other.”’ Evidently 


1 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 421. It is in the accidence that the practical 
identity of N. T. Gk. with the popular xo.w7 is best seen, here and in the lexical 
point of view (Deissmann, Exp., Nov., 1907, p. 434). 

2, Jann:,, Hist) GkeGre patos, Gilderelll Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 264. 

Phas. eon 105, 111. Cf. Hatzidakis, Einl. etc., pp. 376 ff. 

4 Sang: Crap ae 

246 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI=) be DA. 


therefore the ancient Greeks did not have the benefit of our mod- 
ern theories and rules, but inflected the substantives according to 
principles not now known to us. The various dialects exercised 
great freedom also and exhibited independent development at 
many points, not to mention the changes in time in each dialect. 
The threefold division is purely a convenience, but with this justi- 
fication: the first has a stems, the second o stems, the third con- 
sonant and close vowel (1, v) stems. There are some differences in 
the suffixes also, the third declension having always the genitive 
ending in —-os. In the third declension especially it is not possible 
to give a type to which all the words in all the cases and numbers 
conform. Besides, the same word may experience variations. 
Much freedom is to be recognized in the whole matter of the de- 
clensions within certain wide limits. See metaplasm or the fluc- 
tuation between the several declensions. 

2. The Number of the Cases (ttdoets). The meaning and 
use of the cases will have a special chapter in Syntax (ch. XI). 

(a) THe History OF THE FORMS OF THE CASES. This is called. 
for before the declensions are discussed. The term “‘case”’ (r7Gats,. 
casus) is considered a “falling,” because the nominative is regarded 
as the upright case (r7do.s 6p0n, etOeta), though as a matter of 
fact the accusative is probably older than the nominative (rréats 
dvouactikn or op$y). The other cases are called oblique (Adyar) 
as deviations from the nominative. In simple truth the vocative 
(kAntiKn OY mpocayopevtixn) has no inflection and is not properly a 
case in its logical relations. It is usually the noun-stem or like 
the nominative in form. There are only three other case-endings 
preserved in the Greek, and the grammars usually term them ac- 
cusative (rréots aitiatixyn), genitive (rrdo.s yerixn) and dative 
(rréots dorixn).! There is no dispute as to the integrity of the ac- 
cusative case, the earliest, most common of all the oblique cases 
and the most persistent. In the breakdown of the other cases. 
the accusative and the prepositions reap the benefit. In truth 
the other oblique cases are variations from the normal accusative. 
But this subject is complicated with the genitive and the dative. 
It is now a commonplace in comparative philology that the 
Greek genitive has taken over the function of the ablative (a¢a- 
perixyn) also.- In the singular the Sanskrit had already the same 


1 Mod. Gk. vernac. has only three cases (nom., gen. and acc.) and these 
are not always formally differentiated from each other. The mod. Gk. has 
thus carried the blending of case-forms almost as far as mod. Eng. Cf. Thumb, 
Handb.,, p. 31. 


948 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ending (—as) for genitive and ablative, while in the plural the San- 
skrit ablative had the same form as the dative (bhyas; cf. Latin 
ibus). Thus in the Sanskrit the ablative has no distinctive end- 
ings save in the singular of a stems like kamdat (‘love’) where 
the ablative ending -¢ (d) is preserved. In Latin, as we know, 
the ablative, dative, locative and instrumental have the same 
endings in the plural. The Latin ablative singular is partly 
ablative, partly locative, partly instrumental. Some old Latin 
inscriptions show the d, as bened, in altod marid, etc. In Greek 
the ablative forms merged with the genitive as in the Sanskrit 
singular, but not because of any inherent “internal connec- 
tion between them, as from accidents affecting the outward 
forms of inflection.”’! The Greek did not allow 7 or 6 to stand at 
the end of a word. So the Greek has zpds (not zpor for zpori). 
Kadés may be (but see Brugmann?) the ablative xa\&z and so all 
adverbs in —ws. The meaning of the two cases remained distinct 
in the Greek as in the Sanskrit. It is not possible to derive the 
ablative (source or separation) idea from the genitive (or yévos) idea 
nor vice versa. The Greek dative (do7:xj) 1s even more compli- 
cated. “The Greek dative, it is well known, both in singular and 
plural, has the form of a locative case, denoting the place where 
or in which; but, as actually used, it combines, with the mean- 
ing of a locative, those of the dative and instrumental.’’? This 
is only true of some datives. There are true datives like 666, 
xwpa. The Indo-Germanic stock, as shown by the Sanskrit, 
had originally three separate sets of endings for these cases. 


1 Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Crit., Gk. Gen. or Abl., p. 52. Cf. also Miles, 
Comp. Synt: of Gk. and Lat., 1893, p. xvii. This blending of the cases in 
Gk. is the result of “‘ partial confusion”’ ‘‘ between the genitive and the ablative 
between the dative and the locative, between the locative and the instru- 
mental”’ (Audoin, La Décl. dans les Lang. Indo-Europ., 1898, p. 248). In 
general on the subject of the history of the eight cases in Gk. see Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr., pp. 217-250, 375 f.; Comp. Gr. of the Indo-Ger. Lang., vol. III, pp. 
52-280; Kurze vergl. Gram., II, pp. 418 ff.; K.-Bl., I, pp. 365-3870, II, pp. 
299-307; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 268-301; Bopp, Uber das Dem. 
und den Urspr. der Casuszeichen etc., 1826; Hartung, Uber die Casus etc., 
1831; Hiibschmann, Zur Casuslehre, 1875; Rumpel, Casusl., 1845; Meillet, 
Intr. A ’Etude Comp., pp. 257 ff.; Penka, Die Entst. der Synkr. Casus im 
Lat., Griech. und Deutsch., 1874. See also p. 33 f. of Hiibner, Grundr. zu 
Vorles. tiber die griech. Synt.; Schleicher, Vergl. Griech.; Schmidt, Griech. 
Gr., etc. 

* Brugmann (Griech. Gr., 1900, p. 225), who considers the s in otrws, xrX., 
due to analogy merely, like the s in éyyt-s, xr. But he sees an abl. idea in 
éx-rés. Cf. also obpavd-te like coeli-tus. *% Hadley, Ess. Phil. and Crit., p. 52. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIZ) 249 


The Greek plural uses for all three cases either “the loca- 
tive in —o- or the instrumental forms in —os.’”?! “The forms in 
—as, Latin 1s, from —a stems, are a new formation on the analogy 
of forms from -o stems.’ ’A@nvnou is locative plural. In the 
singular of consonant, « and v stems, the locative ending - is used 
for all three cases in Greek, as vuxri. In the a declension the 
dative ending —a: is the same as locative a+v. The form —a con- 
tracts with the stem-vowel a into a or ny. A few examples of 
the locative -. here survive, as in raat, ’OdvuTla, OnBai-yerns. 
Xapai may be either dative or locative. In the o declension also 
the dative ending —a: is the usual form, contracting with the o 
into w. But a few distinct locative endings survive, like éxe?, 
"IcOuot, olxor (cf. oikw), rot, etc. The Homeric infinitive déuer and 
the infinitive like ¢épew are probably locatives also without the 1, 
while the infinitives in —a (douevat, dodvar, NeAvKEvaL, NETHaL, ADoaL, 
etc.) are datives.4 The instrumental has left little of its original 
form on the Greek singular. The usual Sanskrit is @ Cf. in 
Greek such words as dua, &vexa, tva, pera, mapa, eda, possibly 
the Doric xpv¢a, Lesbian a\\a. Brugmann?® thinks the Laconic 
wn-roxa= Attic mw-rore is instrumental like the Gothic hé (English 
why). Cf. the in “the more the better,” etc. Another Greek suffix 
—g. (Indo-Germanic, bhi) is found in Homer, as Bindu, Bbedduy 
(plural). But this —¢c was used also for ablative or locative, and 
even genitive or dative. It is clear therefore that in Greek the 
usual seven (eight with the vocative) Indo-Germanic cases are 
present, though in a badly mutilated condition as to form. The 
ideas, of course, expressed by the cases continued to be expressed 
by the blended forms. In actual intelligent treatment it is simpler 
to preserve the seven case-names as will be seen later. 

(b) THE BLENDING oF CasE-ENpDINGS. This is a marked pe- 
culiarity of the Indo-Germanic tongues. Neuter nouns illustrate 


1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 287. 

2 Tb., p. 290. For survivals of the dat. —a: see the Rhodian ra: (Bjérkegren, 
De Sonis dial. Rhod., p. 41). 

3 Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 228. Cf. the Lat. domi, Rome(i). For nu- 
merous exx. of loc. and dat. distinct in form in the various dialects see Meister, 
Griech. Dial., Bd. II, pp. 61 ff.; Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 233 (dat. 
—at, loc. -v; dat. —w, loc. -o.). Cf. Collitz and Bechtel, Samml. d. griech. dial. 
Inschr., p. 308. 4 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 278 f. 

5 Griech. Gr., 3. Aufl., p. 229. Cf. K.-BL, II., pp. 301-307, for examples of 
the survival of abl., loc. and instr. forms in Gk. adverbs. Cf. also Meister, 
Griech. Dial., II., p. 295, for survivals of instr. forms in Cypriotic dial. (44, 
ebxwda). See Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I. Tl., p. 194. 


250 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the same tendency, not to mention the dual. The analytic pro- 
cess has largely triumphed over the synthetic case-endings. 
Originally no prepositions were used and all the word-relations 
were expressed by cases. In modern French, for instance, there 
are no case-endings at all, but prepositions and the order of 
the words have to do all that was originally done by the case- 
forms. In English, outside of the old dative form in pronouns 
like him, them, ete., the genitive form alone remains. Finnish 
indeed has fifteen cases and several other of the ruder tongues 
have many.! On the other hand the Coptic had no case-end- 
ings, but used particles and prepositions like NTE for genitive, 
ete. It is indeed possible that all inflectional languages passed 
once through the isolating and agglutinative stages. English may 
some day like the Chinese depend entirely on position and tone 
for the relation of words to each other. . 

(c) ORIGIN OF CASE SuFFrxEs. Giles? frankly confesses that 
comparative philology has nothing to say as to the origin of the 
case-suffixes. They do not exist apart from the noun-stems. 
Some of them may be pronominal, others may be positional (post- 
positions), but it adds nothing to our knowledge to call some of 
the cases local and others grammatical. They are all gramma- 
tical. The ablative and the locative clearly had a local origin. 
Some cases were used less often than others. Some of the case- 
forms became identical. Analogy carried on the process. The 
desire to be more specific than the case-endings led to the use of 
prepositional adverbs. As these adverbs were used more and more 
there was “an ever-increasing tendency to find the important 
part of the meaning in the preposition and not in the case-ending.’’3 
In the modern Greek vernacular, as already stated, only three 
case-forms survive (nominative, genitive, accusative), the dative 
vanishing like the ablative.‘ 


1’ Farrar, Gr. Synt.,/p:; 20. 

* Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 271. Bergaigne (Du Réle de la Dériv. dans la 
Décl. Indo-Europ., Mém. de la Soe. de Ling. de Paris, to. ii, fase. 5) and G. 
Meyer (Zur Gesch. der indo-germ. Stammb. und Decl.) both argue that case- 
endings had no distinctive meaning in themselves nor separate existence. 
But see also Hirt, Handb. etc., pp. 231-288, for careful treatment of the cases. 
On the general subject of syncretism in the Gk. cases see Delbriick, Vergl. 
Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 189 ff., 195 f. See also Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 15, for traces of 
abl., loc. and instr. forms in Hom. (loc. -1, -6; instr., —¢t, —¢iv; abl., —Oev). 

3 Giles; 0n.'GiluiD. 20a; 

4 Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 149. Cf. also Keck, Uber d. Dual bei d. griech. 
Rednern etc., 1882. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI>) 251 


3. Number (dpi6\ds) in Substantives. The N. T. Greek has 
lost the dual (éuxds) and uses only the singular (éxos) and the 
plural (aAnOuryrixos). The Sanskrit and the Hebrew had the dual, 
but the Latin had only duo and ambo (and possibly octo and vi- 
gintt) which had a plural inflection in the oblique cases. Coptic! 
had no plural nor dual save as the plural article distinguished 
words. English has only the dual twain, but we now say twins. 
The scholars do not agree as to the origin of the dual. Moul- 
ton? inclines to the idea that it arose “in prehistoric days when 
men could not count beyond two.’ It is more likely that it is 
due to the desire to emphasize pairs, as hands, eyes, etc., not to 
accept “Du Ponceau’s jest that it must have been invented for 
lovers and married people.’’? In the oldest Indo-Germanie lan- 
guages the luxury of the dual is vanishing, but Moulton considers 
its use in the Attic as a revival. It never won a foothold in the 
/Kolic and the New Ionic, and its use in the Attic was limited and 
not consistent.> The dual is nearly gone in the late Attic inscrip- 
tions,® while in the xow7 it is only sporadic and constantly vanish- 
ing in the inscriptions and papyri.’ In Pergamum® and Pisidia® 
no dual appears in the inscriptions. The only dual form that 
occurs in the LX X and the N. T. is dvo (not dw) for all the cases 
(as genitive in 1 Tim. 5:19), save dvci(v) for the dative-locative- 
instrumental, a plural form found in Aristotle, Polybius, ete., and 
called a barbarism by Phrynichus.’° Only in 4 Mace. 1:28 A 
dvoty 1s found, but dvetvy in NV, as in Polybius and the Atticists 
(Thackeray, p. 187). For examples of duci(v) see Mt. 6:24= Lu. 
16:13; Ac. 21:33; Heb. 10:28, etc. In the papyri, however, 
diw, dv, dvetvy occasionally appear" along with duci(v). In the 
modern Greek the dual is no longer used. ”“Audw has vanished in 
the N. T. while audorepor occurs fourteen times (Mt. 9:17, etc.), 


1 Tattam’s Egyp. Gr., p. 16. 25 Pro). peor. 
3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 23. Cf. Geiger, Ursp. d. Spr., § ix. Cf. Giles, 
Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 264. foProln ps Ole 


5 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 101. 6 Meisterhans, Att. Inschr., p. 201. 

7 Moulton, Cl. Rev,, 1901, p. 436. 8 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 138. 

9 Compernass, De Serm. Vulg. etc., p. 15. Tatian (p. 96 of his works) 
shows a dual. 

10 Rutherford, New Phryn., p. 289f. But cf. K.-BI., I, p. 362, for further 
items about the dual. 

11 Deissmann, B.§8., p. 187. For dvci(v) in the inscriptions see Dittenberger, 
118. 22, ete. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 313. For similar situations 
in the LXX MSS. (rots dv0, rots duci, and A dvotv, 8 dvetv) see Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 53. Cf. also C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 25. 


952 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


once (Ac. 19 : 16) apparently in the sense of more than two, like 
the occasional use of the English “both” and the Byzantine use 
of duddrepor and “two clear examples of it in NP 67 and 69 
(iv/a.D.).”! Once for all then it may be remarked that in the 
N. T. both for nouns and verbs the dual is ignored. The dual was 
rare in the later Ionic and the xow7 follows suit (Radermacher, 
N. T. Gk., p. 184). The syntactical aspects of number are to be 
discussed later. 

4. Gender (yévos) in Substantives. In the long history of the 
Greek language gender has been wonderfully persistent and has 
suffered little variation.2 It is probably due to the natural differ- 
ence of sex that grammatical gender® arose. The idea of sense 
gender continued, but was supplemented by the use of endings 
for the distinction of gender. This personification of inanimate 
objects was probably due to the poetic imagination of early peo- 
ples, but it persists in modern European tongues, though French 
has dropped the neuter (cf. the Hebrew) and modern English 
(like the Persian and Chinese) has no grammatical gender save in 
the third personal pronoun (he, she, it) and the relative. Anal- 
ogy has played a large part in gender.®> The Sanskrit, Latin and 
Greek all gave close attention to gender and developed rules that 
are difficult to apply, with many inconsistencies and absurdities. 
In Greek 7Xvos is masculine and cednvn feminine, while in German 
we have die Sonne and der Mond. Perhaps we had better be 
grateful that the Greek did not develop gender in the verb like 
the Hebrew verb. Moulton® thinks it “exceedingly strange” that 
English should be almost alone in shaking off “this outworn ex- 
crescence on language.” The N. T., like Homer and the modern 
Greek, preserves the masculine (dapcevcxov), feminine (@n\vKov) and 
neuter (ovderepov). Some words indeed have common (xo.vdv) sex, 
like 6 7 mats, dvos, Oeds, while others, applied to each sex, are called 
epicene (érixowov), like 4 a\wmné, dpxtos. In German we actually 
have das Wevb (‘wife’)! 

(a) VARIATIONS IN GENDER. They are not numerous. ‘H 
a&Bvocos (xwpa) is a substantive in the LXX (Gen. 1: 2, etc.) and 
the N. T. (Lu. 8 : 81, ete.), elsewhere so only in Diogenes Laertes. 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 80. 2 Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 103. 

3 Paul, Prin. of Hist. of Lang., pp. 289 ff. Brugmann thinks that gender 
came largely by formal assimilation of adj. to subst. as avOpwmos xaxés, xwpa 
iepa. Dan. Crawford, the Bantu missionary, claims 19 genders for Bantu. 

4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 26f. 5 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 64, 259. 

6 Prol., p. 59. On the whole subject of gender see K.-BL., I, pp. 358 ff. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI>) 253 


In Mk. 14:3 W. H. and Nestle properly read riv adaB8acrpor, 
though the Western and Syrian classes give tov ad. after Herod- 
otus, and a few of the late MSS. 76 ad. In Rev. 8:11 6 (not 7) 
ay.vOos is read, though & and some cursives omit the article, be- 
cause the word is a proper name. In Mk. 12:26 all editors 
have 6 Baros (the Attic form according to Moeris), elsewhere 
# Batos (Lu. 20:37; Acts 7:35). Oeds may be either masculine as 
in Ac. 19:11 or feminine as in Ac. 19:37, but in Ac. 19:27 we 
have ea (Text. Ree. also in 35, 37), an “apparently purposeless 
variation.” ! Thieme (Die Inschr. von Magn., p. 10) says that 
# Oeds is used in the inscriptions of Asia Minor in formal religious 
language. Burnet (Review of Theology and Philosophy, 1906, 
p. 96) says that in Athens 7 es was used in every-day language, 
but 7 6ea in the public prayers, thus taking the Ionic ea. Cf. 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Papyrt (Laut- und Wortlehre, 1906), p. 254 f., 
for papyri illustrations. Blass? considers 7 *Iepovcadyjy (Ac. 5: 28, 
etc., the common form in LXX, Luke and Paul) feminine be- 
cause it is a place-name, and hence he explains zaoa ’Iepoco\vpa 
(Mt. 2:3) rather than by zods understood. <Anvds in Rev. 14: 19 
strangely enough has both masculine and feminine, tiv Anvov ... . 
Tov peyav but & fem. (bis). The feminine is the common construc- 
tion, but the masculine is found in LXX in Is. 63:2 only. Adios 
is always 6 in the N. T., even when it means a precious stone 
(Rev. 5 times), where Attic after 385 B.c.° had 4. Acuds is mascu- 
line in Lu. 4 : 25 as in the Attic, but is chiefly feminine in Acts 
and Luke, like the Doric and late Attic, as in Lu. 15:14; Acts 
11: 28.4 In Lu. 13:4, Jo. 9:7, 11 we have 6 Yirwdau, while Jose- 
phus has both 7 (War, V, 12. 2) and 6 (War, II, 16. 2). Blass® 
explains the use of 6 in the Gospels by the participle areoradpevos 
in Jo. 9:7. Zrauvos in Heb. 9:4 is feminine after the Attic 
instead of the Doric 6 o7., as in Ex. 16:33. In Rev. 21:18 (21) 
we read also 6 tados rather than 4 tados as is customary with 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 60, but he adds “gs explained by inscriptions.” Cf. 
Nachmanson, Magn. Inschr., p. 126, for many exx. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 32. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 160. Mk. and Jo. 
have only 76 ’Iepood\vpa and Mt. usually. 

3 Meisterhans, Att. Inschr., p. 129. | 

4 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. Moulton (Prol., p. 60) finds duds 
now masc. and now fem. in the pap. LXX MSS. show similar variations. Cf. 
Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 45; Thack., p. 145f., for same situation in LXX 
concerning Baros, a\aBacrpos (—ov), Anvos, crauvos. Cf. C. and 58., Sel. from the 
LXX, p. 27, for further exx. 

6 Gr. of N..T. Gk., p:.32. 


954 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


precious stones.!. “Yoowmos (Heb. 9:19; Jo. 19:29) reveals its 
gender only in the LXX (Lev. 14:6, 51f.) where it is masce. in 
BA, fem. in E and 1 (3) Ki. 4:19 BA. The neuter 76 édas occurs 
in papyri as early as third century B.c. (Moulton and Milligan, 
Expositor, 1908, p. 177). 

(b) INTERPRETATION OF THE LXX. In Ro. 11:4 Paul uses 
77 Baad rather than the frequent LX X 7 Baad. The feminine is 
due, according to Burkitt, to the Q’ri nwa (aicxtvn). Moulton — 
speaks of 7 Baad as occurring “three times in LXX and in Ascen- 
sio Isaiae li. 12.”’2 But 4 Baad occurs “everywhere in the pro- 
phetic books, Jer., Zeph., Hos., etc.’’ (Thayer), though not so 
common in the historical books, far more than the “three times”’ of 
Moulton. In Mk. 12:11 and Mt. 21:42 the LXX airy is due to 
nxt, though the translators may have “interpreted their own Greek 
by recalling xedadjv yowvias.”® In Gal. 4:25 Paul has not mis- 
takenly used 76 with “Ayap, for he is treating the name as a word 
merely. Any word can be so regarded. 

(c) VARIATIONS IN GENDER DuE TO HETEROCLISIS AND ME- 
TAPLASM. ‘These will be discussed a little later. Delbriick thinks 
that originally all the masculine substantives of the first or a de- 
clension were feminine and that all the feminine substantives of 
the second or o declension were masculine. 

5. The First or a Declension. There was a general tendency 
towards uniformity? in this declension that made it more popular 
than ever. Here only the N. T. modifications in this general de- 
velopment can be mentioned. 

(a) THE Doric GENITIVE-ABLATIVE SINGULAR @. This form 
survives in Boppa (Lu. 13:29; Rev. 21:13) and was common in 
the Attic after 400 B.c. Note also waywva (Lu. 16:9). It is fre- 
quent in the LXX, papyri, inscriptions, though mainly in proper 
names. ‘These proper names in —ds, chiefly oriental, make the 
genitive-ablative in —a or, if unaccented —as, in @. So Axtd\a and 
’Axbdov in papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 187), though no 
gen. in N. T. (only -as and -av) ’Aypimma® (Ac: 25: 23), ’Avavia 


Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Cf. Theophrast, De lapid. 49, for 4 bedos. 
Moulton, Prol., p. 59. He corrects this erratum in note to H. Scott. 
Ib. 
Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 106. Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 304 f., has some 
good illustrations and remarks about the declensions in the LX X. 

® Both ’Aypirma and ’Aypirrov occur in the pap. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
1901, pp. 34 and 434. This gen. in —a gradually became “a ruling principle”’ 
for all substantives in —as (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 108, 110). See Thumb, 


> oo tw —_ 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 255 


(from —as, so Thayer), “Avva (Lu. 3:2), ’Avrimas (indeclinable here 
or mere slip for -a, Rev. 2:13), ‘Apéra (2 Cor. 11:32), BapafSBa 
(gen. does not appear, only nom. —ds as Mk. 15:7, and accus. —dav 
as 15:11, etc.), BapvaBa (Gal. 2:1; Col. 4:10; see Deissmann, 
Bible Studies, p. 187), ’Eragpa (Col. 1:7), ‘Epuady (Ro. 16: 14, Doric 
accusative), Znvav likewise (Tit. 3:13); ’HXeia (Lu. 1:17) accord- 
ing to NB (so W. H.); ‘Iovéa (person, Lu. 3:33; Mk. 6:3; tribe, 
Mt. 2:6; Heb. 8:8; land, Lu. 1:39), "Iwva (Mt. 12:39), Kasagda 
(Lu: 3:2; Jo. 18:13), Kndéa (1 Cor.-1:12), K\wra (Jo. 19: 25), 
Aouxas (only in nominative, as Col. 4: 14, but genitive would be —@), 
Larava (Mk. 1:13), Didas (dative Lira in Ac., and genitive Dida 
in Jos. Vit., 17), Dxeva (Ac. 19: 14), Zredava (1 Cor. 1:16). Nach- 
manson finds the Doric genitive fairly common with such short 
proper names and mentions Lnvé in his list.1. Very: common in 
modern Greek, cf. Hatzidakis, Hinl., p. 76. 

(b) Toe Attic GENITIVE-ABLATIVE. The usual Attic form for 
the masculine gen. abl. (ov) is found also as in Aivéas (so Lobeck, 
Prol. Pathol., p. 487), ’Avépéov (Mk. 1:29), Bapaxiov (Mt. 23:35), 
’Efexiou (so LXX), ’HAeiov (Lu. 4:25), "Hoatov (Mt. 3:3, etc.), 
lepeuiov (Mt. 2:17), Avoaviov (Lu. 3:1), Ovpiov (Mt. 1:6), Zaxa- 
piov (Lu. 1:40). These Hebrew proper names ended in 4—, but 
receive the regular inflection for masculine nouns of the first 
declension. There are likewise some proper names in —ys with 
genitive-ablative in —ov. ’Iavvfs and ’IauB8pas (2 Tim. 3:8) only 
appear in the N. T. in the nominative. Kpjoxys (2 Tim. 4: 10) and 
Tlovéns (2 Tim. 4: 21) belong to the 3d declension. Ei’dparns (Rev. 
9:14; 16:12) has only accusative and dative (instrumental-loca- 
tive) in the oblique cases in the N. T., though the genitive-ablative 
form is—ov. ‘Hpwdov (Mt. 2:1) and ’Iopéavov (Mt. 3: 5) follow the 
usual rule like aéov (Mt. 16:18). ’Ameddjs (Ro. 16:10), ‘Eppis 
(Ro. 16: 14), like xodpavrns (Mt. 5: 26) and dedovns (2 Tim. 4: 13), 
have no oblique case in the N. T. save the accusative (—jjv)? 
"Iwavns in W. H. always has genitive-ablative in —ov for the Apostle 
and in Jo. 1:42; 21:15, 16, 17, for the father of Simon Peter, 
though Bapwra in Mt. 16:17. So for John Mark (Acts 12: 12). 


Handb., p. 49. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., pp. 160-166. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 33, 
for LXX illustrations. 

1 Magn. Inschr., p. 120. Cf. also Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 139. 

2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 94. 

3 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 159. See Nachmanson (Magn. Inschr., p. 
119) and Schweizer (Perg. Inschr., p. 138 f.) for illustrations of these points 
from the xow7 inscr. The gen. in —ov is more common in the pap. than that in 


256 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ywobevyns has accusative in —nv (Ac. 18:17) for the first declension 
and is heteroclite.1. We have only feorév in Mk. 7:4. Words like 
veavias have the genitive-ablative in —ov (Ac. 7 : 58). 

(c) Voc. in-a of masc. nouns in —rys in déorora, émiotarta, Kap- 
dioyvaora, vrokpita. Cf. adn. 

(d) WorpDs IN -pa AND PARTICIPLES IN —vta. These come reg- 
ularly? to have the genitive-ablative in —7s and the dative-locative- 
instrumental in —7 like the Ionic. Moulton* indeed thinks that 
“analogical assimilation,” on the model of forms like 60£a, 6¢éns, 
had more to do with this tendency in the xo.w7n than the Ionic in- 
fluence. Possibly so, but it seems gratuitous to deny all Ionic in- 
fluence where it was so easy for it to make itself felt. The “best 
MSS.’’! support the testimony of the papyri and the inscriptions 
here.2 So W. H. read paxaipys (Rev. 13 : 14), tAnuubpns (Lu. 6 : 
48), mpwpns (Ac. 27:30), Lamdeipn (Ac. 5: 1), ozeipns (Ac. 21 : 31; 
27:1). In Acts B is prone to have —as, -¢ as with D in Ac. 5:1, 
but W. H. do not follow B here. In Ac. 5:2 cuvedvins may. be 
compared with er.B8eBnxvins (1 Sam. 25 : 20), and other examples in 
the LX-X,° but the forms —vias, —via still survive in the Ptolemaic 
period.’ The preference of the LX X MSS. and the early papyri 
for uaxaipas (pa) shows that it is a matter of growth with time. 
In the early Empire of Rome —pys forms are well-nigh universal. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 142. On the other hand note the adjective 
oteipa (Lu. 1:36). Words like juépa (—pa) and adnOera, ia (1a, ea) 
preserve the Attic inflection in —as, a.8 

(e) THE OpposiTE TENDENCY TO (d). We see it in such exam- 
ples as Avdéas (Ac. 9 : 38, but Soden reads —éns with EHLP) and 
Mapéas (Jo. 11:1). Moulton® finds the Egyptian papyri giving 
Tautobas as genitive. Oépua is given by Lobeck, though not in 
N. T. (genitive -ns, Ac. 28:3), and note zpiyva in Ac. 27:41. 


-a. See Mayser, Gr. griech. Pap., 1906, p. 250 f. (Laut- u. Wortlehre). For 
the contracted forms see p. 252. It is also more frequent in the LXX. Cf. 
Thackeray, Gr., p. 161 f. 

1 W.-Sch., p. 94. 2 B.S.,-p. 186. ) 

3 Prol., p. 48; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. where a number of exx. are given like 
apovpns, kaOyxvins, etc. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 69. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
pp. 31-33, and Thack., Gr., p. 140 f., for similar phenomena in the LXX. ~ 

4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 156. 5 Deissmann, B.S8., p. 186. 

6 Gregory, Prol., p. 117. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 48. 

§ Cf. Blass, Gr. of N:-T. Gk., p. 25. 

® Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 434. For examples in Attic inscriptions see Meister- 
hans, p. 119 f. Cf. Zovgayvas in LXX, C. and S., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 26. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 257 


Moulton! suggests that Nvudar (Col. 4:15 according to the cor- 
rect text) is not due to a Doric Niyudav, but by a “reverse analogy 
process” the genitive Niudns produced the short nominative Niuda 
like 66£a, dd&ns. Blass? calls xpucdv (Rev. 1:13) “a gross blunder, 
wrongly formed on the model of ypvods 1: 12,’”’ but Moulton® 
holds that we have “abundant parallels.” 

(f) DousLe DercLENstion. This phenomenon appears in the 
case of Néay IloAw (Ac. 16:11) and ‘leo@ Hovde (Col. 4 : 13), the 
adjective as well as the substantive being treated separately in 
the first and third declensions. 

(g) HETEROCLISIS (€TepoxALots) AND METAPLASM (MeTaTAAacpOs). 
Blass‘ makes no distinction in his treatment of heteroclisis and 
metaplasm, though the distinction is observed in Winer-Schmie- 
del. For practical use one may ignore the distinction and call 
all the examples metaplasm with Blass or heteroclisis with Moul- 
ton. The fluctuation is rare for the first declension in the N. T. 
In Ac. 28:8 editors properly read dvcevrépiov rather than dvoerre- 
pia (supported only by a few cursives). The form 6ea (Ac. 19:27) 
and the usual Attic 7 @e6s (Ac. 19:37) are both found. This varia- 
tion between the first and the second declensions is well illustrated 
by Toudppas (2 Pet. 2:6) and Toudppwrv (Mt. 10:15; -os, Mk. 6:11 
Rec.), Aborpay (Ac. 14:6) and Aborpos (Ac. 14:8). Moulton? 
finds abundant parallel in the Egyptian papyri use of place-names. 
In Rev. 1:11 ABC and some cursives read Ovare:pay instead of 
the usual Ovareipa. So in Ac. 27:5 some of the MSS. read Mippay 
instead of Mippa as accus., a reading confirmed by Ramsay,* who 
found the accus. in -ay and the gen. in -wy. Moulton® cites 7 
‘Tepooé\vua from two MSS. of xi/A.p. (Usener, Pelagia, p. 50). 

The chief variation between the first and second declensions 
appears in the compounds in —apyns and (Attic) —apxos. Moulton’ 
finds examples of it passim in the papyri and calls the minute 
work of Winer-Schmiedel “conscientious labour wasted thereon.” 
But Hort" does not think these variations in good MSS. “wholly 


1 Prol., p. 48. Cf. also his paper in Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc., Oct., 1893, 
p. 12. 

2 Gr., p. 25, but 4th ed., p. 28, cites P. Lond. I, 124, 26, xpvcdv 4 apyupar. 

3 Prol., p. 48. “Falsche Analogie”’ acc. to W.-Sch., p. 81. 

4Gr; of N..T. Gk, p. 28 f. 

5 Pp. 83 ff. Thack. (Gr., p. 153) includes heteroclisis under metaplasm. 

6 Prol., p. 48. 7 Ib., p. 244. 

8 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 129. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 48.  ° Ib. 

10 Tb. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 

4 Notes on Orth., p. 156, 


2958 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


irregular.” In the N. T. forms in —apxns, like most of the dialects 
and the xowy, are greatly in the majority.1. Thus in the N. T. we 
have ’Ao.dpxyns (Ac. 19:31; not in nom. in N. T.), vapxns (2 
Cor. 11:32), warpuapyns (Heb. 7:4), worrtapxns (Ac. 17:6, 8), 
rerpaapxns (Lu. 3:19), but always xAlapxos. In the addition of 
the B text to Ac. 28:16 the MSS. divide between orparorééapxos 
(HLP) and —dpxns (cursives). ‘Exarévrapxos is the nominative 
in Mt. (8:5, 8; 27: 54), and the accusative in —xov is found once 
in Acts (22:25). Elsewhere in all cases in Matthew, Luke and 
Acts the form in —xns is read by the best MSS. (as Ac. 10: 1). 

The first and the third declensions show variation in dios (old 
form diva) in 2 Cor. 11:27, where indeed B has 6iy/y instead of 
diver. Nixn (the old form) survives in 1 Jo. 5:4, but elsewhere the 
late form vixos prevails (as 1 Cor. 15:54 f.). The LX X likewise 
shows 70 dios, ro vixos interchangeably with the 7 forms. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 49; Thackeray, Gr., p. 157. The dative “Iwaver 
(third declension) instead of ’Iwavy (first declension) is accepted a 
few times by W. H. (Mt. 11:4; Lu. 7:18; Rev. 1:1). Zadrapivy 
(first declension) for Zadayutv (third declension) in Ac. 13:5, Hort? 
considers only Alexandrian. 

The third declension nouns often in various N. T. MSS. have 
the accusative singular of consonant stems in —y in addition to —a, 
as xetpay in Jo. 20:25 (NAB), 1 Pet. 5:6 (NA). This is after the 
analogy of the first declension. Other examples are dpcevay in 
Rev. 12: 13 (A), aceByv in Ro. 4:5 (NDFG), acrepay in Mt. 2:10 
(NC), aodadjv in Heb. 6:19 (ACD), Aiay in Ac. 14:12 (DEH), 
eixovay in Rev. 13: 14 (A), pivav in Rev. 22: 2 (A), rodnpny in Rev. 

(1:13 (A), ovyyerfv in Ro. 16:11 (ABD), bycFv in Jo. 5:11 (). 
Blass* rejects them all in the N. T., some as “incredible,” though 
properly recalling the Attic tpinpnv, Anyuoobernv. Moulton‘ finds 
this conformation to the “analogy of first declension nouns” very 
common in “uneducated papyri, which adequately foreshadows 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28; K.-BI., I, 3, 502. Cf. also W.-M., p. 70f.; 
W.-Sch., p. 82; Soden, p. 1387f. For illustrations from the LX X see W.-M. 
Cf. also Nachmanson, Magn. Inschr., p. 121. For numerous pap. examples 
of compounds from a&pxw see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap. (Laut- u. Wortl.), 
p. 256f. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 37f. Thack., Gr., 
p. 156, finds —apxns ousting —apxos. 

* Notes on Orth., p. 156. 3 Gr. of N. T.. Gk.,; p26. Notunved: 4. 
4 Prol., p. 49. Cf. Gregory, Prol., p. 118; W.-M., p. 76; Jann., pp. 119, 
542; Psichari, Grec de la Sept., pp. 165 ff. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 
34 f., for this “very common” acc. in the pap. See Mayser, Gr. d. griech, 
Pap., p. 286f, ; 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIZ) 259 


its victory in modern Greek.’’ The inscriptions! as well as the 
papyri have forms like yuvaikay, avépav, etc. It is these accusative 
forms on which the modern Greek nominative in apxovras is made 
(ef. Thumb, Handb., p. 47) and thus blended the first and the 
third declensions.?, Hort* will accept none of these readings in. 
the N. T. because of the “irregularity and apparent capricious- 
ness” of the MS. evidence, though he confesses the strength of 
the testimony for acdadjv in Heb. 6:19, cvyyerny in Ro. 16:11, 
and yetpay in Jo. 20:25. These nouns are treated here rather 
than under the third declension because in this point they invade 
the precincts of the first. The LX X MSS. exhibit the same phe- 
nomena, (éAzidav, povoyerjv, etc.). See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 50; 
Thackeray, Gr., p. 147. The opposite tendency, the dropping of 
vy in the first declension accusative, so common in modern Greek, 
is appearing in the papyri, as dega xetpa (Volker, Papyrorum 
Graecorum Syntaxis etc., p. 30 f.). 

(h) INDECLINABLE SUBSTANTIVES. These are sometimes inflected 
in some of the cases in the first declension. Bydavia is accusative 
in Lu. 19: 29, and so indeclinable, like ByOgayn, but elsewhere it is 
inflected regularly in the first declension (so —iavy Mk. 11:1, ete.) 
save once or twice in B. Byécatdad has accusative Bnécacday in 
Mk. 6:45; 8:22, but it may be only another alternate inde- 
clinable form (Thayer) like Mayaédav. So likewise To\yo#a has 
accusative in —avy in Mk. 15:22. Hort‘ finds “the variations 
between Mapia and the indeclinable Mapiau”’ “singularly intricate 
and perplexing, except as regards the genitive, which is always 
—ias, virtually without variation, and without difference of the 
persons intended.” It is not necessary to go through all the 
details save to observe that as a rule the mother of Jesus and 
the sister of Martha are Mapiau, while Mary of Clopas is always 
Mapia. Mary Magdalene is now Mapiau, now Mapia. In the 
Aramaic as in the Hebrew probably all were called Mapcau. 
Mapia is merely the Hellenized form of Mapiayu. It is probably 
splitting too fine a hair to see with Hort® a special appropriate- 
ness in Maprap in Jo. 20: 16, 18. 

6. The Second or o Declension. There is no distinctively 
feminine inflection in the o declension, though feminine words oc- 


1 ‘Nachm., Magn. Inschr.,.p.. 133. 

2 Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 156 f.; Schmid, Atticismus, IV, 586. 

5’ Notes on Orth., p. 158. Kretschmer (Entst. der Kow7, p. 28) finds this 
acc. in —ay in various dialect inscriptions. Cf. also Reinhold, De Graec. etc., 
p. 24, for xapiray, ete. 4 Notes on Orth., p. 156. 5 Tb. 


960 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cur, like 7 656s. But the neuter has a separate inflection. Modern 
Greek preserves very few feminines in -os.1. Thumb (Handb., p.53f). 
gives none. The main peculiarities in the N. T. are here noted. 
(a) THE So-Catitep Attic Seconp DEcLENSION. It is nearly 
gone. Indeed the Attic inscriptions began to show variations 
fairly early.2. The xowv inscriptions*® show only remains here and 
there and the papyri tell the same story. Already Xaéds (as Lu. 
1:21) has displaced News and vads (as Lu. 1: 21) vews, though vew- 
Kopos survives in Ac. 19:35. ’Avayaoy likewise is the true text 
in Mk. 14:15 and Lu. 22 : 12, not advwyewy nor any of the various 
modifications in the MSS. In Mt. 3:12 and Lu. 3:17 4 aGd\wp 
may be used in the sense of 7 addws (see Thayer) by metonymy. 
The papyri show adws (Attic second declension) still frequently 
(Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, Feb., 1908, p. 180). Cf. same 
thing in LXX. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 49 f.; Con. and Stock, 
Sel. fr. LXX, p. 26; Thackeray, Gr., p. 144. ’Aodds has accusa- 
tive in —wyv in 1 Cor. 4:6 and Tit. 3 : 18, though the Western and 
Syrian classes have —# in both instances. In Ac. 19:1 ’AroAX® is 
clearly right as only A?L 40 have -wv. The genitive is ’ATo\\w 
without variant (1 Cor. ter). So the adjective i\ews is read in Mt. 
16 : 22 and Heb. 8: 12, though a few MSS. have ‘eos in both places. 
The best MSS. have 77}v KG in Ac. 21:1, not Kév as Text. Rec. Cf. 
1 Mace. 15 : 23. Blass® compares aiéws of the third declension. 
(b) Contraction. There is little to say here. The adjectives 
will be treated later. ’Ooroty (Jo. 19:36) has daréa, accus. pl., in 
the best MSS. in Lu. 24:39 and écréwy in Mt. 23:27 and Heb. 
11:22. So also éc7éwy in the Western and Syrian addition to Eph. 
5:30. ’Opveov (Rev. 18:2) and dépvea (Rev. 19: 21) are without 
variant. The papyri show this Ionic influence on uncontracted 
vowels in this very word as well as in various adjectives (Moul- 
ton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 435). For examples in the LXX (as dcTéwy 
2 Ki. 13:21) see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 82, and Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 36; Thackeray, p. 144; Con. and Stock, Sel. fr. LXX, 
p. 27. Moulton® considers it remarkable that the N. T. shows 


1’ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr.,.p. 111 f. 2 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 127 f. 

3 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 123 f.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 142. 

4 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. See also Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., 
1906, p. 259 f. For the LXX see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 38 f., where a few 
exx. occur. 

5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. News appears in 2 Macc. 6: 2, etc. 

6 Prol., p.48f. He thinks it proof that the N. T. writers were not illiterate, 
since the pap. examples are in writers “with other indications of illiteracy.” 
Cf. also Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI2) 261 


no traces of the contraction of kbpios into kbps and masdioy into 
maoiv, for instance, since the papyri have so many illustrations 
of this tendency. The inscriptions! show the same frequency of 
the -is, -wv forms which finally won the day in modern Greek. Cf. 
Thumb, Handb., p. 61. 

(c) THE VocativE. In the o declension it does not always end 
in e in the masculine singular. Oe¢ds in ancient Greek is practically 
always retained in the vocative singular. The N. T. has the same 
form as in Mk. 15: 34 (cf. also Jo. 20:28), but also once Oeé 
(Mt. 27:46). This usage is found occasionally in the LXX and 
in the late papyri.2 So also Paul uses Tiuofee twice (1 Tim. 1:18; 
6:20). Aristophanes had ’Audifee, Lucian Tiuodee, and the in- 
scriptions ¢iAdbee.2 Note also the vocative vids Aaveiéd (Mt. 1: 20) 
and even in apposition with xipue (Mt. 15: 22). The common use 
of the article with the nominative form as vocative, chiefly in the 
third declension, belongs more to syntax. Take as an instance of 
the second declension p71) ¢0800, 76 pxpov roturov (Lu. 12: 32). 

(d) HETEROCLISIS AND MrrapuasM. Variations between the 
first and second declensions have been treated on p. 257. The 
number of such variations between the second and third declen- 
sions is considerable. Nods is no longer in the second declension, 
but is inflected like Bods, viz. voos (2 Th. 2: 2), vot (1 Cor. 14: 15, 
19). So mdods in Ac. 27:9, not rd0d.4- The most frequent inter- 
change is between forms in —os, masculine in second declension 
and neuter in the third. In these examples the N. T. MSS. show 
frequent fluctuations. To é\eos wholly supplants tov éXeov (Attic) 
in the N. T. (as in the LXX), as, for instance, Mt. 9:13; 12:7; 
23:23; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 4:16, except in a few MSS. which read 
é\eov. Without variant we have édéous and éXeex. On the other hand 
6 (Hos is the usual N. T. form as in the ancient Greek (so (rw, 
Ro: 13:13; 2 Cor. 11:2), but 76 ¢7dos is the true-text: in 2 ‘Cor. 
9:2 and Ph. 3:6. In Ac. 5:17 only B has (mous, and all read 
¢ndov in Acts 18:45. *Hxos is usually masculine and in the second 
declension, as in Heb. 12 : 19 (cf. Lu. 4:37; Ac. 2:2), and for the 


1 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 125; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 143. On 
the origin of these forms see Hatz., Einl., p. 318; Brug., Grundr., ii, § 62 n.; 
Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. 

2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 34, 434. 

3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 81. In the LXX both 6eés and #eé occur. Cf. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 34; C. and S., Sel. fr. LX X, p. 26; Thack., p. 145. 

4 Cf. Arrian, Peripl., p. 176. See W.-Sch., p. 84, for similar exx. in the 
inscr., as pods, pods in late Gk. For pap. exx. of Body, rdodv and xobdv see Mayser, 
Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 257 f., 268 f. 


262 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


earlier 7x7 according to Moeris and Blass.) In Lu. 21:25 W. H. 
read jyots from 7xw, but Hort? admits jxovs from 76 Aros to be 
possible, and Nestle reads .7#xous in his sixth edition, In.Ac. 3: 10 
C reads @duBov instead of @4uBous. In eight instances in Paul 
(2:Cor. 8:2; Phe 4219; ‘ColWis 27. 252-6 Wohie lise ee on 
16) in the nominative and accusative we have 7d mdodros, but 
6 mAovTos In Gospels, Jas., Heb., Rev. The genitive is always —rov. 
To oxoros instead of 6 cxdros is read everywhere in the N. T. save 
in the late addition to Heb. 12:18 where oxétw appears, though. 
Codw is the true text. The form ddaxpvow (Lu. 7:38, 44) is from 
daxpv, an old word that is found now and then in Attic, but 76 
daxpvov appears also in Rev. 7:17; 21:4; édaxptwy may belong to 
either decl. LaGBarov (—rov, -Tw) is the form used in the N. T. al- 
ways, as Mk. 6: 2, but c48Bacw as Mk. 1:21, etc. B has caBBarors, 
like the LX X sometimes, in Mt. 12:1, 12. Karjywp is accepted 
by W. H. and Nestle in Rev. 12 : 10 on the authority of A against 
NBCP, which have the usual xarnyopos. According to Winer- 
Schmiedel? this is not Greek, but a transliteration of the Aramaic 
s1a90p. Blass,‘ however, thinks it is formed on the model of pyrwo.. 

Several words fluctuate between the masculine and the neuter 
in the second declension. In Lu. 14:16; Rev. 19:9, 17, several 
MSS. read ée?rvos instead of the usual éetrvov. Like the old Greek, 
decuos has the plural deoua in Lu. 8: 29; Ac. 16: 26; 20 : 23, but 
of decuot in Ph. 1:18. Before Polybius fvy6v was more common 
(Thayer), but in the N. T. it is fuvyés (Mt. 11:30). ‘O @euerwos is: 
the only form of the nom. sing. in the N. T., as 2 Tim. 2:19 
(supply \Xidos); Rev. 21:19, but rd Oewedia (ace.) in Ac. 16: 26 
like the LX X and the Attic. The plural deuedious we have in Heb. 
- 11:10; Rev. 21: 14, 19. Oeuedov (ace.) may be either masculine 
or neuter. In Ro. 11:10 6 v&ros is used in the quotation from the 
O. T. instead of the older 76 v&rov. In the early Greek 6 otros 
(never 76 otrov) had a plural in otra as well as citox. The same 
thing is true of the N. T. MSS. for Ac. 7: 12 except that they di- 
vide between ra otra and ra orria, and ouria is the correct text. 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28. Cf. LXX MSS., for like variations in 76 [70s 
and 6 ¢., 6 €\eos and 76 éX., 6 Hos and 76 7., 6 wAodTos and 7d wA. See Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 47f. See p. 49 for caB8Bacr and caBBaros, daxpvov and daxpvor. 
Cf. also Thack., Gr., pp. 153 ff. 

2 Notes on Orth., p. 158. See W.-Sch., p. 84, for exx. of #xous in the LXX. 
For similar variations in the inscr. see Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 135. 

3 P. 85. So also Thayer, the Rabbins’ name for the devil. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 29; Deiss., Light, p.90; Raderm., Gr., p. 15. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI2) 263 


Blass! indeed objects that o:ria does not suit the sense. rdédcov 
has oradiovs rather than the Attic o7déia in Lu. 24:13; Jo. 6:19 
(W. H. and Nestle, but Tisch. ordéua ND), and is a marginal 
‘reading in Rev. 21:16 instead of cradiwv. 

(e) THe Mixep DEcLENSION. Some substantives with spe- 
cial inflection have this. It is particularly in foreign names in 
the a and o declensions that this inflection became popular. “The 
stem ends in a long vowel or diphthong, which receives —s for nom- 
inative and —» for accusative, remaining unchanged in vocative, 
genitive, and dative singular. "Ingots is the most conspicuous of 
many N. T. examples. It plays a large part in modern Greek.” 2 
Hence we have ‘Incots nominative, Incod genitive-ablative, as 
Mt. 26: 6; dative, etc., as Mt. 27:57; vocative Mk. 1:24. Some 
MSS. of the LXX have dative Incot in Deut. 3:21, etc. The 
accusative is Incotv, as Mt. 26:4. ‘Iwo is the genitive of ’Iwafs 
according to the reading of Mt. 27:56 in W. H. Mg. instead of 
"Iwond, but in Mk. 6:3 ‘Iwajjros is the reading. So runs Aevels 
(nominative, Lu. 5:29), Aevet (genitive, Lu. 3:24), Aeveiy (accu- 
sative, Lu. 5:27). Dative appears only in the LXX as Gen. 
34:30 Aevel. Mavacofs has accusative Mavacof in Mt. 1:10 and 
the genitive in —7 (Rev. 7:6), but Hort® calls attention to the 
fact that &°B have Mavacc7 instead of the nominative in Mt. 
1:10, making the word indeclinable. 

(f) Proper Names. ’Iaxw8 is indeclinable in Mt. 1:2, but we 
have ’IaxwBov in Mt. 4:21. Several proper names have only the 
plural, as Ovareipa (Rev. 2:18, but B -py and ABC —pay, 1:11), 
"lepood\upa (Mt. 2:1, but maca ’I., 2:3), Bidirmo (Ac. 16: 12), 
Kadéa (Ac. 27: 16), Mippa (Ac. 27: 5), Harapa (Ac. 21:1), Laperra 
(Lu. 4 : 26), Dodoua (Jude 7). The Latin words yuoddis (Mt. 5: 15) 
and paxeddov (1 Cor. 10: 25) are inflected. So Latin proper names 
like *Iodc7os (Ac. 18:7) and Ilatdos (Ro. 1:1). For Touoppas and 
Atorpay see 5 (g). 

7. The Third Declension (consonants and close vowels « and 
v). The third declension could easily be divided into several 
and thus we should have the five declensions of the Sanskrit and 
the Latin. But the usual seven divisions of the third declension 
have the genitive-ablative singular in —os (-ws). The consonantal 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 28. In the LXX MSS. we find decyoi and —4, fvyot 
and —4, Oeuédor and —a, vGro. and —a, oradcov and oraéd.ior, otros and otra. Cf. 
Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 46 f.; Thack., p. 154f. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 49. 

3 In the LXX proper names have great liberty in inflection, This is quite 
natural in'a transl. Cf, Thack.,; Gr., pp. 160-171. 


264 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


stems show more sweeping changes than the vocalic (sonantic) 
stems in this declension.! Only those changes that are related to 
the N. T. Greek can be here discussed. 

(a) THe NomINATIVE AS Vocative. There is an increasing 
use of nominative forms as vocatives. This usage had long ex- 
isted for nouns that were oxytone or had labial or guttural stems. 
Elsewhere in general the stem had served as vocative. No 
notice is here taken of the common use of the article with the 
nominative form as vocative, like 7 ats (Lu. 8 : 54), a construc- 
tion coming under syntactical treatment. According to Winer- 
Schmiedel? the use of the singular without the article belongs also 
to syntax and the solution of W. H. is called “certainly false.” 
Hort? had suggested that in the case of @vyarnp as vocative (Mk. 
5: 34;. Lu. 8:48; Jo.-12 :15) and. zatnp (Jo. 17: 21, 24, 25) the 
long vowel (ny) was pronounced short. Why not the rather sup- 
pose that the vocative is like the nominative as in the case of la- 
bial and guttural stems? The usage is thus extended sometimes 
to these liquids. Indeed, in Jo. 17:25 we have rarjp ayabe, the 
adjective having the vocative form. In Mk. 9:19 (Lu. 9:41) we 
have ® yeved dmioros and adpwy in Lu. 12:20; 1 Cor. 15:36). 
See also © wAnpns (Ac. 13:10) for -es, which might be an inde- 
clinable form like the accusative (11, 2 (f)). But these adjectives 
show that the usage is possible with substantives. There are in- 
deed variant readings in the MSS. above, which have @iyarep and 
watep, but in Mt. 9:22 DGL have Ovyarnp. Note also avep (1 Cor. 
7:16) and yiva (Lu. 13:12). For peculiarities in nom. see (d). 

(b) THe AccusaTIVE SINGULAR. The theoretical distinction 
that consonant-stems had the accusative singular in —a and vocalic 
stems in —y began to break down very early. From the third cen- 
tury B.c. Jannaris* suspects that popular speech began to have all 
accusative singulars with v, an overstatement, but still the ten- 
dency was that way. The use of » with words like zédu, vatv (Ac. 
27:41, only time in N. T., elsewhere vernacular z)otov), etec., to- 
gether with the analogy of the first and second declensions, had a 
positive influence. See p. 258 for discussion of the double accusa- 
tive ending —a plus », like avépay in the papyri.> These forms belong 
in reality to the third declension, though formed after the analogy 
of the first, and so were presented when first reached in the dis- 


‘l Jann., Hist’ Gk, Gr., p: 121: 23P290: 

3 Notes on Orth., p. 158. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35, gives uArnp as 
voc. three times in a ili/A.D. pap. (B.U.). 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 119.: 5 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 435. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 265 


cussion. However, there are other consonant-stems which form 
the accusative in —» instead of -a. In Tit. 3:9 and-Ph. 1:15 
we have épw instead of épida.1 So in Rev. 3:7 and 20: 1 the Attic 
kdetv is read, for this is not a new tendency by any means, but 
in Lu. 11:52 the MSS. have xkde?éa, though here also D has 
kvetv. Kydetéa is found in the LXX as in Judg. 3:25. Xapira 
appears in Ac. 24:27 and Ju. 4, and A has it in Ac. 25:9, but 
the Attic xapw holds the field (forty times).2 In the LXX the 
Tonic and poetical xapira occurs only twice (Zech. 4:7; 6: 14) and 
is absent from the papyri before the Roman period. Cf Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 150. For the irrational v with yweifw in Jo. 5:36 see 
Adjectives. In Ac. 27:40 the correct text is apréuwva, not —ova, 
from nom. dapréuwr. | 

(c) THe AccusaTIvE PiurRAL. In Winer-Schmiedel (p. 88) 
épes 1S given as nominative and accusative except in 1 Cor. 1:11 
(€pvdes, nom.), but as a matter of fact the accusative plural 
does not appear in the N. T. except as an alternative reading 
épers in N°CACKLP, in Tit. 3:9 (correct text gov). In Gal. 5: 20 
W. H. put épes in the margin rather than éps, probably ‘‘an 
itacistic error.”? W. H. read ras xdets in Rev. 1:18, but xrde?éas 
in Mt. 16:19. In Ac. 24:27 yapitas is supported by HP and 
most of the cursives against xapi7a (correct text) and xapu (NEL, 
etc.). The accusative in —vs has changed into —as with —v and —ov 
stems, as Boas from Bods (Jo. 2: 14f., cf. LX X), Borpvas from Boé- 
tpus (Rev. 14 : 18), ix@vas from ixdis (Mt. 14 :17).4 This simplifica- 
tion of the accusative plural was carried still further. Just as 
modeas had long ago been dropped for 7édes, sO Bacidéas has be- 
come —e?s like the nominative, ‘‘and this accusative plural is reg- 
ular in N. T. for all words in —evs.’’> In the LX X —eas appears a 
few times, but since 307 B.c. the Attic inscriptions show —es as 
accusative. It is found indeed sometimes in Xenophon and 


1 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. For the LXX see Thack., p. 140; Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 40 f., where the N. T. situation is duplicated. 

2 See Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 151, for illustr. of these accs. in the inser. 
For the pap. see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35, both xapira and xapuy, etc. 
Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 271 f. 

3’ Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. 

4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26, and W.-Sch., p. 86. Arrian has ix6bas. 
LXX MSS. (Thack., Gr., p. 147) show vnés and vews, vijas and vais, Boas. Cf. 
Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 48. Usually ix@tas, p. 44. 

5 Blass, Gr. of-N."F.- Gk., p. 26. 

6 Meisterh., p. 141. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 86. So the LXX. Cf. Thack., Gr., 
p. 147 f.; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 43. Wackern, (Indoger, Forsch., 1903, 


266 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Thucydides, though the strict Atticists disown it. Cf. ypaypa- 
recs in Mt. 23:34, etc. A few forms in —eas survive in the in- 
scriptions.! Naores (from vijores) is the correct accusative in Mk. 
8:3 and Mt. 15:32. & here reads vyoris, but is unreliable on 
this itacism (Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157). The Achzan, Elean, 
Delphian and Phocian inscriptions? (Northwest Greek) have the 
accusative plural in —es just like the nominative (cf. Latin).* It is 
very common in the modern Greek vernacular and in the papyri.* 
Moulton® finds many examples like yuvatkes, wives, Ovres, wavres, 
rexroves, Tecoapes, etc. In the LXX récoapes as accusative is very 
common as a variant in the text of Swete.6 In Herodotus reooa- 
peokaidexa 18 indeclinable and rpevoxaidexa in Attic since 300 B.c.?7 
So in the N. T. some MSS. read réooapes (though the most still 
have récoapas) as NA in Jo. 11:17, N in Ac. 27:29, AP in Rev. 
4:4: 7:1, N in Rev. 9:14. In Rev. 4:4 the best authority (N, 
AP, etc.) is really on the side of téocapes (Second example).? In- 
deed ‘‘in the N. T. résoapas never occurs without some excellent 
authority for reocapes.””° In the first 900 of Wilcken’s ostraca, 
Moulton (Prol., p. 248) finds forty-two examples of accusative 
réooapes and twenty-nine of réocapas. Moulton" considers it prob- 
able that other nominative forms in Revelation, like do7épes in A 
(Rev. 1:16), may be illustrations of this same tendency. 


p. 371) thinks the acc. in —es is due not to the nom. but to compensative 
lengthening. 

1 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 150. 

2 Also early in Phthiotis (J. Wackernagel, Zur Nominalinfl., indoger. 
Forsch., 1903, p. 368). Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 119; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. 
Pap., 1906, p. 270 f. 

3 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 546. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 36. Cf. Volker, Pap. Graec. Synt., p. 28. 

5 Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 34, 485. Cf. also Buresch, Rhein. Mus., XLVI, 218. 

6 W.-Sch., p. 87. 7 Ib. Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 163 f. 

§ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 26. Cf. Jann., p. 120. 

® Cf. Hort, Notes on Sel. Read., p. 138. 

10 Moulton, Prol., p. 36. “‘In Rev. CB have -pas, 8 3/5, AP 3/6.” H. 
Scott. 

1 Ib. This use of —es as acc. may be compared with the common acc. pl. 
in —es in the mod. Gk. vernac. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 47 ff. Cf. nom. like 
6 warépas (Psichari, Ess. de Gr. Hist. Néo-grecque, 1886, 1° partie, p. xviii). 
Even juépes, rodires, etc. In the Eleatic dial. the loc.-dat. pl. is —ous as in 
xenuaros. Cf. Meister, Bd. II, p. 61. The LXX MSS. show récoapes as ace. 
See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 54. The acc. in -es rare in LXX MSS. outside of 
tégoapes. Thack., Gr., p. 148f. Moulton (Prol., p. 248, ed. 2) suggests that 
this tendency pated with résoapes because it is the only early Soins ee 
had a separate form for the acc. plural. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 267 


(dq) PECULIARITIES IN THE NoMINATIVE. In general one may 
say that the various ways of forming the nominative singular in 
Greek are blending gradually into unity, the masculine in s and 
the feminine in a or 7. Many of the new substantives went over 
to the first declension.!. Luke has gen. ’Edacévos, in Ac. 1:12 from 
nom. ’Edawy, and the papyri give nearly thirty examples of this 
noun. Jos. also (Ané. vil, 9, 2) has ’Edadvos. On the other 
hand the use of ’Edaia is frequent (in Jos. also), as els ro dpos TeV 
"Edaev (Mt. 21:1). But in Lu. 19:29 we have zpds 76 dpos 76 
Kadovpevoy ’EXadv (W. H.),and in Lu. 21:37 eis 7d dpos «rd. In 
both these examples it would be possible to have ’EXaiwy, not as 
an indeclinable substantive, but as a lax use of the nominative 
with 6 xadotmevos (cf. Revelation and papyri). So Deissmann.? 
But even so it is still possible for “EXaév to be proper (on the 
whole probably correct) in these two disputed passages.‘ It is 
‘even probable that the new nominative ’EAawy is made from the 
genitive Edaav.2 “Epes is a variant with éps in Gal. 5: 20 ( marg. 
Wee eC oreo or eecoreis. 20: 1 lim. 6:4, but in: 1: Cor. 
1:11 all MSS. have épides. W. H. once (Ac. 1:10) accept the 
rare form éo6yors (2, 3 Macc.) rather than the usual éc@7s, though 
the Alexandrian and Syrian classes have it also in Lu. 24:4. In 
Lu. 13:34 ND read édpué, nominative not found in ancient Greek 
(Thayer), though the Doric used the oblique cases épycxos, etc.® 
Elsewhere in all MSS. the usual dps occurs, as Mt. 23:37, and 
inthe N. T. only the nominative singular is found.’ Another con- 
trary tendency to the usual s in the nominative singular is seen in 
wdty (1 Th. 5:3; ef. also Is. 37:3) for the usual dis. The papyri 
show forms like 6évppuv. 

One or two points about neuter substantives call for remark. 
The inflection in —as, —aos=—ws, has nearly vanished.’ A few ex- 
amples still survive in the inscriptions.’ In Lu. 1:36 the Ionic 
form ynpe from yijpas is found, as often in the LXX and Test. 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 121. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 49; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. Deiss., B. S., pp. 208 ff. 

3 B.S., p. 210. | 

4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 93. Moulton (Prol., pp. 69, 
235) has a full presentation of the facts. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 235. 

6 The form épué& appears several times in the pap. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
1901, p. 85. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 149. 

7 W.-Sch., p. 89. LXX dpvidur. 

So Blase. Gr. ots abs Gk 26; 

9 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 156, 


°68 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


XII Pat.! Képas always in the N. T. (as in LXX) has the Attic 
plural xépara (Rev. 8 times) and répas regularly répara (11 times). 
The plural xpéa (from xpéas) is the only form in the N. T. (1 Cor. 
8:13; Rom. 14:21) as in the LXX, though a MSS. or so in each 
case has xpéas (singular). 

(e) Tur GENITIVE-ABLATIVE Forms. These call for little re- 
mark save in the adjective, for which see later. Zuwamews (from 
civart) is uniform in the N. T., as Mt. 17: 20. IInxus has no geni- 
tive singular in the N. T. though zjxeos is common in the LX X,? 
but has rnxav (from Ionic rnxéwv or through assimilation to neu- 
ters in —-os), not the Attic mnxewv. In Jo. 21:8 only A Cyr. have 
ahxewy and in Rev. 21:17 only X32 For the genitive singular of 
"Iwofs and Mavacojs see 6 (e). 

(f) Contraction. It is not observed in dpewy (Rev. 6 : 15) 
and xeAéwy (Heb. 13:15). In both instances the Ionic absence 
of contraction is always found in the LXX (Prov. 12:14). This 
open form is not in the Attic inscriptions, though found in MSS. 
of Attic writers and the poets especially. In the xow7 it is a 
‘widespread tendency”’ to leave these forms in —os uncontracted, 
though é7év is correct in Ac. 4 : 22, etc.® So the LX X, Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 151. 

(g) PRopER NAMES. Mwovojs has always the genitive-ablative 
Mwvoéws (Jo. 9: 28), though no nominative Mwuaets is known. The 
genitive Mwo7n appears usually in the LXX, as Num. 4:41, and 
the vocative Mwoj as in Ex. 3:4. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p.. 163 f. 
W.H. have Mwvoe? (always with v. r.—-o7) asin Mk. 9:4, except 
in Ac. 7:44 where the form in —7 is due to the LXX (usual form 
there). The accusative is Mwvoéa once only (Lu. 16: 29), else- 
Where —jv, as in Ac. 7:35 (so LXX). Zodouwy (so in the nom- 
inative, not —év) is indeclinable in & in Mt. 1:6 as usually in 
the LXX. But the best MSS. in Mt. 1:6 have the accusative 
Zoropava, a few —Gvra. So the genitive Loroudvos in Mt. 12: 42, 


1 W.-Sch., p. 86. So Sir. 25:3, ete. The LXX also has the Ionic gen. 
ynpous. See Thack., Gr., p. 149; Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 42. Cf. Mayser, 
Gr. d. Griech. Pap., p. 276. 2 As Ex. 25:9. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. 

8’ Hort, Notes on Orth. But Xen. and Plut. (often) have znxav. See 
W.-M., p. 75. In LXX note rhxeos and rhxews, rHxewv and rnxev. Helbing, 
Grip. 45s) Ehack? pelo. 

4 W.-Sch., p. 88. °°“ Blass>GroohiN WeGk psse 

6 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 58-60, for 
discussion of the decl. of proper names in the LXX. The phenomena corre- 
spond to those in N. T. MSS. Ilpounfets had an Attic nom. —#s, gen. —éws, 
Lhumb, Handb., § 330. 1, 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI2) 269 


though a few MSS. have —évros. The Gospels have uniformly the 
genitive in —@vos. But in Ac. 3:11 W. H. accept Yodroudrros (so 
also 5:12), though BD etc. have dvos in 5:12. Cf. Zevoddvros 
(from nominative —av). Avorpedys (3 Jo. 9) and ‘Epyoyéerns (2 Tim. 
1:15) occurin nom. There are other proper names (Roman and 
Semitic) which are inflected regularly like BaSvAwy (Mt. 1:11), 
Taddiwy (Ac. 18: 12), "EXawwy (Ac. 1: 12) Katoap (Mt. 22:17), Dapwv 
(Ac. 9:35), Didav (Mt. 11:21), LDiuwy (Mt. 4:18). There should 
be mentioned also Ladapis (dative —t, Ac. 18:5). Cf. proper 
names in the LXX, Thackeray, Gr., pp. 163 ff. 

(h) Hererocuists AND Mertaptasm. Most of the examples 
have already been treated under the first declension 5 (g) or the 
second declension 6 (d). The accusative ada (Mk. 9 : 50) is like 
the old Greek 6 &\s. Some MSS. (Western and Syrian classes) in 
Mk. 9:49 have adi also. In Mk. 9 : 50 NLA have 76 @\a as nomi- 
native (cf. Lev. 2:13) like ya\a. But the best MSS. (NBDLA) 
give 70 addas in the first two examples in 9 : 50 and dda (accusative) 
in the third (so W. H.). So also Mt. 5:13 and Lu. 14:34. Cf. 
dative addatc in Col. 4:6. In the LXX 76 @yas is rare (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 152). Papyri show 76 @das in third century B.c (Moulton, 
and Milligan, Hapositor, Feb., 1908, p. 177). Instead of dps in 
Rev. 18 : 2 we have the genitive épvéov, from dpveov (good old Greek 
word), dépveos in Rev. 19:17, and dpvea in 19:21. In Mk. 6:4 
and Lu. 2:44 ovyyevedou (cf. 1 Macc. 10:88) is probably! from 
ovyyevels, not ovyyerns. Cf. 1 Macc. 10:89. This is a good 
place for me to record the admiration which has possessed me as I 
have tested the work of Hort through the maze of details in the 
MS. evidence concerning the forms. 

8. Indeclinable Words. ‘These do not, of course, belong to 
any declension. Josephus Grecized most of the Hebrew proper 
names like ’AyuivaBos (Mt. 1:4, ’Auivada8).2 Some he put in the 
first declension, many in the second and third declensions.* Blass‘ 
sums the matter up by observing that ‘‘the Hebrew personal 
names of the O. T., when quoted as such,” are indeclinable. This 
is an overstatement. But certainly many that in the LXX and 
the N. T. are not inflected, might have been, such, for instance, 
as ’Aapwv, laxwB, Kedpwv, Ladkwwv, Lvuewv, to go no further.® It 
is hardly worth while to give the entire list of these words. 


1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. 3 W.-Sch., p. 91. 

2 Tb. for extensive list. 4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 29. 

5 Thack., Gr., p. 169, suggests that place-names in —wy are declined or in- 
declinable according to rank and distance. 


270 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


They include such other words as the majority of those in the 
genealogy in Mt. 1 and that in Lu. 3, besides many other proper 
names,! including such geographical names as Aivav, Bnodayn, 
Zuiwy, Diva, ete. 

There are other indeclinable Hebrew and Aramaic words such 
as KopBav (Mk. 7:11), uavva (Rev. 2:17), racxa (Lu. 2 : 41), oi- 
xepa (Lu. 1:15 as in LXX). The gender (fem.) of the inde- 
clinable ovat (Rev. 9 : 12; 11:14) is probably due, as Blass? sug- 
gests, to OAs. In 1 Cor. 9: 16 ovai is used as a substantive (so 
also LXX). 

The use of 6 ay kal 6 Av Kal 6 Epxouevos in the nominative after 
amé in Rey. 1:4, etc., belongs more to syntax than to accidence. 
It is evidently on purpose (to express the unchangeableness of 
God), just as 6 didacxados kal 6 kbpios is in apposition with ye (Jo. 
13 : 18) in lieu of quotation-marks. 


Il. THE ADJECTIVE ("ONOMA ’EIIIOETON) 


Donaldson® is probably right in saying that, in general, the 
explanation of the adjective belongs to syntax rather than to 
etymology. But there are some points concerning the adjective 
that demand treatment here. 

1. The Origin of the Adjective. Adjectives are not indis- 
pensable in language, however convenient they may be.‘ In the 
Sanskrit, for instance, the adjective plays an unimportant part. 
Whitney® says: ‘The accordance in inflection of substantive and 
adjective stems is so complete that the two cannot be separated 
in treatment from one another.’ He adds® that this wavering 
line of distinction between substantive and adjective is even 
more uncertain in Sanskrit than in the other early Indo-Ger- 
manic tongues. Most of the Sanskrit adjectives have three 
endings, the masculine and neuter being usually a stems while 
the feminine may have 4d or 7, this matter being ‘‘determined in 
great part only by actual usage, and not by grammatical rule.” 
So likewise Giles in his Comparative Philology has no distinct 
treatment of adjectives. The adjective is an added descriptive 
appellative (dvoua ériferov) while the substantive is an essential 
appellative (dvoya otc.actixov). But substantives were doubtless 


1 See further list in W.-Sch., p. 91. 3 New Crat., p. 502. 

2 GriorNosk? Gk eens: 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 29. 
22 SanssGry DeLee 

6 Ib. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117, for the adjectival use of the substantive. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAISEIS) 271 


used in this descriptive sense before adjectives arose, as they are 
still so used. So, for instance, we say brother man, Doctor A.., 
Professor B., etc. Cf. in the N. T. & 7d "lopdavn roraud (Mt. 
3:6), etc. This is, indeed, apposition, but it is descriptive ap- 
position, and it is just at this point that the adjective emerges in 
the early period of the language.!’ Other Greek adjectives in 
form as in idea are variations from the genitive case, the genus 
case.” In itself the adjective is as truly a noun as the substantive. 
As to the form, while it is not necessary*® that in every case the 
adjective express its gender by a different inflection, yet the ad- 
jectives with three genders become far commoner than those 
with two or one.’ From the etymological point of view this in- 
flection in different genders is the only distinction between sub- 
stantive and adjective. The Greek has a much more highly 
developed system of adjectives than the Sanskrit, which has sur- 
vived fairly well in modern Greek, though a strong tendency is 
present to simplify adjectives to the one declension (—os, —n, —ov). 
Participles, though adjectives in inflection, are also verbs in sev- 
eral respects and call for separative discussion. The process of 
treating the adjective as a substantive belongs to syntax. The 
substantivizing of the adjective is as natural, though not so com- 
mon in Greek as in Latin, as the adjectivizing of the substantive 
_which we have been discussing.’ The distinction between adjec- 
tive and substantive is hard to draw in modern Greek (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 66). In modern Greek every adjective has a special 
feminine form. The development is complete. Cf. Thumb, pp. 
66 ff. 

2. Inflection of Adjectives. In Greek as in Sanskrit, the ad- 
jective has to follow the inflection of the substantive in the various 
declensions, the three genders being obtained by combining the 
first with the second or the third declensions. 

(a) ADJECTIVES WITH ONE TERMINATION. Of course at first 
this may have been the way the earliest adjectives arose. Then 
the genders would be formed. But analogy soon led to the for- 
mation of most adjectives with three endings. Some of these 


1 Delbriick, Syntakt. Forsch., IV, pp. 65, 259. Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. 
Philol., p. 239. 

2 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 474. san. wrist. Gk Gry patou: 

8 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. 5 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 502. 

6 Brug. (Griech. Gr., pp. 418-417) has no discussion of the adjective save 
from the syntactical point of view. 

7 See Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 414 f., for numerous exx. in the earlier Gk. 


ie A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


adjectives with one ending were used only with the masculine or 
the feminine, and few were ever used with the neuter.! Jannaris? 
considers them rather substantives than adjectives, but they il- 
lustrate well the transition from substantive to adjective, like 
amas, paxap, duyds. In fact they are used of animated beings. 
In the N. T. we have apraé (Mt. 7:15; 1 Cor. 5:10), wévns (2 Cor. 
9:9. Cf. rAavnres, Jude 13 B), and ovyyevis (Lu. 1:36). Luyyevis 
is a later feminine form like eiyevis for the usual ovyyerns (both 
masculine and feminine) which Winer? treats as a substantive (so 
Thayer). Strictly this feminine adjective belongs* only to words 
in —rfs and —els. Blass® quotes evyevidwy yuvauxay by way of com- 
parison. Modern Greek still has a few of these adjectives in use. 
The ancient adjectives in —7s (ebyevyjs) have disappeared from the 
modern Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handb., p. 72). 

(b) ADJECTIVES WITH Two TERMINATIONS. Some adjectives 
never had more than two endings, the masculine and the femi- 
nine having the same form. In the so-called Attic second de- 
clension this is true of tkews (Mt. 16:22). But a few simple 
adjectives of the second declension never developed a feminine 
ending, as, for instance, BapBapos (1 Cor. 14:11), é(ai)dvidsos (Lu. 
21:34), cwrnpios (Tit. 2:11).6 In the N. T. fovyos has changed 
to jobxtos (1 Pet. 3:4). The adjectives in the third declension 
which end in -7s or -wy have no separate feminine form. So 
evyerns (Lu. 19:12), eboeBns (Ac. 10:7) peifwy (Jo. 15:18), ete. 
Then again some simple adjectives varied’ in usage in the earlier 
Greek, especially in the Attic, and some of these have only two 
endings in the N. T., like diévos (Ro. 1: 20), éonuos (Ac. 1: 20, etc., 
and often as substantive with y# or xwpa not expressed), xécpos 
(1 Tim. 2:9), ovpamos (Lu. 2:13; Ac. 26:19), pdtvapos (1 Tim. 
5:13), dpdviwos (Mt. 25:2, 4, 9), wpercuos (1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Tim. 
3:16). With still others N. T. usage itself varies as in the case 
of aiwvos (Mt. 25:46, etc.) and aiwvia (Heb. 9:12; 2 Th. 2: 16, 
and often as a variant reading); érouos (Mt. 25:10) and éroiun 
(1 Pet. 1:5); paras (Jas. 1: 26) and pwaraia (1 Pet. 1:18); dpuor0s 
(Rev. 4:3, second example correct text) and syoia (Rev. 9:10, 


1-K.=Bl.; I) p. 547 f. venes Dist Gk) Grito; 
3 W.-M., p. 80. But cf. W.-Sch., p. 97. 
4, Blass, Groot, Ns LaGk. pace: 5 Tb. 


6 Cf. K.-Bl., I, p. 535 f., for fuller list. Some of the simple verbals in —ros 
also had no fem., as &vnros. 

7 In the LXX we see a very slight tendency towards giving a fem. form to 
all adjs. Thack., Gr., p. 172. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI>) 273 


though W. H. put édyolas in the margin instead of dyuolas, 19); scr0s 
(1 Tim. 2:8; so probably, though éciovs may be construed with 
éraipovras instead of xetpas). The early Attic inscriptions furnish 
examples of two endings with such adjectives as 6ox.uos (no fem- 
inine example in the N. T.) and dAoros with either two or three 
(N. T. only three)... The papyri furnish épyyos and oipdvios as 
feminine and others not so used in the N. T., as dixacos, pérpros, 
ordpiuos.” It was the rule with compound adjectives to have only 
two endings, for the most of them never developed a feminine 
form, as 6 (7) &doyos.? This tendency survives in the inscriptions, 
especially with compounds of a— privative and prepositions, and 
in the papyri also we have abundant examples.*’ The N. T. usage 
is well illustrated by 1 Pet. 1:4, ets kAnpovouiay adOaprov kal apiav- 
Tov Kal auapavrov. Cf. Jas. 3:17. 

(c) ADJECTIVES WITH THREE TERMINATIONS. The great ma- 
jority of Greek adjectives, like aya6és, —7, —ov, developed three 
endings and continue normal (cf. Thumb, Handbook, p. 68), as 
is universal in the modern Greek. Some of the compound adjec- 
tives also had three endings, especially compounds in —.xés and 
—tos, aS povapxixn, avatia (Plato).6 The same thing is observed in 
the inscriptions® and the papyri.’? In the N. T. we have several 
examples, as apyés, —7 (Attic always apyés, though Epimenides has 
=yyin) tL Tim. 5 : 13; Tit. 1:12; Jas. 2:: 20 according to BC. -In 
Mk. 4 : 28 at’rouaryn is not entirely new, for classic writers use it. 
In 2 Jo. 13 (and probably also 1) we have éxvex7rn. In Mt. 4:13 
the MSS. give zapafadaccia, but D has —.wv. However, in Lu. 
6 : 17 wapaduos is the feminine form, though occasionally the LX X 
and older Greek had —ia, varying like the other compounds in 
—ws. Other adjectives of three endings belong to the third and 


1 Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 148. Cf. also aidvios, xdoptos, in Magnesia 
(Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 140). Aristophanes used Bacideos, BeBaros, waxa- 
p.os, odpdvios, watpios With two endings (G. Wirth, De Motione Adjectivorum, 
1880, p. 51). This is true also of Euripides (ib., p. 49 f.). For further discus- 
sion of adjectives with two endings see Wilhelm, Zur Motion der Adjec. dreier 
End. in Griech. ete., p. 23; Wilhelm, Der Sprachgebr. der Lukianos etc., p. 
23. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 57 f. On the whole the LXX shows the ex- 
tension of the fem. so that adjs. which in Attic have two or three terminations 
have three in the LXX (dypuos, BéBatos, dixaros, EdeUOepos, waraos). Thack., Gr., 
Date 2: | 

2 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p.289f. * K.-BIL., I, p. 538. 

4 Cf. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 141; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 158; 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 291. 

5 K.-BL, I, p. 538 f. 6 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 158. 

7 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 291. 


274. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the first declensions, like d£ts, d&e?a, 6&0; mas, aca, 7av; Exwv, éxovca, 
éxOv; méAas, MéAaLVa, MEAaY; peyas, meyadn, mEeya; Tos, TOAAN, TONV. 
Cf. the perfect active participle in —ws, —vta, -és. The LX X MSS. 
sometimes have wav as indeclinable (ray rdv réorov, etc.) like 
aanons. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 51. Indeclinable zdnpns 
is retained by Swete in Sir. 19:26. Cf. Helbing, 7b. See (f) 
below. 

(d) THe AcCCUSATIVE SINGULAR. Some adjectives of the third 
declension have vy after the analogy of the first declension. See 
this chapter, 1, 5, (g), for the discussion in detail. W. H. reject — 
them all, though in a few cases the testimony is strong.! They are 
aoeBnv (Ro. 4: 5), aodadjv (Heb. 6:19), peifwv (Jo. 5: 36), cvyyerav 
(Ro. 16: 11), bycfv (Jo. 5:11). The use of irrational v with pettw 
(Jo. 5: 36 welfwy in ABEGMA) is likened by Moulton (Prol., p. 49) 
to irrational v with subjunctive 7 (7v). Cf. ch. VI, m (A), p. 220. 

(e) CONTRACTION IN ADJECTIVES. Two points are involved, 
the fact of contraction (or the absence of it) and the use of a or 
n after e, +, p. The uncontracted forms of adjectives are not so 
common as is the case with substantives. Cf. this chapter, 1, 6, 
(b). The contracted forms are practically confined to forms in 
—ous, like dots, ditdods, apyupovs, topdupods, atdnpovs, yxaXdkods, 
xpvoots. Here again we have a still further limitation, for the 
uncontracted forms occur chiefly in the Apocalypse and in & 
and in the case of xpvaots.2 Cf. Rev. 4:4; 5:8, where N reads 
xpucéous, —€as. But in Rev. 2:1 NPB read xpvodv, while AC have 
xpvcewv. Xpvody in Rev. 1:13, though accepted by W. H. and 
read by NAC, is rejected by Blass, but admitted by Debrunner 
(p. 28), as shown on p. 257. P. Lond. reads xpucav 7 apyupav, and 
L. P.” (i/iil A.p.) also has xypvonv 4 apyupyv.2 In each instance 
probably analogy has been at work. Thackeray (Gr., p. 172 f.) 
gives a very few uncontracted forms in -eos in the LXX. W. H. 
accept the genitive Baféws in Lu. 24:1 and rpaéws in 1 Pet. 3:4 
instead of the usual form in —-os. Hort® considers the variations 
in juovs as “curious,” but they find abundant parallel in the 


1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157 f. For pap. exx. of tyuqv see Mayser, Gr. d. 
griech. Pap., p. 295. Thack. (Gr., p. 146) considers it a vulgarism, though it 
began as early as 1v/B.c. (see Lwxpatny, tprnpnv). It is common ii/A.D. 

2 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 34f., for LXX. 

3 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 35, 435. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 48. Cf. ri iepyy xepadrvy on Rom. tomb (Kaibel, Epi- 
gram. Graeca, 1878, p. 269). 

5 Notes on Orth., p. 158. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 275 


papyri as does xpuvcewy above. In Mk. 6:23 jyicous, not —eos, 
is the genitive form, the usual (probably only) form in the pa- 
pyri.” The neuter plural jyicea has practically no support in Lu. 
19:8, though juion is the Text. Rec. on the authority of late 
uncials and cursives. Ta juiov has slight support. W. H. read 
Ta Huiova (NBQ 382, L having itacistic -ea) and derive it from a 
possible juiovos.2 But it is possible, if not probable, that jyicea 
was the earlier form changed by itacism to jyiova.t The plural of 
vnotis 18 ynores (Mk. 8:3=Mt. 15:32), and not vjoris as already 
shown.> For participles in —vta, —vins see this chapter, p. 256. 
As a rule the forms in —vins and —pns predominate, but note oreipa 
in Lu. 1:36. In the case of byu7s, whereas the Attic had accu- 
sative tyid (dycq in Plato, Phadr. 89 d), the N. T., like the inscrip- 
tions, papyri and the LXX, has only tyiq (Jo. 5:11, 15; 7: 23).7 
In Jo. 18: 1 xetuappov is almost certainly from xetuappos instead of 
the classical xe.udppoos.2 In 2 Pet. 2:5 dyédoov is not contracted, 
though sometimes the papyri have dyédous, dyédour.® 

(f) InDECLINABLE ADsEcTIVES. The papyri have cleared up 
two points of much interest here. One is the use of zAnpns in 
N. T. MSS. in an oblique case. In Mk. 4:28 Hort (Appendiz, 
p. 24) suggests rAnpns atrov (C* two lectionaries) as probably the 
original. In Ac. 6:5 W. H. put dvdpa rdnpys in the margin, 
though zAnpn is read only by B among the MSS. of importance. 
In Jo. 1:14 all the MSS. (save D 5 followed by Chrys. and 
Theoph.) have zAjpns. Moulton” indeed suggests that Anpn was 
the original text, which was changed to the vulgar rAypys. But 
the argument can be turned round just as easily. In almost 
every N. T. instance of an oblique case of wAnpys good uncials 
have the indeclinable form (Moulton, Prol., p. 50). The LXX 
also has examples of indeclinable rAnpns (cf. Hort, Appendiz, p. 

1 Xpvoéw is exceedingly common in the pap. (Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, 

. 435). 

4 ‘ yaaas Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 294f. Cf. also Deiss., B. 8., p. 186; Moul- 
ton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 34. So also the LXX, Thack., Gr., p. 179. 

3 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 52. 

4 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 87. ‘Huioea occurs in Antoninus Liberalis (ab. 150 a.p.) 
and oixetos is analogous. 

5 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 157. ‘Blass: Greot N. /DeGk..p: 25. 

7 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. For adjs. with acc. in —y (and sometimes 
vy added, -nv) see Dieterich, Unters., p. 175. Cf. this ch., m1, 2, (d). 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 25. 9 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 294. 

10 Prol., p. 50. See Crénert, Mem., p. 179; Turner, Jour. Theol. St., I, pp. 
100 ff. Milligan (N. T. Doc. s, p. 65) finds one ex. of indecl. rAnpns B.c. 


276 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


24). So Job 21:24, SABC. The examples of zAjpns so used are 
“fairly common” in the papyri’ and come as early as the second 
century B.c.2. There seems therefore no reason to refuse to con- 
sider 7Anpns in Jo. 1: 14 as accusative and to accept it as the text 
in Mk. 4:28 and Ac. 6:5. The other example of indeclinable 
adjectives is found in comparative forms in —w, like reiw. Moul- 
ton? points out that in Mt. 26 : 53 NBD read mrelw dwdexa Neyrdvas, 
while the later MSS. have mended the grammar with mheilous. 
He quotes also Cronert* who has furnished abundant evidence 
from the papyri and literature of such a use of these forms just 
like rAjpns. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Papyri, p. 63 f. 

3. Comparison of Adjectives. The comparative is a natural 
development in the adjective, as the adjective itself is a growth 
on the substantive. 

(a) Tue Positive (Getixov d6vopa OR Ovoya amrodv). This is the 
oldest form of the adjective, the most common and the most per- 
sistent. It is not always true that the comparative and superla- 
tive forms represent an actually higher grade than the positive. 
The good is sometimes more absolute than better or even best. 
See ayabos in Mk. 10: 18, for instance. Sometimes indeed the posi- 
tive itself is used to suggest comparison as in Mt. 18:8, kadov cot 
éorw eiceNOety . . . 4 dVo xetpas, k7A. This construction is common 
in the LX X, suggested perhaps by the absence of comparison in 
Hebrew.> The tendency of the later Greek is also constantly to 
make one of the degrees do duty for two. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 181. But this matter belongs rather to the syntax of compari- 
son. Participles are, of course, used only in the positive save in 
a few cases where the adjective-idea has triumphed wholly over 
the verb-conception.® Verbals in—ros sometimes have comparison, 
though padd\ov may be freely used with participles. 

(b) THE COMPARATIVE (ovyxpitixoy Cvowa). The stem may be 
(besides adjective) either a substantive (BacvNeb-repos) or an adverb 
(arpo-repos). Cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, p. 82. The primary 
comparative-ending —1wy (Sanskrit zyans) is probably kin to the ad- 
jective-ending —.os.’?. This form along with the superlative —1c70s is 

1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. For the indecl. rAjpns in Acta Thomae see 
Reinhold, De Graec. etc., p. 24. Cf. Sir. 19:26. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
p. 52. It is not till i/a.p. that it is common in the pap. Thack. (Gr., p. 176) 
thinks it not genuine in the LXX. 

2 Ib., p. 435. But see Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 297. 

SoPTOMe DU; 4 Philologus, LXI., pp. 161 ff. 5 W.-M., p. 302. 


6 K.-Bl., I, p. 553; Schwab, Die Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comparative, 3. 
Heft, 1895, pp. 152 ff. 7 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 290; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI2Z) 277 


probably originally qualitative in idea and does not necessarily 
imply excess. In the modern Greek these forms are not used at all. 
They have disappeared before the secondary comparative form 
—repos, Which even in the earlier Greek is far more common. The 
ending —repos does imply excess and appears in various words that 
are not usually looked upon as comparatives, as é-repos (‘one of 
two’), éxa-repos (‘each of two’), jué-repos (nos-ter), bué-Tepos (vos-ter), 
to-tepos.2 So also deb-repos like mpd-repos (cf. Latin al-ter, Eng- 
lish other) is a comparative form.* ‘The comparison-suffixes wy, 
tatos, Tepos belong to the Indo-Germanic ground speech.’’* In the 
N. T. the forms in -wy, as in the papyri,® hold their own only 
in the most common words. Schwab (op. cit., p. 5) makes —aros 
older than -raros. ’Apeitvwy is not used in the N. T. and Ba- 
tov only as an adverb once (2 Tim. 1:18). ’EXdaoowy appears 
four times, once about age as opposed to yeifwy (Ro. 9:12), once 
about rank as opposed to xpetoowyv (Heb. 7:7), once about excel- 
lence (Jo. 2:10) as again opposed to xkpetoowv, and once as an 
adverb (é\accov, 1 Tim. 5:9) in the sense of less, not pxpdrepos 
(‘smaller’). ‘Hooov (neuter only) is found in 1 Cor. 11:17 as op- 
posed to xpetooov, and as an adverb in 2 Cor. 12:15. Kaddcoy (Ac. 
25:10) is an adverb. Kpeicowy is confined to Peter, Paul’s Epis- 
tles and Hebrews (some eighteen examples, ten of them in Heb.). 
Meifwy is common (some fifty times), though some of them dis- 
place the superlative as we shall see directly. The neuter plural 
(ueifova) appears once as peifw (Jo. 1:50). Once also (3 Jo. 4) 
the double comparative form wefdrepos occurs, several simi- 
lar examples appearing in the papyri, as merforepos, wedNavTwrepor, 
mpecButepwrepa.’ A few other examples in poetry and late Greek 
are cited by Winer-Moulton,® like kpecrrérepos, werfovorepos, merfo- 

i Cf: Thumb, Handb., p. 73. 

2 Cf. Hirt, Handb. ete., p. 292; Brug., Indoger. Forsch., 1903, pp. 7 ff. 

3 Cf. Ascoli in Curtius’ Stud. zur griech. und lat. Gr., 1876, p. 351. 

4 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft I, 1893, p. 3. 

5 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 298. He mentions BedTiwv, tddcowr, 
joowv, wrelwy (r\éwv). For the inscr., Nachm. (Magn. Inschr., p. 148) adds 
dueivwv and pelifwr. 

6 The pap. have many exx. of the form without v as in welw (ous), etc. See 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 298 ff. But the usage varies greatly. The 
LXX MSS. show similar variations. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 54f. As 
LXX exx. of uniformity in form of comp. note ayabwrepos and aicxpdrepos, but 
only éyyiwv (—ar7os), not éyybrepos (—raros), C. and S., Sel. fr. LX-X, p. 29. Thack. 
(Gr., pp. 184 ff.) gives a careful summary of the exx. of —wyv,—voros in the LXX. 


7 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 35, 485. 
8 P. 81. Cf. also Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 180, for ddférepos, 


278 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


repos itself, weudtepos, wAevoTepos. Cf. English vernacular “‘lesser.”’ 
Taxiov (W. H. eov), not accor, is the N. T. form as we read in 
the papyri also.! Cf. Jo. 20:4, etc. Xeipwyis found eleven times 
(cf. Mt. 9:16). The ending —repos is more and more the usual 
one. Cf. rouwrepos (Heb. 4:12). Some comparative adjectives 
are derived from positive adverbs like éfwrepos (Mt. 8:12), 
éawrepos (Ac. 16:24), xatwrepos (Eph. 4:9). These latter adjec- 
tives are common in the LXX and the later Greek, not to say 
Attic sometimes.? Acrddrepos (Mt. 23:15) is for the old Attic 
durdovotepos. So Appian also. Cf. amrdorepov, Anthol. Pal., III, 
158 (Dieterich, Unters., p. 181). The Ionic already had odvywrepos 
and traxtrepos (Radermacher, Gr., p. 56). Cf. ayabwrepos (Hermas, 
Mand. VIII, 9, 11) and ayabwraros (Diod., 16, 85). The rules 
for the use of —w7epos and —drepos apply in the N. T. As waddov 
is often used with the positive in lieu of the comparative ending, 
so it is sometimes with the comparative, a double comparative 
(uaddov Kpetooov, Ph. 1:23; waddov tepiccotepov, Mk. 7:36), a 
construction not unknown to the classic orators of Athens where 
emphasis was desired.? Paul did not perpetrate a barbarism when 
he used €\axvordrepos (Eph. 3:8), a comparative on a superlative. 
It “is correctly formed according to the rule of the common 
language.” * Cf. also such a late form as éoxatwrepos.® 

(c) THE SUPERLATIVE (U7repOeTixov dvoua). As with the com- 
parative, so with the superlative there are primary and secondary 
forms. The primary superlative ending —.c7os (old Indian isthas, 
Zend. and Goth. 78ta)* did not perhaps represent the true super- 
lative so much as the elative (intensive like English ‘‘very’’) super- 
lative.? It was never very widely used and has become extinct in 
modern Greek.’ The xow7 inscriptions show only a few examples 
like a@yxuota, éyytora, KadALoOTOS, KpaTLOTOS, MéyLoTOS, TAEtoTOs:2? In 
the papyri Mayser" notes BeArioTov, €XaxuoTov (—iorn also), KadXi- 
OTN, KpaTioTos, TAE€loTOL, TaxioTnyv (—-LoTa), xetpiornv. In the N. T., 
however, the superlative in —.oros 1s more common than that in 
—ratos, though none too frequent in itself. They are besides usu- 
ally elative (intensive) and not true superlatives. D reads éy- 

1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. Cf. also auevdrepos in the older language 
(Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34). 2 W.-M., p. 81; Thack., Gr., p. 183. 

3 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft III, p. 65. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34. 5 W.-M., p. 81, Jann., p. 147. 

6. K.-BL, I, p. 554; Hirt, Handb. ete., p. 291. 

7 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. 8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 144. 


® Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 160; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 143. 
10 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 298. 1’ Blass,-Gr. of N.“T.‘Gk.,. p33. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI2) 279 


yeora in Mk. 6:36. ‘O €Xaxuoros (1 Cor. 15:9) is a true superla- 
tive, a thing so rare in the N. T. that Blass! attributes this ex- 
ample either to the literary language or to corruption in the 
text.'_ But Moulton? is able to find a parallel in the Tb.P. 24, 
ii/B.c. But more about true and elative superlatives in Syntax 
(ch. XIV, x1v). In 2 Cor. 12:9, 15 (D in Ac. 13:8), we have 
novora. Kpariore (Lu. 1: 3, etc.) is “only a title’? (Moulton, 
p. 78). Médtora appears a dozen times only, though péddov is 
exceedingly common. Blass* indeed suggests that a popular sub- 
stitute for wadiora as for mAe?oTa Was found in the use of zepicads. 
This is much more true of the use of repucods as the equivalent of 
paddov or wreiwy (cf. Mt. 5:37; 27: 23). Paul uses the comparative 
adverb repicoorépws (Ph. 1:14. Cf. double comparative in Mk. 
7:36). In Heb. 7:15 (ef. 2:1; 18:19 -ws) repiccdrepov ere Kara- 
dn\ov we have more than padrov. Cf. weyroros (2 Pet. 1:4) and 
mNetoros In Mt. 11: 20; 21:8; 1 Cor. 14:27. Taxuora (Ac. 17: 15) 
Blass‘ credits again to the literary element in Luke. In tyoros 
we have a superlative that occurs thirteen times and always 
about God or heaven (as Mk. 5:7; 11:10). 

When we take up the form in —raros in the N. T. the story is 
soon told. Brugmann? finds the origin of this ending in forms 
like déxaros (ef. Latin decimus), tp&tos (cf. Latin primus), braros, 
voratos. It has no direct parallel in the other languages. Hirt? 
suggests —7auwos and —aros as two forms which finally resulted in 
—ratos. It is true that the forms in —aros faded away as superla- 
tives and écxarov became écxarwrarov in the xow?h inscriptions,’ 
but this is true also of the forms in —raros.? The papyri have 
“scores” of examples of superlatives in —raros (chiefly elative).! 
The rarity of the —raros forms in the N T. may be purely acci- 
dental (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154). It is not quite true that 


Tb; ® Gri fof Nv. Gk. ip. 33 i 

Sebroleane (Qs: 7 4 Ib., p. 33. 

5 Indog. Forsch., 1903, pp. 7-9. Ascoli (Curtius’ Stud., etc., 1876, p. 351) 
suggests rpiros (cf. Hom. rpiraros.) also. Cf. also éoxaros. 

6 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 294. isop 

8 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 161. 

9 This double super!. does not appear in the N. T., but various instances 
are noted in the pap. and the later Gk. as é\axvorératos, weyioToratos, TpwrioTa. 
So Lat. minissimus, pessimissimus. Cf. W.-M., p. 81; Dieterich, Unters., 
p. 181. 

10 Moulton, Prol., p. 78; Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 297 f. See Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., pp. 54-57, for corresponding infrequency of the superl. forms in 
the LXX. The compar. is driving it out. Cf. also ib., p. vil. 


280 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“only one example of the —raros superlative’? (Moulton, Prol., 
p. 78) survives in the N. T. There are three with —rar7os, besides 
those with —atos: ayiwraros (Ju. 20), axpiBeoraros (Acts 26: 5), Tepe 
ratos (Rev. 18:12; 21:11). Thackeray (Gr., p. 182) finds —raros 
much more common in the LXX, though chiefly in the elative 
sense and in the more literary books of the LXX (Wisd., 2-4 
Macc., Prov., Esd.). ’AxpiBéoraros (Ac. 26: 5) Blass again credits 
to the literary language. ”“Eoxaros and mpd&ros (w from wera, Doric 
a) are both very frequent in the N. T. See Mt. 19:30 for the 
contrasted mp&ro. éoxaro. xr. The very great number of times 
that mp&ros (rp&rov included) is used in the N. T. (some 200) in 
contrast to only ten instances of rpérepov and one of zporépa (Eph. 
4:22) deserves comment. This seems in conflict with the ob- 
served disuse of the superlative in favour of the comparative. But 
a counter-tendency is at work here. The disappearance of dual- 
ity before plurality has worked against rpdrepov. Luke does not 
use mpérepoy at all and it appears only once in Grenfell and Hunt’s 
four volumes of papyri.! The LXX shows zpéros displacing mpére- 
pos (Thackeray, Gr., p. 183). So in English we say first story of 
a house with only two, first edition of a book which had only two, 
etc. It is almost an affectation in Greek and English, however 
good Latin it may be, to insist on rpérepos. So in Jo. 1:15 (rpa- 
tos pov), 15:18 (ap&rov tuadv), Ac. 1:1 (rdv rp&rov Noyov) we have 
merely first of two and in the two first instances the ablative con- 
struction as with the comparative. Winer properly saw this usage 
of rp&rov to be true to the Greek genius.? In Mt. 27: 64 we have 
both écxaros and mpéros used of two, éorar 7} éoxaTn TAdYN xXELpwr 
Ths mpwtns. Ilporepos is indeed used in the sense of the former in 
Eph. 4:22, whereas zpé7epov in the sense of the first of two does 
appear in Heb. 7:27 (apdrepov — érerta).2 It is probably a de- 
fect in both Latin and Greek that the same forms were used to 
express the elative and true superlative sense (so as to compara- 
tive also).4 As the dual vanished, so it was inevitable that with 
the same principle at work either the comparative or the superla- 
tive would. Outside of éoxaros and zp&ros where the principle 
crossed with a different application because zpdrepos was dis- 
appearing, it is the superlative that goes down, especially the true 
superlative as opposed to the elative (intensive). Hermas, though 
in the vernacular, still uses the superlative in the elative (inten- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 79 3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 34. 
2 W.-M., p. 306. 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 30. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI2) 281 


sive) sense very often.1 In the N. T. then the comparative is 
beginning to take the place of the superlative, a usage occasion- 
ally found in classical Greek,? and found now and then in the 
papyri.2 See 1 Cor. 13:13 7a rpia radra‘peifwr 5€ robrwy } dyer. 
See also 6 peittwy (Mt. 18:4). But this matter will call for more 
comment under Syntax (ch. XIV, xim, (7)). 


II. NUMERALS (’APIOMOI). 


No great space is demanded for the discussion of the non- 
syntactical aspects of the numerals. 

1. The Origin of Numerals. Donaldson‘ thinks that seven of 
the first ten numerals may be traced to primitive pronominal ele- 
ments. Pronouns and numerals belong to the stable elements of 
language, and the numerals are rather more stable than the pro- 
nouns in the Indo-Germanic tongues.> See the numerals in sub- 
‘stantial integrity in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., pp. 80-84). 
The system of numeration is originally decimal (cf. fingers and 
toes) with occasional crossing of the duodecimal.® There possibly 
were savages who could not count beyond two, but one doubts if 
the immediate ancestors of the Indo-Germanic peoples were so 
primitive as that.’? See previous discussion in this chapter, 1, 3. 
Counting is one of the first and easiest things that the child 
learns. It is certain that the original Indo-Germanic stock had 
numerals up to 100 before it separated.’ The roots are wide- 
spread and fairly uniform. 

2. Variety among Numerals. 

(a) DirFERENT Functions. The numerals may be either sub- 
stantive, adjective or adverb. So  xArds (Lu. 14:31), xidvoe 
(2 Pet. 3:8), éwrdxes (Mt. 18:21).2 Number thus embraces sep- 
arate ideas. . 

(b) Tur CARDINALS (6vépata apiOuntixa). They may be either 
declinable or indeclinable, and this according to no very well-de- 
fined principle. The first four are declinable, possibly from their 
frequent use. After 200 (S:a-xdcr01, —ar, —a) they have the regular 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. He cites the mod. Italian also which makes 
no distinction between the comp. and superl. 

2 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., I, pp. 172 ff. 

3 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439. 5 Giles, Man., etc., p. 393. 

4 New Crat., p. 294. Alay 

7 However, see Moulton, Prol., p. 58. Cf. Taylor, Prim. Cult., I, p. 242 f. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p. 58. 

® Cf. K.-BI., I, p. 621 f. 10 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 


282 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


inflection of adjectives of the second and first declensions. ‘The 
history of ets, wia, é&v is very interesting, for which see the compara- 
tive grammars.! Eis is exceedingly common in the N. T. as a 
cardinal (Mt. 25:15) and as an indefinite pronoun (Mt. 8 : 19), 
approaching the indefinite article. For the use of eis in sense 
of ordinal see Syntax, ch. XIV, xv, (a), but it may be remarked 
here that the papyri have 79 wea cal elkade (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
1901, p. 35). The indeclinable use of eis (or adverbial use of xara) 
is common in later Greek. Cf. xaf’ ets in Mk. 14:19; (Jo. 8: 9); 
Ro. 12:5.2 So modern Greek uses &a as neuter with which 
Mayser® compares éva as feminine on an early ostrakon. But the 
modern Greek declines éas, ia, éva in all genders (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 81). Oddeis and pnéeis are both very common in the N. T. with 
the inflection of eis. Mynfeis occurs only once (Ac. 27:33). W. H. 
admit ofels only seven times (all in Luke and Paul, as Ac. 20: 33), 
and once (Ac. 15:9) oté€& is in the margin. Jannaris (Hist. Gk. 
Gr., p. 170) calls this form in @ chiefly Alexandrian, rare in Attic, 
but Mayser (Gr., p. 180) notes ovdeis as ‘‘Neubildung’’ while 
oeis is good Attic. For history of it see Orthography and Pho- 
netics, p. 219. The frequent use of dvo as indeclinable save in the 
plural form évci in the later Greek has already been commented 
on in this chapter (1, 3), as well as the disappearance of audw be- 
fore duddotepor. Indeclinable dtvo is classical, and after Aristotle dvat 
is the normal dative (Thackeray, Gr., p. 186). Tpia (possibly also 
tpis) is occasionally indeclinable in the papyri.*’ The common use 
of réocepa in the xown and the occasional occurrence of téccapes 
as accusative in N. T. MSS. (like Northwest Greek) have been 
noticed in chapters VI, 2, (a), and VII, 1, 7, (c).> Terre, €& and érra 
need not detain us. The originally dual form oxrw is found only 
ten times, and five of them with other numerals. ’Evvéa appears 
only five times, while déka is nothing like so common as érra, not 
to mention the first five cardinals. “Evéexa is found six times, but 
dwoexa 18 quite common, due chiefly to the frequent mention of the 
Apostles. From thirteen to nineteen in the N. T., like the pa- 
pyri® and the modern Greek, 6éka comes first, usually without xai, 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 211; Hirt, Handb: etc., p. 311; Giles,-Man., p. 394. 
On numerals in the LXX see Thack., Gr., pp. 186-190; C. and S., Sel. fr. the 
DXA pesdis 2 Cf. W.-M., p. 312. So ava eis (Rev. 21: 21). 

8 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 312. Perhaps the earliest ex. of indeclinable éa. 
For the LX X usage cf. W.-Sch., p. 90. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 315. 

5 Ib. Cf. also Dittenb., 674. 28. 6 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 316. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 283 


‘as dexa oxrw (Lu. 13:4), though onee with «ai (Lu. 13:16). But 
unlike the papyri the N. T. never has dexadto.1 But dexarévre (as 
Jo. 11:18) and dexatéooapes (as Gal. 2:1) occur several times 
each. Eixoou is a dual form, while rpiaxovra and so on are plural.” 
‘Exarov is one hundred like a-raé. W.H. accent éxarovraerhs, not 
—éerns. Usually no conjunction is used with these numerals, as 
elxooe Téecoapes (Rev. 19:4), éxarov eixoor (Ac. 1:15), but reccapa- 
kovra Kal €& (Jo. 2:20). Cf. Rev. 13:18. In the LXX there is 
no fixed order for numbers above the ‘“‘teens.’”? Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 188. The N. T. uses xidvoe often and droxidvor once (Mk. 5 : 13) 
and rproxidvor once (Ac. 2:41). The N. T. examples of yupios by 
reason of case do not distinguish between pipio, ‘ten thousand’ 
(Mt. 18:24) and pupio, ‘many thousands’ (1 Cor. 4:15). The 
N. T. uses pupras several times for the latter idea (‘myriads’), some- 
times repeated, as pupiddes pvpiddwy (Rev. 5:11). So also xudrds 
is more common in the N. T. than yxidvx, both appearing chiefly 
in Revelation (cf. 5:11). In Rey. 13:18 B and many cursives 
have yé&s'=é£axdcvoe EEnxovta €£, while the cursive 5 has ys’ = é£ax6- 
ovo. dexa €£&. As arule in the N. T. MSS. the numbers are spelled 
out instead of mere signs being used. 

(c) THE ORDINALS (ovoywata TaxTiKa). They describe rank and 
raise the question of order, récros.* They are all adjectives of 
three endings and all have the superlative form —ros save zpé- 
tepos and 6ev-repos which are comparative.’ In most cases the 
ordinals are made from the same stem as the cardinals.» But 
this is not true of rp&ros nor indeed of de-repos (not from dvo, but 
from devouar).6 Cf. the English superlative ‘first’ (with suffix —7sto). 
IIpéros has driven mporepos out of use in the N. T. except as an 
adverb (or 70 mpdorepov) save in one instance, mpotépay avacrpodny 
(Eph. 4:22). The disappearance of rpéros before the ordinal 
use of eis belongs to Syntax. In the N. T. as in the papyri? the 
ordinals up to twelve are regular. From 13 to 19 the N. T., like the 
vernacular papyri’ (so Ionic and xow7n generally), puts the smaller 


1 Aéxa 60 is normal in the pap. of the Ptol. age. Cf. Rec., Ac. 19:7. Cf. 
Thack., Gr., p. 188. So also déka rpets, and even déxa yrds once. Always 
déxa Técoapes, Séxa wévte, Séxa OkTH. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. 

2 Giles, Man., p. 398. 

3’ K.-Bl., I, p. 622. Cf. Brug., réaros, Cl. Philol., 1907, p. 208. 

4 These both have a superl., as rp&ros and debraros (Hom.). Brug., Gk. Gr., 
p. 212. 

5 Giles, Man., p. 400. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 212; Moulton, Prol., p. 95 f. 

6 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 318. 

7 Ib. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. 


984 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


number first and as a compound with xai, only the second half of 
the word in the ordinal form. So reocapecxatdexaros (Ac. 27: 27), 
not réraptos kal dexatos (Attic)... But the papyri show examples 
of the usual Attic method,? as évaros kai eixoorés. The distinction 
between the decades (like rpraxocrés) and the hundreds (like rpra- 
Koo.ocrés) Should be noted. In modern Greek all the ordinals 
have disappeared out of the vernacular save rpé&ros, devrepos, Tpi- 
tos, Teraptos.’ The article with the cardinal is used instead. 

(d) DisTRIBUTIVES IN THE N. T. The multiplicative distrib- 
utives (with ending —rdods) occur in the N. T. also. ‘Azdods as an 
adjective is found only twice (Mt. 6: 22=Lu. 11: 34), both times 
about the eye. Arrdofs appears four times (as 1 Tim. 5:17). 
Cf. the Latin sim-plex, du-plex, English simple, diplomatic. The 
proportional distributives end in -7m\aciwy. As examples one 
may note éxatovrarAaciova (Lu. 8:8) and moddamAaciova (Lu. 18: 
30). Cf. English ‘‘two-fold,” ‘‘three-fold,” ete. One of the com- 
monest ways of expressing distribution is by repetition of the 
numeral as in dto dto (Mk. 6:7). Cf. cuprocta cuprocia (Mk. 6: 
39 f.). In Lu. 10:1 we have ava dvo dbo in the text of W. H., a 
“mixed distributive’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 97). The modern Greek 
has either az6 6vo or dvd 6vd (Thumb, Handb., p. 83). It is a 
vernacular idiom which was given fresh impetus (Brugmann, 
Distributiva, p. 9) from the Hebrew idiom. Deissmann cites rpia 
tpia from O. P. 121 (iii/a.p.). Moulton (Prol., p. 21) follows 
Thumb (Hellen., p. 152) in denying that it is a Hebraism. See 
further ch. XIV, xv (d). 

(ec) NumMERAL ApveRBS. These are of two kinds, either like 
dua (Ac. 24: 26), dtxa, ‘in two’ (not in the N. T., though see é:xafw 
Mt. 10 : 35), or like azaé, dis, rpis, etc. The one kind answers to 
multiplicatives and the other to proportionals.t The numeral ad- 
verbs continue in use in the LX X (Thackeray, Gr., p. 189 f.). The 
modern Greek instead of the numeral adverb uses ¢opa (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 88). 


IV. PRONOUNS (ANTONYMIAI) 


1. Idea of Pronouns. It is not the idea of a subject or object 
that is set forth by the pronoun, but the relation of a subject or 
object to the speaker.’ Sometimes, to be sure, as in conversation, 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35. So the LXX also. Thack., Gr., p. 188. 

2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 35. And even the use of forms like & kai 
eixootév, Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 318. 

3 Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volksspr., p. 56. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., 
Dilios 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 36. 5 K.-BI., I, p. 579. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 285 


the pronoun does not strictly stand in the place of a substantive. 
When one person addresses another, “I’’ and “thou” are plain 
enough from the nature of the circumstances. The pronoun in- 
dicates, but does not name the speaker, etc. In a sense then 
language is a sort of drama in which there are three characters, 
the speaker, the person addressed and the person spoken of.! 
Hence the first and second personal pronouns have no gender, 
while the third person, who may or may not be present, has gen- 
der. Giles? cites the case of Macaulay who repeated the substan- 
tive so often as almost to make the pronoun useless, though the 
reverse tendency is more common. The right use of pronouns 
is a good index of style. 

2. Antiquity of Pronouns. The personal pronouns are prob- 
ably the oldest part of the Indo-Germanic declension.? Pronouns 
(and numerals) are the most persistent parts of speech. They are 
essential to the very life of a language. Strange enough, the 
Coptic and the Hebrew, for instance, are only alike in their pro- 
nouns and their numerals.®> In Greek as in Sanskrit and English 
the pronouns maintain themselves with great tenacity. The pro- 
nouns are also closely akin in all the Indo-Germanic tongues. Cf. 
Sanskrit aham, Greek éyw(v), Latin ego, Gothic ik, Anglo-Saxon 
ac, German ich, English J, French je. They retain the case-forms 
better than any other parts of speech. 

3. Pronominal Roots. Indeed pronouns present an indepen- 
dent set of roots parallel to the verbal and nominal roots. As 
verb, noun, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunctions, inten- 
sive particles grow up around the old verbal (and nominal) roots, 
so pronouns represent a separate history. There are two great 
root-stocks then (verbal or nominal and pronominal). The pro- 
nouns can be resolved into monosyllabic roots.7. One may not fol- 
low Donaldson® (now obsolete), when he calls all the pronouns 
originally demonstrative, and yet something can be said for that 
idea. In the Sanskrit Whitney® calls this “very limited set of 
roots, the so-called pronominal or demonstrative roots.”’ Monro’ 
remarks that noun-stems name or describe while pronouns only 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 32. He accents mpdcwmor (persona) as illustrating 
this dramatic aspect. 

2 Giles, Man., p. 238. eb, peut. 4 Ib., p. 13. 

5 Renan, Hist. des Lang. Sémit., p. 84 f. 

6 Cf. Bopp, Uber den Einfl. der Pron. auf die Wortbild., 1832. 

7 Donaldson, New Crat., p. 241. 

§ Ib., p. 245. ® Sans. Gr., p. 185. 

10 Hom. Gr., p. 57; Bopp, Vergl. Gr., § 105. — 


286 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


point out; the one is predicative, the other demonstrative. The 
difference then is fundamental. ‘‘Pronouns are found to contain 
the same elements as those which furnish the person-endings of 
verbs.”’ (Monro, 2b.) 

4. Classification. Pronouns are either substantive in signifi- 
cation and inflection as éyw, adjective as jueérepos, or adverb as 
ovrws. The other. classification is into nine or ten great classes: 
personal, intensive, reflexive, possessive, demonstrative, relative, 
interrogative, indefinite, distributive. The correlative pronouns 
can be regarded separately also. These classes will call for spe- 
cial comment in detail See also ch. XV, 1. 

(a) THE PERSONAL Pronouns. In all the Indo-Germanic 
tongues the personal pronouns vary a good deal in inflection from 
the substantives and adjectives.2. The various Greek dialects 
show great variety in the inflection of the personal pronouns. 
The nominative singular has a different stem in the first personal 
pronoun from the other cases in all the Indo-Germanic languages. 
The N. T. follows current and ancient usage fairly well in the 
form of the first and second personal pronouns. The same thing 
is true as to the enclitic and the emphatic forms in the oblique 
cases. The MSS. vary between pov and éuod, etc. Not only do 
MSS. give the regular zpés we, but the papyri* furnish eis pe, 
mepl pov, to pov. The question whether cov or ood should be 
read is a very delicate one and rests almost wholly with the 
editor. W. H. have, for instance, éx rod 6¢$aduod cov and é& 7 
6pfady@ cod in the same sentence (Mt. 7:4. Cf. also the next 
verse). Nestle here has no such refinement, but cov all through 
these verses. The third personal pronoun gave trouble in 
Greek as in some other languages. In Attic the old od, of, é 
(without nominative) was chiefly reflexive,’ though not true of 
the Ionic. Possibly this pronoun was originally reflexive for 
all the persons, but came to be used also as the simple pronoun 
of the third person, whereas in Latin it remained reflexive and 
was restricted to the third person. The N. T. is like the xow% 


1 K.-BL., I, p. 579, have only five. 

2 Hirt, Handb., p. 296. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 84, for mod. Gk. 

’ Cf. K.-BI., I, pp. 580 ff. See briefer summary in Giles, Man., p. 298 f., 
and Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244f. On the multiplicity of roots in the pers. 
pron. see Riem. and Goclier Phonét., p. 336. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 302 f. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 165. 

6 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. He illustrates by the Eng.: “I will lay me 
down and sleep.” Cf. sutv in Mt. 6:19 f. 

6 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 341. 


THE DECLENSIONS. (KAIZEIS) 287 


in the use of atrés (common also in Attic) instead of od as the 
third personal pronoun. It is used in all three genders and 
in all cases save that in the nominative it usually has emphasis 
(cf. Mt. 1:21), a matter to be discussed under Syntax. Indeed 
aitos, whatever its etymology, is originally an intensive pro- 
noun (like Latin zpse), not a personal pronoun.! The “frequent 
and almost inordinate use’’ (Thayer) of airés in the LXX (cf. 
Jer. 18:3f.) and the N. T. is noticeable. So modern Greek 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 86) 

(b) THe INTENSIVE Pronoun. The N. T. has nothing new to 
say as to the form of the intensive airds. It is usually in the 
nominative that it is intensive like airds povos (Jo. 6: 15), though 
not always (cf. Jo. 14:11). The modern Greek? uses also a 
shorter form 703, etc. (also Pontic 470), as personal pronoun. The 
use of 6 airos may be compared with 6 téuos. See ch. XV, m1, (g). 

(c) REFLEXIVE Pronouns. The reflexive form is nothing but 
the personal pronoun plus the intensive ai7vés. The reflexive is 
one use of this intensive in combination with the personal pro- 
noun. They were originally separate words.? So airés éyw (Ro. 
7:25) which is, of course, not reflexive, but intensive. The Greek 
reflexives have no nominative and the English has almost lost - 
“himself,” “myself”? as nominative.*| In the N. T. the first and 
second persons have a distinct reflexive form only in the singular 
(Euavrod, ceavrod). In 2 Th. 1:4 aivrovs quads is obviously inten- 
sive, not reflexive. In 1 Cor. 7:35 quay airday it is doubtful.’ See 
ch. XV, tv, for further discussion. The contracted form cavrobd 
is not found in the N. T. It is common in the Kingdom books in 
the LXX and occurs in the papyri. See even carév in od Brére 
carov ard tev “lovdalwy, B.G.U. 1079 (a.p. 41). So as to abrobd. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 190. The modern Greek uses rot éuavrot 
pou for the reflexive (Thumb, Handb., p. 88). The reflexive for the 
third person® (usually éav7od in the singular, about twenty times 
avrod, etc., in W. H., as airév in Jo. 2: 24), while the only reflexive 
form for all persons in the plural in the N. T. has no secure place 
in the N. T. for the first and second person singular. The pos- 
sible reflexive (or demonstrative?) origin of ob made this usage 
natural. It appears in the papyri’ (ra abrod, Pet. I. 15, 15) and the 


1 Flensberg (Uber Urspr. und Bild. des Pron. abrés, 1893, p. 69) denies that 


it is from ai, but rather from ava. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244. 
2 Thumb, Handb., p. 85. 5 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 144. 
$-K.-BL., I, p. 596. 6 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. 


4 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p.62. 7 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 303 f. 


288. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


late inscriptions! for the first and second person singular. In the 
modern Greek the same thing is true.?, But in the N. T. only late 
MSS. read 4q@’ éavrod against a6 ceavrod (NBCL) in Jo. 18: 34. In 
Gal. 5:14 and Ro. 18:9 only Syrian uncials have éavrév for 
ceavtov.® This use of éav7dy for all three persons is fairly common 
in classical Attic. Indeed the personal pronoun itself was some- 
times so used (d0xé yor, for instance) .4 ; . 

(d) PossEsstvE PRONOUNS (KTnTIKal avTmvupiat). It is some- 
what difficult in the discussion of the pronouns to keep off 
syntactical ground, and this is especially true of the possessive ~ 
adjectives. For the etymology of these adjectives from the cor- 
responding personal pronouns one may consult the compara- 
tive grammars.’ But it is the rarity of these adjectives in the 
N. T. that one notices at once. The third person possessives (és, 
ogérepos) have entirely disappeared. és is found in only two of 
Paul’s letters: 1 Cor. and Phil., and these only three times. és 
is found about twenty-six times and byérepos eleven (two doubtful, 
Lu. 16:12; 1 Cor. 16:17). ‘Yyérepos appears in Paul only in 
1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ro. ‘Hyeérepos appears only nine times counting 
Lu. 16: 12, where W. H. have tyérepov in the margin, and Ac. 24:6 
‘ which W. H. reject. It is only éués that makes any show at all in 
the N. T., occurring some seventy-five times, about half of them 
(41) in the Gospel of John. Thumb® and Moulton’ have made a 
good deal of the fact that in Pontus and Cappadocia the use of 
éuds, ods, etc., is still common, while elsewhere the genitive per- 
sonal pronoun prevails. The point is that the Gospel of John 
thus shows Asiatic origin, while Revelation is by another writer. 
But one can easily go astray in such an argument. The Gospel 
of Luke has éuds three times, but Acts not at all. The large 
amount of dialogue in the Gospel of John perhaps explains 
the frequency of the pronoun there. The possessive éyués is 
naturally in the mouth of Jesus (or of John his reporter) more 
than ods, for Jesus is speaking so much about himself. The 
possessive is more formal and more emphatic in the solemn 


1 Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 161. * Thumb, Handb., p. 88. 

3 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. These last two quote Lev. 19:18. 
Cf. Simcox, ib.; Dyroff, Gesch. des Pron. Reflex., 2. Abt., pp. 23 ff. (Hefte 9 
und 10 in Schanz’s Beitr. etc.). 

4 Cf. Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 63; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 167. 

5 Giles, Man., p. 301; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 250; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 307. 

6 Theol. Literaturzeit., 18938, p. 421. 

7 Prol., p. 40f. He admits that the other possessives do not tell the same 
story. 8 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 89. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI2) 289 


words of Jesus in this Gospel.!' This is probably the explanation 
coupled with the fact that John was doubtless in Asia also when 
he wrote the Gospel and was open to whatever influence in 
that direction was there. The discussion of details will come 
later, as will the common use of the genitive of the personal pro- . 
nouns rather than the possessive adjective, not to mention the 
article. The reflexive pronoun itself is really possessive when in 
the genitive case. But this as well as the common idiom 6 té:0s 
need only be mentioned here. The Bceotian inscriptions show 
ftdwos in this sense as early as 150 B.c. (Claflin, Syntax of Bootian 
Inscriptions, p. 42). The line of distinction between the pronouns 
is thus not always distinct, as when éavrév (airy) is: used in the 
reciprocal sense (Lu. 23:12), a usage known to the ancients. 
The necessity in the N. T. of using the genitive of personal pro- 
nouns in the third person after the disappearance of és is like 
the Latin, which used ejus, suus being reflexive. Farrar (Greek 
Syntax, p. 34) recalls the fact that its is modern, his being origi- 
nally neuter also. 

(ce) DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS (OelKTIKal avTwvumia). But 
deictic must have a special limitation, for all pronouns were pos- 
sibly originally deictic (marking an object by its position). The 
anaphoric (avadopixai) pronouns develop out of the deictic by 
usage. They refer to or repeat. The true relative is a further 
development of the anaphoric, which includes demonstrative in 
the narrower sense. In a strict historical method one should be- 
gin the discussion of pronouns with the demonstratives in the 
larger sense and show how the others developed.” But here we 
must treat the demonstrative pronouns in the narrower sense 
as distinct from the original deictic or the later relative. The 
demonstrative thus applies both to position and relation. The 
declension of the demonstratives is more akin to that of substan- 
tives than any of the other pronouns.’ “Ode* occurs only ten times 
in the N. T., and eight of these in the form rade, seven of which 
come in the formula in Rev. rade Meyer (as Rev. 2:1, etc.). The 
others are rade (Ac. 21:11), ride (Lu. 10:39), rhvde (Jas. 4: 13).° 

1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 54. Dr. Abbott (Joh. Gr., p. 295) thinks 
that John’s love of contrast leads him to use iye?s as often as all the Synoptists. 

2 So Riem. and Goelzer in their Phonét., pp. 316 ff. SLD; 

4 Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of Phil., 1907, p. 235) considers 6 the pron. of 
the first person, odros of the second, éxetvos of the third. 


5 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 35f. For the etymology of the dem. pron, 
see Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 242 f. 


290 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The inscriptions and the papyri agree with the N. T. in the great 
rarity of dde in the later xow7.! But in the LXX it is commoner, 
and chiefly here also rade \eyer (Thackeray, Gr., p. 191). There 
are also many examples of és as a demonstrative, as Ro. 14:5 
and also cf. 6, 7, 76 with 6€, as of dé in Mt. 27:4. This latter de- 
monstrative construction is very common. Adtrés is beginning to 
have a semi-demonstrative sense (common in modern Greek) in 
the N. T., as in Lu. 13:1, & ai7G 7G carp. There is little to say 
on the non-syntactical side about éxetvos and ovros save that both 
are very common in the N. T., ot7os extremely so, perhaps four 
times as often as éxetvos which is relatively more frequent in John.? 
Blass* points out the fact that otroc-i does not appear in the 
N. T. (nor in the LXX), though the adverb vup-i is fairly common 
in Paul and twice each in Acts and Hebrews. Ot xi is much more 
frequent especially in Luke and Paul. Smyth* compares €é-xetvos 
(kecvos in Homer) to Oscan e-tanto. Modern Greek uses both 
forms and also é-rotros and rodros in the nominative.® 

Of the correlative demonstratives of quality rotos is not found 
in the N. T. and rowdcde only once (2 Pet. 1:17). Tovodros (neuter 
towodro and —ov) occurs fifty-seven times, chiefly in the Gospels 
and Paul’s earlier Epistles (Gal. 5:21). We find neither rdcos 
nor tocodde and togodros (the only correlative demonstrative of 
quantity) is less frequent than rovodros (cf. Lu. 7:9). The neuter 
is also in -ov and -o. Of the correlatives of age rn\xob70s alone is 
found four times (cf. Jas. 3:4). See-also ch. XV, VI. 

(f) RELATIVE. PRONOUNS (avadgopixal avtwvupiat). Homer 
shows the transition of the demonstrative to the relative, using 
five forms (6, 6 Te, és, ds Te, ds Ts). Attic dropped 6 and 6 ve as 
well as 6s re. This use of ve with 6 and és may be compared with 
the common use of the Latin qui =et 7s. So the Hebrew *: (‘this’) 
is sometimes relative. Cf. German der and English that. Rela- 
tives in the narrower sense grew naturally out of the anaphoric 
use of the demonstrative. The weakening of 6 to the article and 
the introduction of the longer demonstratives (éde, otros, éxetvos) 
left 6s more and more for the true relative use. ‘O and és have a 


1 See Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 145; Dieterich, Unters., p. 197; Mayser, 
Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 308. 

«Blass Greate 3 omen DL cal 3 Ib., p. 35; Thackeray, p. 191. 

4 The Ionic Dial., p. 448. 

6 Cf. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volkspr., p. 64. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., 
Dwt61. 

6 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 185 ff.; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 291 


different etymology. Relative 6s=Sanskrit yds. There are thus 
only two pure relatives that survive in the N. T., és and gous, 
for dorep and 6cdnrore are not found save that the Western and 
Syrian classes read 6vrep in Mk. 15:6. ‘Oodhrore in Jo. 5:4 dis- 
appears with the rejection of that verse. Already the papyri! 
and the inscriptions? show the rare occurrence of éa71s, confined as 
a rule to the nominative and gradually disappearing in the mod- 
ern Greek before 6 émotos and even 7zod.2 Compare the vulgar 
“whar” in ‘the man whar said that.” “Oorvs is, of course, merely 
ds plus the indefinite z:s in the sense of ‘any one’ or again of ‘some- 
body in particular.’ Both of these senses occur in the N.T. usage. 
The N. T. follows the papyri and inscriptions in using only the 
nominative of éc71s save the neuter accusative 6 7 (Lu. 10: 35), 
and the genitive in set phrases like éws 6rov (Jo. 9:18). It is 
used in both the singular and the plural, however, but is other- 
wise nearly indeclmable. “Os ye (Ro. 8: 32) is, of course, simply 
és plus the intensive particle ye. “Os itself is many times more 
common in the N. T. than doris and raises no questions save many 
syntactical ones. Oios, émotos, dcos, nAtkos are also relatives of 
quality, quantity and age. Otos is found only fourteen times in 
the N. T., ten of them in Paul’s writings (cf. 2 Cor. 10:11). 
‘Orotos can count up only five examples, four in Paul if we credit 
to him Ac. 26:29. This is a little strange when one recalls how 
common it is in the modern Greek. But the correlatives generally 
are weak in the vernacular’ xo. ‘Ordcos is not in the N. T. 
nor modern Greek, but éc0s (1 Cor. 7 : 39) holds its own. As to 
#Alkos, it drops to four instances, two of them in the same sentence 
(Jase oo): 

(g) INTERROGATIVE Pronouns. Tis (ri) is fairly common in 
the N. T. both in direct (Mt. 21:31) and indirect questions (Mt. 
20:22) like the papyri usage. Tis, vi in the Thessalian Greek 
is xis,®> xi. So Sanskrit kdés, Latin quis, Gothic hwas, English who, 
German wer. In Latin and English the relative is formed from 
the same root, but not so in the Greek. In modern Greek, how- 
ever, tis has vanished before zotos (cf. doris before 6 zrozos),® ac- 
cented os, though ri (indeclinable) survives strangely enough 
in the sense of ‘what sort.’”’? In the N. T. the qualitative cor- 


1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 310. 2 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 145. 
3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 167 f£. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 93. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 311; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 145. 

’ K.-BL., I, p. 613; Hoffmann, Die gr. Dial., Bd. II, p. 558. 

6 Thumb, Handb., p. 94. ele 


992 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


relative zotos is used fairly often as a direct interrogative (cf. Mk. 
11:28) and sometimes as an indirect interrogative (Mt. 24:42). 
Ilorarés is used a few times in direct (Mt. 8:27) and indirect 
also (Lu. 7:39). Ilécos is still used as a direct interrogative 
(Mt. 12:12) in quantitative questions and a few times in indi- 
rect questions (Mk. 15:4). IIn\txos occurs only twice (one of 
these doubtful, Gal. 6:11, W. H. 7Xixocs margin) and both times 
in indirect question (Heb. 7:4). The disappearance of duality 
has taken zérepos entirely away, though zé7epoy occurs once as an 
adverb in an indirect question (Jo. 7:17). In the LXX we find 
notepov only once in Job (Thackeray, Gr., p. 192). Modern Greek 
does not use rnXixos, though rdaos survives. 

(h) INDEFINITE Pronouns. Like the Latin ali-quis (interrog- 
ative quis) the Greek ris differs from the interrogative ris only in 
accent. It is very common in the N. T. (as Lu. 1 : 5), but already 
it is giving way to eis (Mt. 8:19), a usage not unknown to the 
older Greek.! In the N. T. we have eis 71s together (Mk. 14: 47; 
Lu. 22:50). Modern Greek has supplanted ris, 7i by kaveis (kav, 
eis) and xabeis (cf. xad’ eis in N. T.).2. The negative forms pjris 
and otrts do not appear in the N. T. save that unre occurs in 
questions (Mt. 12: 23) and yy ms with va. But pndeis and ovdeis 
are very common. ‘The old detva meets us only once (Mt. 26: 18), 
but hangs on in the modern Greek.* Ov ras and yi) ras belong 
wholly to Syntax. 

(1) DisTRIBUTIVE AND RECIPROCAL PRONOUNS. These pro- 
nouns have an insecure place in the N. T. with the exception of 
aos, AAANAWY, ExacTos and €repos. ‘Exarepos like wérepos has van- 
ished, as implying duality. It is rare in the LXX (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 192). "Audw is gone, but dudorepor lingers on in some four- 
teen instances (cf. Mt. 9:17). ’AdAnAwyv (composed of &Ados, &A- 
dos) .is naturally only in the oblique cases of the plural, but is 
fairly common (cf. Jo. 4:33). It has vanished in the modern 
Greek. “Exaoros on the other hand appears only in the singular 
except in Ph. 2:4 (probably twice there). It too has disap- 
peared in the modern Greek. “Erepos is beside &uddrepor the only 
surviving dual pronoun, and it goes down in the modern Greek 
along with auddrepo.* It is less common (97 times) in the N. T. 


1 Dieterich, Unters., p. 202; Hatz., Einl., p. 207. 

2 Thumb, Handb., p. 95 f. SA Leys UE 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. The pap. (Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., 
p. 312) show a few examples of éxarepos, underepos, dadrepos. Once (Prov. 
24:21) the LXX has pnOérepos. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 293 


than a&\dos (150), chiefly in Matthew, Luke, Paul, Heb., never in 
Revelation, Peter, and only once in Jo. (19:37) and Mk. (16: 12) 
and this latter in disputed part. It is usually in the singular 
(73 times, plural 24). The distinction (not always observed in 
the N. T.) between a\dos and érepos belongs to Syntax. The use 
of eis tov &a as reciprocal (1 Th. 5:11) and of éavrév (1 Cor. 6:7) 
along with other uses of a\Xos and ézepos will receive treatment 
under Syntax. 


V. ADVERBS (EIMIPPHMATA) 


1. Neglect of Adverbs. A glance at the average grammar will 
show that the grammarians as a rule have not cared much for the 
adverb, though there are some honorable exceptions. Winer has 
no discussion of the adverb save under Syntax. Still others have 
not understood the adverb. For instance, Green! says that once 
in the N. T. “a preposition without change is employed as an 
adverb,” viz. trep éyw (2 Cor. 11:23). That is a perfunctory 
error which assumes that the preposition is older than the ad- 
verb. It is of a piece with the idea that regards some adverbs 
as “improper”’ prepositions. Donaldson? says that, with com- 
pliments to Horne Tooke, “the old grammarian was right, who 
said that when we know not what else to call a part of speech, 
we may safely call it an adverb.” Certainly it is not easy 
nor practicable always to distinguish sharply between the ad- 
verb and _ preposition, conjunction, interjections and other 
particles. But the great part played by the adverb in the 
history of the Greek language makes it imperative that justice 
shall be done to it. This is essential for the clear understand- 
ing of the prepositions, conjunctions and particles as well as 
the adverb itself. Substantive and verb blend at many points 
and glide easily into each other in English, for instance. At- 
tention has often been called to the use of “but”? in English 
as adverb, preposition, conjunction, substantive, adjective and 
pronoun.+ 


1 Handb. to the Gr. of the N. T., p. 138. 

2 Gk. Gr., p. 37. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 535-6438, has the most com- 
plete treatment of the adv. 

3 Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 250. In the Sans. the line is still less clearly drawn 
between the various indeclinable words (Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 403). 

4 Giles, Man., p. 237 f.. Cf. Schroeder, Uber die form. Untersch. der Redet., 
p. 35f.; Delbriick, Grundr., Bd. III, p. 536 f. 


294 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2. Formation of the Adverb. The name suggests a mere 
addendum to the verb, an added word (like the adjective) that is 
not necessary. But in actual fact adverbs come out of the heart 
of the language, expressions fixed by frequent usage. 

(a) Fixep Casss. A large number! of words retain the case- 
ending in the adverb and often with the same function. Perhaps 
the bulk of the adverbs are either the simple case used directly 
in an adverbial sense or the formation by analogy. It is just be- 
cause adverbs are usually fixed case-forms or remnants of obsolete 
case-forms that they deserve to be treated under the head of De- 
clensions. They have to be approached from the standpoint of 
the cases to understand their history. Leaving analogy for the 
moment let us see some examples of the cases that are so used. 
The cases most commonly used thus are the ablative, locative, 
instrumental and accusative.?. The dative and genitive are sel- 
dom employed as adverbs. The vocative never occurs in this 
sense, and the nominative (so occasionally in Sanskrit) only in a 
phrase like xaé’ eis in the addition to John’s Gospel (Jo. 8: 9), 76 xa’ 
ets (Ro. 12:5). Cf. ava-uigé. Examples of the various cases as used 
in the N. T. will be given without attempting to be exhaustive. 
The xowy and the modern Greek illustrate the same general ten- 
dencies as to adverbs that we see in the earlier Greek. Here the 
N. T. is in close accord with the papyri as to adverbs in use.® 

(1) The Accusatiwe. The most obvious illustration of the ac- 
cusative in adverbs is the neuter of adjectives in the positive, 
comparative and superlative (singular and plural). In the com- 
parative the singular is the rule, in the superlative the plural, but 
variations occur. In the modern Greek accusative plural is more 
common even in the comparative (Thumb, Handb., p. 77). Take 
for the positive avpiov, eb (s added later), éyyi(s), ueya, pécor, 
TAnolov, TONAL, TAXY, OHuEpoV, AAA (AAAa), TOAAA, paxpav. The com- 
parative may be illustrated by torepov, BéXrvov, and the superlative 
by mp@rov (and rp&ra) and jédrora. Cf. also taxtornv. Sometimes 
the article is used with the adjective where the adverbial idea is 
encroaching, as 76 Nouréy, Ta ToAAG, and note also tiv apxynv (Jo. 
8:25), substantive with article. But the substantive alone has 
abundant examples also, as dkunv, apxnv, dwpedv, repay, xapuv. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 250 ff. * Hirt, Handb. ete., pp. 320 ff. 

3 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 456 ff. 

4 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 251; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 322. In the Sans. 
the acc. also is the case most widely used adverbially (Whitney, Sans. Gr., 
408). Cf. Delbriick, Grundl., pp. 34 ff. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI=) 295 


Dxeddv is a specimen of the adverb in —6or, -da. Cf. also duobupa- 
dov, por~nddv. The accusative in adverbs is specially characteristic 
of the xowy (cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 459; Schmid, 
Attic., II, pp. 36 ff.). In the modern Greek the accusative for 
the adverbs is almost universal. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 77. 

(2) The Ablative. All adverbs in -ws are probably ablatives. 
Kaddés, for instance, is from an original cadad. The 6 (Sanskrit f) is 
dropped and a final s is added.’ Cf. old Latin meritdd, faciluméd.? 
The otrws, ws of the Greek correspond exactly with the old Sanskrit 
tid, ydd. ‘The ending in —ws comes by analogy to be exceedingly 
common. Practically any adjective can by —ws make an adverb 
in the positive. Some, like dévad\eirTws, belong to the later Greek 
(xowy).® Participles also may yield such adverbs as dedopévws 
(2 Cor. 9:6), duoroyouperws (1 Tim. 3:16), dvtws (Mk. 11:32). 
Radermacher (VN. 7. Gk., p. 54) cites dpxotvrws, TerodunKdTws 
(Diod., XVI, 74. 6), etc. The bulk of the adverbs in —-ws are from 
adjectives and pronouns. But the examples of —ws are rare in the 
modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 77). 

(3) The Genitwe. ‘There are not many adverbs in this case 
outside of those ending in —ov, like atrod, drov, rod, du0d and —js 
(€fjs). This use survives in modern Greek. Cf. the local use of 
the genitive in ’Ed¢écov (Ac. 19: 26). The common use of jyépas, 
vuxtos verges toward the adverb.* Cf. also rod Aourod (Gal. 6: 17). 
The genitive is almost never used adverbially in Sanskrit.° 

(4) The Locative. This is a rare use in Sanskrit,® but more 
frequent in Greek. Instance éxe?, xikrXw, olxor, tpwi. So also deb, 
mépvot, etc. Hirt’ (but not Brugmann) likewise treats examples 
like dnyocia, idia, refF, etc., as locative. Certainly zo? is locative, 
but it does not appear in the N. T. Cf. also 7@ éy7e (article and 
participle) in adverbial sense (Ro. 7: 23). 

(5) The Instrumental. This case lends itself naturally to the 
adverb where the idea of manner (associative) is so common.’ In 
the Sanskrit it is very common for adverbs to be in the instrumen- 
tal.° Such adverbs as dua (cf. ablative duws from same root), eixj, 
KpupA(h), AaOpa(a), uada, wavTy(n), TavTaxA(H), Taxa, etc., are doubt- 


1 Giles, Man., p. 240. 2 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 320. 

3 Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 457 f., for further exx. Cf. the Lat. 
adv. (abl.) raro, quomodo etc., Bopp, Vergleich. Gr., §183. Cf. also Delbriick, 
Grundl., pp. 48 ff. 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 252. 5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 410. Selb. 

7 Handb. etc., p. 321. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 252 (dat. acc. to Brug.). 

8 Hirt, Handb., p. 321. 9 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 409. 


296 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


less instrumental. In some cases : is added to bring it in harmony 
with the locative-dative cases with which it blended.t Brug- 
mann? also puts here such words as avw, Katw, Ew, avwrépw, avw- 
TaTw, ov-rw. —IIw is by ablaut from —77n (so Laconic 77-7oka). 

(6) The Dative. As in the Sanskrit,’ so in the Greek the dative 
is very rare in adverbs. Indeed Hirt* is not far wrong when 
he says that it is not easy to find any dative adverbs distinct 
from the locative, though he accepts zapat, xauat, xrA. as dative 
(p. 260). Brugmann® thinks otherwise, and one is slow to dis- 
sent from the modern master of comparative grammar. He cites 
Taal, Xaual, KaTal, mapat, KUKAwW, omovdn, etc. But Delbriick® is 
against Brugmann here. Besides the dative in its proper sense is 
a little difficult to fit into an adverb. But we have given enough 
to justify the treatment of adverbs under the declensions.’ 

(b) SurrrxEs. Other adverbs are formed by suffixes which 
may be relics of lost case-endings that are no longer clear to us. 
Here only the main suffixes in use in the N. T. will be mentioned. 
For —aki-s take roAXaxts and the numeral adverbs like rezpakis, etc. 
For —axod note zavtaxod. For —de take olxade. For —dov take ouo- 
duyadov (Ac. 18:12). For —ys we may note ééaidvns, é&fs, ebetjs. 
Those in —0e(v) are numerous, like dvwhev, eEwhev, obpavdbev, ratd.0- 
dev, etc. Av’7o#. is common in the papyri, but not in the N. T.8 
The deictic i appears in yuvi and ovxi. An example of -1s appears 
in porss (cf. poyrs Text. Rec. in Lu. 9:39). For —ri note ’EBpai- 
ott, ‘EAXnviati, Avxaovioti, ‘Pwuatori. For —xa take jvika. For —v 
we have vidv, taku. For —re we may mention 6-re, 76-re. Then —s 
is added in the case of dis, rpis and various other words like axpus, 
elOUs, méxpls, oUTwWs, TETPAKLs, Xwpis, etc. ’Exetce iS an instance of 
—ce. Then —7os appears in éxrés, evtés, Finally —xa is seen in &- 
vuxa. ‘The papyri furnish parallels for practically all these N. T. 
examples (and many more).? “Amaé seems to stand by itself. 

(c) CompouNp ApvERBS. Some adverbs are due to the blend- 


1 Hirt, Handb:) p.s2i:t. 
? Griech. Gr., p. 252f. Cf. Delbriick, Grundr., IIT, p. 581 f. 


3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 410. ‘ 4 Handb., p. 321. 
6 Griech. Gr., p. 252. ‘Cf. also p. 229f., where he acknowledges the other 
point of view as possible. 6 Grundr., p. 60 f. 


7 In Lat. adv. are partly remnants of case-forms and partly built by anal- 
ogy. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 109. For Gk. see also Lutz, Die Casus-Adv. 
bei att. Rednern (1891). 

8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 456. 

9 Ib., pp. 455-459. See also Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 253-257. Cf. Donald- 
son, New Crat., pp. 449-501, for discussion of these adv. suffixes. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI2) 297 


ing of several words into one word, perhaps with modification 
by analogy. The xowy is rather rich in these compound ad- 
verbs and Paul fairly revels in them. As samples take éada 
(2 Pet. 2:3), xarévayre (2 Cor. 12:19), xatevwmiov (Eph. 1:4), 
mapautixa (2 Cor. 4:17), ampoowrodnurtws (1 Pet. 1:17), mapa- 
xphua (Lu. 1:64), trepavw (Eph. 4:10), brepéxeva (2 Cor. 10: 16), 
brepexreprcood (1 Th. 3:10), brepdXtav (2 Cor. 11:5), breprepiccds 
(Mk. 7:37), etc. The intense emotion in 2 Cor. explains the 
piling-up and doubling of some of these prepositional phrases. 
Occasionally a verbal clause is blended into one word and an ad- 
verb made by analogy with -ws. So (from voty éyw) vouvexas (Mk. 
12:34), used by Aristotle and Polybius along with another ad- 
verb like vovvexévTws in Isocrates.! But in Mark it is used without 
any other adverb. ‘YzepBaddovtws (2 Cor. 11:23) is made from 
the participle and is common in Attic (Xen., Plato). There are, 
besides, adverbial phrases like a6 pwaxpodev (Mk. 15:40) ar’ avw- 
Gev, ws katw (Mt. 27:51), etc. Cf. Con. and Stock, Sel. fr. LXX, 
p. 47. See chapter V, p. 170, for discussion of the formation of 
compound adverbs which are very common in the xow7. Paul 
uses the idiom frequently. For the use of adverbs in the xovvn, 
see. Mayser’s careful list from the papyri, pp. 455 ff., and Nach- 
manson, Magn. Inschr., p. 188 f. New adverbs are continually 
made in the later Greek, though many of the older ones survive 
in the modern Greek. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 78 ff. He groups 
them under place, time, manner and quantity. 

(d) ANaLoay. A word is needed to accent the part played by 
analogy in the formation of adverbs, though it has already been 
alluded to. The two examples mentioned above, vouvexds and 
brepBaddovtws will serve as good illustrations of the work done by 
‘the principle of analogy. The bulk of the —-ws adverbs are abla- 
tives made by analogy.” | 

(e) THE CoMPARISON OF ADVERBS. In general the adverb is 
like the adjective save that in the comparative the accusative 
singular is used, like raxcov, and the accusative plural in the super- 
lative, like raxucra. But, per contra, note mp&rov and xatwrépw 
(Mt. 2:16), reptocorépws (2 Cor. 1:12), crovdatorépws (Ph. 2: 28), 
écxatws (Mk. 5:23), moppwrépw (Lu. 24:28. AB —pov). Cf. fur- 
ther ch. XII, m1. 

3. Adverbial Stems. The derivation of the adverb deserves 
a further word, though the facts have already been hinted at. 
Brief mention is all that is here called for by way of illustration. 

| 1 Giles, Man., p. 240. 2 Tb, 


298 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(a) SuspsTantives. As N. T. examples of adverbs from sub- 
stantives may be mentioned dpx7v, dwpeav, xapuv. 

(b) Apsectives. It was and is always possible to make an 
adverb from any Greek adjective by the ablative ending —ws. Cf. 
both trax’ (accusative) and raxéws (ablative). Indeed the line be- 
tween the adjective and adverb was never sharply drawn, as will 
be shown when we come to the study of the syntax of the adjec- 
tive (cf. English “looks bad,” ‘‘feels bad,” a different idea from 
the adverb, however). In passing note éxofca (Ro. 8:20) and 
devrepator (Ac. 28 : 13) in strict accordance with the Greek idiom. 
The comparison of adverbs is another link between adverb and 
adjective. In most cases, however, it is merely the use of the 
comparative and superlative forms of the adjective as an adverb. 
But in some cases the comparative and superlative adverb is 
made without any corresponding adjective, done by analogy 
merely. So pa@ddov, wadiora, from pada, dvwrepov from the adverb 
avw. Cf. also eyyirepov (Ro. 13:11) from éyyts, catwrépw (Mt. 
2:16) from xatw, and roppwrepov (Lu. 24 : 28) from zéppw. Com- 
parative adjectives made from positive adverbs are, on the other 
hand, seen in é£wrepos (Mt. 8 : 12), éowrepos (Heb. 6 : 19), xatwrepos 
(Eph. 4:9). Karwrépw, mepiscotépws (Heb. 2:1, often in Paul; 
Gal. 1:14), crovdaorépws (Ph. 2:28), rodunporepws (Ro. 15: 15) 
rather than the forms in —repov are due to analogy of the abla- 
tive —ws. Adverbs made from participles can be looked upon as 
adjectival or verbal in origin, since the participle is both verb 
and adjective. 

(c) Numerats. All that is necessary here is to mention such 
words as mp@&rov, bis, éertaxis, etc. In Ac. 11:26 we have zpwrws 
instead of rp&rov. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 58) cites for —ws 
Clem., Hom. 9, 4; 16, 20; Polyb. vi, 5. 10; Diod., ete. 

(d) Pronouns. The pronominal adverbs are very numerous, 
like otrws, woabtws, etc., abtod, more, TOTE, Woe, etc. As with the 
correlative pronouns, so the correlative adverbs are lessening. 
Of the indefinite adverbs only zor7é, rot (a few times), and zws 
(only in eizws, un mws) appear.! Forms like of, dao, rot have van- 
ished before od, érov, rod. Cf. English,? ‘‘where (rather than 
‘whither’) are you going?” Cf. also the accusative ri (Mk. 
10 218) ives 

(e) Verss. Besides such words as vovvexés (verbal phrase) and 
participles like dvrws, duoroyoupévws, Perdouévws, brepBadddvTws one 
should note ’"EBpatori (from ’EBpattw), ‘ENAnveori (from ‘EAAnvitw), 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p.59f, 2 Green, Handb. to N. T. Gk., p. 137. 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEIS) 299 


etc. In Jas. 4:13; 5:1 dye is used with the plural as an adverb, 
if indeed it is not in reality an interjection. The modern view of 
the imperative forms like aye (cf. vocative ayé from ayés) is that 
it is merely the root without suffix. In the case of dedp0 we 
actually have a plural ded7e. Moulton? illustrates the close con- 
nection between interjectional adverb and verb by the English 
“Murder!” which could be mere interjection or verbal injunction 
according to circumstances. 

4. Use of Adverbs. This is still another way of looking at the 
subject, but it 1s a convenience rather than a scientific principle. 
Blass? in his NV. 7. Grammar follows this method solely. 

(a) ADVERBS OF MANNER. These are very numerous indeed, 
like mvevparixds, orovéaiws, etc. ’Eoxdrtws éye (Mk. 5: 23) is not 
like the English idiom. The phrase really means that she has it 
in the last stages. Cf. Bapéws Exouca (Pap. Brit. M., 42). Ei, so 
common in Attic, has nearly gone in the N. T. (only in Mk. 14: 7; 
Mt. 25: 21, 23; Ac. 15: 29; Eph. 6:3 quot.). Edye occurs also in 
Lu. 19:17 (W. H. text, margin e}). Kadés is common. BédArvov ap- 
pears once (2 Tim. 1:18) and xpetcocov often (1 Cor. 7:38). The 
comparative adverb éirddérepov (Mt. 23:15) is irregular in form 
(arXovorepov) and late.4 

(b) ApveERBS oF PLacE. These answer the questions ‘“where”’ 
and ‘‘whence.” ‘‘Whither” is no longer a distinct idea in N. T. 
Greek nor the xown generally. Even in ancient Greek the distinc- 
tion was not always maintained.> Blass® carefully illustrates how 
“here” and “hither” are both expressed by such words as év6ade 
(Ac. 16:28; Jo. 4:16), oddly enough never by éradéa, though 
ade (especially in the Gospels) is the common word (Lu. 9 : 33, 
41). But ée? is very common in the sense of ‘there’ and ‘thither’ 
(here again chiefly in the Gospels) as in Mt. 2:15, 22. ’Exetce 
(‘thither’) is found only twice, and both times in Acts (21:3; 22: 
5), which has a literary element. So ot in both senses (Lu. 4 : 16; 
10:1) and érov (very common in John’s Gospel, 14:3 f.). The 
interrogative zod (Jo. 1:39; 3:8) follows suit. The indefinite 
mov is too little used to count (Heb. 2:6) and once without local 
idea, rather ‘about’ (Ro. 4:19). *AdAaxod occurs once (Mk. 1: 
38), but mwavraxod several times (Lu. 9:6, etc.). ‘Ovod is found 
four times only (Jo. 4 : 36, etc.), and once D adds doce (Ac. 20: 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 171. 

2 Ib., p. 171f. But adv. from verbs are “late and always rare,’’ Giles, 
Man., p. 342. 

sacrre oie N. 1. Gre pp.58 ff. 4-Ib; ed Lop eel be 


300 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


18). Ilavraxy7(n) likewise is read once (Ac. 21:28), Syrian class 
~od. In Ac. 24:3 advrn(n) is contrasted with zavraxod. Other 
adverbs of place in the N. T. are dvw, &ros, éxrds, tow, Ew, KaTw. 
A number of adverbs answer to the question “whence.” They 
are usually words in -Oev. ’AdAaxdfev (Jo. 10:1) is found only 
once in the N. T. "Avw0ev (Mk. 15 : 38) is more frequent, though 
never xkatwhev. The only pronominal forms that appear in the 
N. T. are &eitOey (Rev. 22:2, rather common in Matthew), &ev 
(Mt. 17 : 20), évr d0ev (twice in Jo. 19:18, and in contrast with 
éketbev Rev. 22:2), wavrofey (Mk. 1:45), d0ev (Mt. 12:44), oder 
(Mt. 21:25). The last two are fairly frequent. Blass! notes 
how ‘‘stereotyped and meaningless” the ending -Vev has become 
in many examples, especially with €uzpoofev (common in Matthew 
and Luke) and 67 .c6ev (rare). See both in Rev. 4:6. In some 
cases by a little effort the real force of -Pev may be seen, but the 
old Greek soon allowed it to become dim in these words. In the 
case of éowfey and ééwhev Blass? insists on the force of -Gev only in 
Mk. 7:18, 21, 23; Lu. 11:7. Cf. also xuxd\ofev (Rev. 4:8). The 
addition of a6 occasionally may be due either to the weakened 
sense of —-Jev or to a fuller expansion of its true idea. So az’ advw- 
dev twice (Mt. 27:51, so W. H. against NL dvabev, Mk. 15: 38), 
amo paxpobev (Mk. 5:6; 15:40, etc.), &x madudfey (Mk. 9:21). 
Blass? observes that both paxpdfev and maré.dfev are late words and 
that late writers are fond of using prepositions with -Vev as Ho- 
mer had az’ ovpavddev. But Luke used only ovpavofev in Ac. 14:17. 

(c) ADVERBS OF TrmE. The list is not very great, and yet ap- 
preciable. ’Aei (Ac. 7:51) is not in the Gospels at all and is 
largely supplanted by zavrore (Jo. 6 : 34) like the cow and modern 
Greek. ‘Hvixa is read twice only (2 Cor. 3:15 f.). "“Emera (1 Cor. 
12:28) and e?7a (Mk. 4:17) are about equally frequent. “Ove 
(Mt. 9: 25) occurs 101, drav (Mt. 9: 15) 180 times. ‘Ordre appears 
only in the Syrian class in Lu. 6:3 against the neutral and 
Western dre (so W. H.). Tore (Mt. 17:17) and ore (Lu. 22: 32) 
are both far less common than é7e and érav. But ore and 
rakwv amply atone for this scarcity. All the numeral ad- 
verbs (drat, mp&rov, dis, érraxis etc.) belong here also. 

5. Scope of Adverbs. Here again we are retracing ground and 
crossing our steps, but a brief word will be useful to show how 
from adverbs grew other parts of speech. The fact has been 
stated before. What is here called for is some of the proof and 
illustration. 

1Gr: Of NUT Gees oo: 27ID: =Ib; 


THE DECLENSIONS (KAIZEI=) 301 


(a) RELATION BETWEEN ADVERBS AND PREPOSITIONS. When 
we come to study prepositions (ch. XIII) a fuller discussion 
of this matter will be given. Here the principle will be stated. 
“The preposition therefore is only an adverb specialized to define 
a case-usage.’’! That puts the matter in a nutshell. Many of the 
older grammars have the matter backwards. The use of prepo- 
sitions with verbs is not the original one. In Homer they are 
scattered about at will. So with substantives. ‘Anastrophe is 
therefore no exception, but the original type’’? like rivos &exa 
(Ac. 19:32). To quote Giles’ again, ‘‘between adverbs and prep- 
ositions no distinct line can be drawn.’ As samples of cases in 
prepositions take zap-ds (gen.), wap-ai (dat.), ep-i (loc.), map-d 
(instr.). It is unscientific to speak of adverbs which ‘may be 
used like prepositions to govern nouns’’* and then term them’ 
‘preposition adverbs” or ‘spurious prepositions.” Preposi- 
tions do not “govern” cases, but more clearly define them. 
When adverbs do this, they are just as really prepositions as any 
others. These will be treated therefore in connection with the 
other prepositions. They are words like aya, avev, é&w, driow, ete. 

(b) ADVERBS AND ConyuncTions. These are usually of pro- 
nominal origin like é-re (acc. plus re), od (gen.), as (abl.), addra 
(acc. plural), t-va (instr.), etc. Some conjunctions are so early 
as to elude analysis, like 6€, 7é, etc. But in most cases the 
history can be traced. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 60) re- 
marks on the poverty of the N. T. Greek in particles, a pov- 
erty as early as the ’A@nvaiwy Tlodreia of Aristotle, which is 
much barer than the N. T. These conjunctions and other par- 
ticles in the N. T. are cited by Blass: a\Ad, Gua, apa, apaye, apa, apa 
ve, axpu(s), yap, ve, 5€, 67, Snzrov, 61d, Sud7ep, Eav, EavTreEp, el, Elep, ita, 
elre, érav, eel, éredh, ewevdnrep, éreirep (only as variation in Ro. 
3:30), erecta, ws, 4, 9 Or ef unv, 76n, Hvixa (Hep only variation in 
Jo. 12:43), Aro, iva, Kaba, Kabarep, ald, Kafdtt, Kabws, Kal, Kaimep, 
kaitou(ye), Mev, mevodvye, mevror, wExpt(s) ov (uéxpuls] Variation for), un, 
unde, MATE, pNTL, val, vN,duws, dTdTE, Orws, STAY, OTE, OTL, OV, OVXL, OVE, 
obkody, ov, obre, rep with other words, rdjv, piv, Te, Tor (in KairoL, 
pevro., etc.), Toi-yap-oby, TolvuV, Ws, WadV, WOE, WOTEP, WOTEPEL, WOTE. 
Several of these occur only once (é6y7ov, érednrep, vn, OTOTE, ov- 


1 Giles, Man., p. 341. Cf. also Krebs, Die Priipositionsadverbien in der 
spiiteren hist. Griic., Tl. I, 1884. 

2 Giles, ib. On “Nouns used as Prep.”’ see Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 
478 ff. SDhey. 

4 Green, Handb., etc., p. 138. 5 Giles, Man., p. 348. 


Sle A GREEK GRAMMAR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xoov). But Blass has not given a complete list. Cf. also 6:67, 
d0ev, ov, dro, wore, etc. Fifteen other Attic particles are absent 
from this N. T. list. The matter will come up again in ch. XXI. 

(c) ADVERBS AND INTENSIVE PARTICLES. Ileép is an older form 
of mep-i. Usually, however, as with ye, the origin is obscure. 
Others used in the N. T. are 67, éy7ov, wev, roi (with other par- 
ticles). See ch. XXI. 

(2) ADVERBS AND INTERJECTIONS. Interjections are often 
merely adverbs used in exclamation. So with aye, dedpo, dedre, éa, 
ide, dov, ota, ovai, ®. Interjections may be mere sounds, but they 
are chiefly words with real meaning. "Aye and ide are both verb- 
stems and iéov is kin to iée. The origin of the adverbs here used as 
interjections is not always clear. Ovai as in Mt. 11:21 (common 
in the LXX, N. T. and Epictetus) has the look of a dative, but one 
hesitates. As a substantive 7 ovat is probably due to OAs or 
tadaitwpia (Thayer). Cf. chapters XII, v, and XVI, v, (e), for use 
of- article with adverb, as 76 vdv. For the adverb like adjective, 
as 7 dvtws xnpa (1 Tim. 5:5), see p. 547. In Lu. 12:49 7i may 
be an exclamatory adverb (accusative case), but that is not 
certain. Aedpo sometimes is almost a verb (Mk. 10:21). The rela- 
tive adverb ws is used as an exclamation in ws wpato. (Ro. 10: 15) 
and ws dvetepebvnta (Ro. 11:33). The interrogative és is like- 
wise so employed, as 7s dvcxodov éore (Mk. 10: 24), 1s cuvexouar 
(Lu. 12: 50), rds epirer airdv (Jo. 11:36). Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk., p. 258. Thus we see many sorts of adverbs and many ways 
of making them. 


CHAPTER VIII 
CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 


I. Difficulty of the Subject. The discussion of the verb gives 
greater difficulty than that of the noun for two reasons especially. 
For one thing the declension (kXiovs) of nouns is more stable than 
the conjugation (cvgvyia) of the verb. This difficulty applies to 
both the forms and the syntax of the verb.1. There is besides spe- 
cial difficulty in the Greek verb due to the ease and number of new 
verbal formations.” Sanskrit and Greek can be compared with 
more ease than Greek and Latin. Giles? indeed calls the Latin 
verb-system “only a mutilated fragment” of the original parent 
stock, so that “‘a curious medley of forms” is the result, while in 
the syntax of the verb no two Indo-Germanic languages are fur- 
ther apart than Greek and Latin. Both noun and verb have 
suffered greatly in the ravages of time in inflection. It is in de- 
_clension (cases) and conjugation (personal endings) that noun and 
verb mainly differ.4 ‘“‘These suffixes [used for the present tensel, 
however, are exactly parallel to the suffixes in the substantive, 
and in many instances can be identified with them.’’® 

II. Nature of the Verb. 

(a) VERB AND Noun. In itself verbum is merely ‘word,’ any 
word, and so includes noun also. As a matter of fact that was 
probably true originally. In isolating languages only position and 
the context can determine a verb from a noun, and that is often 
true in English to-day. But in inflected tongues the case-endings 
and the personal endings mark off noun and verb. But in simple 
truth we do not know which is actually older, noun or verb; both 
probably grew up together from the same or similar roots.® 
Schoemann,’ however, is much more positive that “the first word 


1 Giles, Man., p. 403f. ? Hirt, Handb., p. 332. * Man., p. 404. 
4 Steinthal, Zeitschr. fiir Vélkerpsych. etc., p. 351. Cf. Schleicher, Unter- 
scheidung von Nomen und Verbum etc., 4. Bd. der Abh. d. phil. etc., 1865, 


p. 509. 5 Giles, Man., p. 424. 
6 Schroeder, Uber die form. Untersch. d. Redet. im Griech. und Lat., 1874, 


pp. 10 ff. 7 Die Lehre von den Redet. etc., 1864, p. 31. 
303 


304. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


which man spoke was essentially much more a verb than a noun.” 
But, whether the verb is the first word or not, it is undoubtedly 
the main one and often in the inflected tongue forms a sentence in 
itself, since the stem expresses the predicate and the ending the 
subject.!. It is worth noting also that by the verb-root and the 
pronominal root (personal endings) the verb unites the two ulti- 
mate parts of speech. The verb and noun suffixes, as already 
said, are often identical (Giles, Manual, etc., p. 424). In all 
sentences the verb is the main part of speech (the word par 
excellence) save in the copula (éo7i) where the predicate is com- 
pleted by substantive or adjective or adverb (another link be- 
tween verb and noun). ‘‘A noun is a word that designates and 
a verb a word that asserts” (Whitney, Am. Jour. of Philol., xiii, 
p. 275). A man who does not see that “has no real bottom to his 
grammatical science.” 

(b) MEANING OF THE VERB. Scholars have found much diffi- 
culty in defining the verb as distinct from the noun. Indeed there 
is no inherent difference between nouns and verbs as to action, 
since both may express that.?, The chief difference lies in the idea 
of affirmation. The verb affirms, a thing not done by a noun ex- 
cept by suggested predication. Verbs indicate affirmation by the 
personal endings. Affirmation includes negative assertions also.’ 
Farrar‘ cites also the German “abstract conception of existence” 
(Humboldt) and action (T'dtigkeitswort), but they do not fit the 
facts. Curiously enough many ancient grammarians found time 
to be the main idea in the verb. 

(c) PurRE AND Hysprip VerBs. The close kinship between 
nouns and verbs appears in the verbal nouns which partake of 
both. The infinitive is a verbal substantive, and the participle is 
a verbal adjective. There is also the verbal in —ros and —réos. 
Some of the properties of both verb and noun belong to each. 
They are thus hybrids. They are generally called non-finite 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 1. In the Sans. it is to be noted that the noun had 
an earlier and a more rapid development than the verb. The case-endings 
appear first in the Sans., the verb-conjugation in the Gk., though the personal 
endings are more distinct in the Sans. 2 Cf. Garnett, Philol. Ess. 

3 Cf. Gr. Gén. of Port Royal; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 38. 7 

4 Ib. He considers the verb later than the noun because of its complex 
idea. Cf. Schramm, Uber die Bedeutung der Formen des Verbums (1884); 
Curtius, Die Bildung der Tempora und Modi im Griech. und Lat. (1846); 
Junius, Evolution of the Greek Verb from Primary Elements (1843); Lauten- 
sach, Verbalflexion der att. Inschr. (1887); Hogue, Irregular Verbs of Attic 
Prose (1889). 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 305 


verbs, because they do not make affirmation. They have no pcr- 
sonal endings. They fall short of being mere verbs, but they are 
more than the noun. The pure verb has personal endings and is 
thus jinite (limited). The two must be kept distinct in mind, 
though they run together sometimes in treatment. The finite 
verb has person and number expressed in the personal ending.! 
The verbum finitum has modes while the verbuwm infinitum (in- 
finitive and participle) has no modes. 

III. The Building of the Verb. This is not the place for a full 
presentation of the phenomena concerning verb-structure. The 
essential facts as to paradigms must be assumed. But attention 
can be called to the fact that the Greek verb is built up by means 
of suffixes and affixes around the verb-root. So it was originally, 
and a number of such examples survive. Afterwards analogy, of 
course, played the main part. The oldest verbs are those which 
have the simple root without a thematic vowel like ¢y-ui or &n-v. 
This root is the ground floor, so to speak, of the Greek verb. On 
this root the aorist and present-tense systems were built by merely 
adding the personal endings. This was the simplest form of the 
verb. There is no essential difference in form between é@y-v and 
é-orn-v. We call one imperfect indicative and the other second 
aorist indicative, but they are originally the same form.? The 
term second aorist is itself a misnomer, for it is older than 
the so-called first aorist -ca or —a. ‘The thematic stem (vowel 
added to root) is seen in verbs like —Auz-o/e. On this model the 
rest of the verb is built. So all Greek root-verbs are either non- 
thematic or thematic. The denominative verbs like riua-w are 
all thematic. On roots or stems then all the verbs (simple or 
compound) are built. The modes, the voices, the tenses all con- 
tribute their special part to the whole. The personal endings 
have to carry a heavy burden. They express not only person 
and number, but also voice. There are mode-signs and tense-suf- 
fixes, but no separate voice suffixes apart from the personal 
endings. The personal pronouns thus used with the verb-root 
antedate the mode and tense suffixes. The Sanskrit preserves 
the person-endings more clearly than the Greek, though the Greek 
has a more fully developed system of modes and tenses than 
the later classical Sanskrit.2 It seems certain that these pro- 


1 Cf. Brug., Grundr., Bd. IJ, pp. 2, 837. On difference between finite and 
non-finite verbs see Curtius, Das Verbum d. griech. Spr., p. 1 f. 

2 Hirt, Handb., p. 363 f. Cf. also Giles, Man., pp. 425 ff. 

3 Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 570 ff. 


306 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


nominal suffixes, like —u, -o1, —7, are not in the nominative, but 
an oblique case! connected with the stem: pe, oe, 7 (cf. demon- 
strative 76). But the subject of personal endings is a very exten- 
sive and obscure one, for treatment of which see the comparative 
grammars.” There is a constant tendency to syncretism in 
the use of these personal endings. Homer has fewer than the 
Sanskrit, but more than Plato. The dual is gone in the N. T. 
and other endings drop away gradually. The nominative pro- 
noun has to be expressed more and more, like modern English. 

IV. The Survival of —yt Verbs. 

(a) A Cross Division. Before we take up modes, voices, 
tenses, we are confronted with a double method of inflection that 
cuts across the modes, voices and tenses. One is called the —y 
inflection from the immediate attachment of the personal endings 
to the stem. The other is the —w inflection and has the the- 
matic vowel added to the stem. But the difference of inflection 
is not general throughout any verb, only in the second aorist and 
the present-tense systems (and a few second perfects), and even so 
the —ue conjugation is confined to four very common verbs (in, 
iornut, Oldwur, Tn), except that a number have it either in the 
present system, like detx-vu-ue (with vv inserted here), or the aorist, 
like €By-v.2 The dialects differed much in the use of non-thematic 
and thematic verbs (cf. Buck, ‘“‘The Interrelations of the Greek 
Dialects,”’ Classical Philology, July, 1907, p. 724). 

(b) THE OLDEST VERBS. This fact is a commonplace in Greek 
grammar. It is probable that originally all verbs were —u verbs. 
This inflection is preserved in optative forms like \vouw, and in 
Homer the subjunctive? @édwm, tdwur, etc. The simplest roots 
with the most elementary ideas have the —uw form.® Hence the 
conclusion is obvious that the —w conjugation that survives in 
some verbs in the second aorist and present systems (one or 
both) is the original. It was in the beginning éy-o-w wis the- — 
matic as well as ¢y-yui with non-thematic verbs.® 

(c) GRADUAL DISAPPEARANCE. In Latin the —w ending is 
seen only in inguam and sum, though Latin has many athematic 
stems. In English we see it in am. Even in Homer the —ma 


Donaldson, New Crat., pp. 570 ff. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 39. 
Cf. Hirt, Handb., pp. 355 ff.; Giles, Man., pp. 413 ff. 
Jann.,“Hist: Gki Gripe zo2 i 
Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 51. 5 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 46. 
6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 2. Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., 5th ed., 1876, p. 54; Riem. 
and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 347 ff. 


1 
2 
3 
4 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 307 


forms are vanishing before the —w conjugation. Jannaris (Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 234) has an excellent brief sketch of the gradual 
vanishing of the —w forms which flourished chiefly in pre-Attic 
Greek. The LXX MSS. show the same tendency towards the 
disappearance of —mu forms so noticeable in the N. T., the 
papyri and other representatives of the xowy. See numerous 
parallel illustrations in Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 104-110. In 
the LXX the transition to —w verbs is less advanced than in the 
N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., p. 244) and the middle —uw forms held on 
longest. In the xown this process kept on till in modern Greek 
vernacular efua: is the only remnant left. In the Attic deixvume, 
for instance, is side by side with dexviw. In the N. T. we find 
such forms as 6168 (Rev. 3:9), io7& (Ro. 3:31, EKL), cvm0rd (2 
ores nb DD): 

(dq) N. T. Usace as To -yt VERBS. The — verbs in the 
N. T. as in the papyri are badly broken, but still in use. 

1. The Second Aorists (active and middle). We take first the 
so-called second aorists (athematic) because they come first save 
where the present is practically identical. In some verbs only 
the second aorist is athematic, the stem of the verb having dropped 
the —u inflection. A new view! makes the second aorist some- 
times ‘‘a reduced root,” but this does not show that in the parent 
stock the old aorist was not the mere root. Analogy worked here 
as elsewhere. Kaegi? properly calls the old aorists of verbs like 
BédrXw (é-BAn-7o instead of the thematic and later é-Bad-e-70) “ prim- 
itive aorists.”’ In the early Epic the root-aorists and strong 
thematic aorists outnumber the o or weak aorists by three to one.’ 
The important N. T. —w verbs will now be considered. 

Baitvw. Only in composition in N. T. (ava-, mpoo-ava—, ovr- 
ava—, amo-, dua-, éx-, éu-, KaTa—, peTa-, Tapa-, mpo-, ovy-). In the 
LXX itis rare in simplex. The papyri use it freely with nine 
prepositions. Note the common forms like avéBy (Mt. 5:1). The 
“contract”? forms are in the imperative as in the Attic poets 
(eicBa, xardBa).2 Mayser® gives no examples from the papyri, nor 
does the LX X have any (LXX only avahn6c, caraBnO, —Bnte, —BnTw, 
—Bitwoav).? So dvaBa (Rev. 4:1), avaBare (Rev. 11: 12), karaBa 
_ (Syrian class in Mk. 15 : 30), xaraBarw (Mt. 24:17; 27:42. CE. 


1 Cf. King and Cookson, Prin. of Sound and Inflexion, 1888, pp. 226 ff. 
2 Gk. Gr., 1893, p. 245. 

3 Thompson, Hom. Gr., 1890, p. 127. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 50. 
4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 389. 6 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 364 f. 
7 W.-Sch., p. 115. Cf. Veitch, Gk. Verb, p. 110. 


308 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


also Mk.-13215;.154'32;. Ibu. "ives 3) ferapan Mite 320) on 
the other hand note the usual xa7aBnO. (Mt. 27:40, ete.), werd- 
Bnoc (Jo. 7:3), mpocava Bnd: (Lu. 14:10). The forms in —arw, —are, 
—atwoav are like the Doric. 

TwooKkw. This verb in the Ionic and xowyn yw. form is very 
common in John’s Gospel and the First Epistle. It 1s used in com- 
position with ava—, dia—, émt-, kata—, tpo—, the papyri adding still 
other compounds.! The N. T. shows the usual second aorist forms 
like éyvwy (Lu. 16:4). What calls for remark is the second aorist 
subjunctive yvot instead of yvd. W. F. Moulton’s view? on this 
point is confirmed by the papyri® parallel in azodot and accepted 
by W. H. and Nestle. Analogy seems to have worked here to 
make yvot like doc. But Winer-Schmiedel (p. 115) cite yvot from 
Hermas, Mand. IV, 1,5 &. It is in accordance with the contrac- 
tion of —ow verbs when we find forms like yvot, dot, etc., 6n=ot in- 
stead of 67=@. For yvot see Mk. 5:43; 9:30; Lu. 19:15. But 
see also yvo in Jo. 7:51; 11:57 (D has yvot); 14:31; Ac. 22 : 24 
(€r:—). But the MSS. vary in each passage. In the LXX the 
regular yvg occurs save in Judith 14:5, where B has émvyvoi. 

Atdopt. This very common verb is frequently compounded 
(ava—, avT—, dmo-, dva—, éx—, émi—, meTa—, mapa—, mpo—) as in the 
papyri.t’ The old indicative active appears only in rapédocay in 
the literary preface to Luke’s Gospel (1 : 2).2 Elsewhere the first 
aorist forms in —xa (like ja, €nxa) sweep the field for both singu- 
lar and plural. These « forms for the plural appear in the Attic 
inscriptions in the fourth century B.c.® and rapidly grow. In the 
papyri Mayser’ finds only the « aorists. The other modes go 
regularly 66s, 6@, etc. The indicative middle occasionally, as 
the imperfect, has « for o of the root. This is possibly due to 
proportional analogy (€é&€dero : e&edounv = edAveTO : EXvounv).8 These 
forms are azédero (Heb. 12: 16), e€edero (Mk. 12:1; Mt. 21:33; 
Lu. 20:9). The usual form dzédocfe, etc., appears in Ac. 5:8; 
7:9. The subjunctive active third singular shows great varia- 
tion between 607, 66 (cf. yvot above), and day (especially in 
Paul’s Epistles).2 The LXX MSS. occasionally give —dot and 


1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p.391. 2? W.-M., p. 360 note. 

$ Moulton, Prol., p. 55. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 137, 325, 
for émws dot. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, pp. 37, 436. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 392. ® Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 188 f. 

’ Blass, Gro of N:*DéGk.yp; 49. 7 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 367 f. 

8 So W.-H., Notes on Orth., p. 167f. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 121. For pap. exx. 
see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 37. *. Cf.-Blass,Gr: of NOT. Gk., p. 49, 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 309 


even —59 by assimilation (Thackeray, Gr., p. 255f.). For papyri 
examples see references under ywaoxw. Mark four times (all the 
examples) has also 607 according to the best MSS. (4 : 29; 8 : 37; 
14:10f.) and John one out of three (13:2). Tisch. (not W. H.) 
reads dazodot in 1 Th. 5:15, but all MSS. have darodd in Mt. 
Pee 50 WV eelieeacceptioosiny 0. 15°S16;"Kphir3 > 16s5 1, hed : 
15 (aro—-). Most MSS. read 6dwy in Eph. 1:17 and 2 Tim. 2: 
25, in both of which places W. H. put én (opt. for doin) in. 
the text and dw, in the margin. The opt. 6o7 appears in the 
LXX (Jer. 9 : 2) in the text of Swete. Con. and Stock, Sel. from 
LXX, p. 45, give dan twenty-nine times in LXX and 6oin three 
times as variant. They give an interesting list of other forms of 
didwuc and its compounds in the LXX. Hort! is doubtful about 
such a subjunctive in dwn except in the epic poets. Blass? is 
willing to take 6wy, and Moulton® cites Boeotian and Delphian 
inscriptions which preserve this Homeric form. He adds that the 
subjunctive seems “a syntactical necessity” in Eph. 1:17 and 
2 Tim. 2:25. The opt. 6@n= doin (cf. subjunctive 667 = 63) is with- 
DUuevalianteine2eLhesel6.-20' Tim.:1-; 16)-18.4  Blass® scouts 
the. idea of a possible first aorist active é6woa from iva dwon 
(Jo. 17:2 NAC), docwpev (Mk. 6 : 37, ND), on the ground that 7 
and et, o and w so often blend in sound in the xow7y. The so-called 
future subjunctive will be discussed later (ch. XIX). 

“Inpr. Not in simplex in N. T. (see p. 314 for details), but 
adinuc is quite common (especially in the Gospels), and cuvinue 
less so. Besides a few examples occur also of dvinut, xabinut, 
mapinut. The papyri® use the various prepositions freely in com- 
position with imu. The common wm second aorists, like ades (Mt. 
3:15), a¢9 (Mk. 12:19), avevres (Ac. 27: 40), are found. In the 
indicative active, however, the form in —xa is used alone in both 
singular and plural, as adnxapev (Mt. 19 : 27), adnxare (Mt. 23: 
23), adjxay (Mk. 11:6). This is true of all the compounds of 
inute in the N. T. as in LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 252). The 
form adjxes (Rev. 2:4) is on a par with the second person sin- 
gular perfect active indicative as accepted by W. H. in kexomiaxes 
(Rev. 2:3), wéemtwxes (Rev. 2:5), eidndes (Rev. 11:17).7 ’Adjxapyev 
is aorist in Mk. 10:28 as well as in its parallel Mt. 19 : 27 


1 Notes on Orth., p. 168. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 121. 

2 Gr, of N. 7. Gk.) p.48 f.- © Prol’, p. 55. ° Cf Dittenb.; Syll.; 462. 17, etc. 
4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. ere Ole Ne keep 40212: 

6 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 

7 Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 166. The evidence is “nowhere free from 


310 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(= Lu. 18:28). So also as to cuvyjxare in Mt. 13:51. The per- 
fect in —etxa does not, however, occur in the N. T. nor in the LXX 
(cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 51), though the papyri have it 
(Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 331). 

“Iotnpt- This verb is used freely by itself, especially in the 
Gospels, and occurs in twenty prepositional combinations ac- 
cording to Thayer (av—, é-av—, é£-av—, av0—, ad—, bi-, &-, EE-, éx-, 
€p—, KaT-ep—, avv-ep—, KaO—, avti-Kab—, arro-Kab—, peb—, Tap—, TEpL—, TpO-, 
ovy—), going quite beyond the papyri in richness of expression.! The 
second aorist active indicative éorn (aréorn, etc.) is common and is 
intransitive as in Attic, Just like éo746y (cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 50). The other forms are regular (¢74, orf, etc.) save that 
avacra (like ava8a) is read in a few places (Ac. 9: 11; 12:7; Eph. 
5:14), but o776., avacrnO (Ac. 9 : 6, 34), ériornO., ore, avTiornrte, 
amooTnte, atooTnTw.2 Winer? cites ardcra, tapaora also from late 
writers and a few earlier authors for avacra. The LXX shows a 
few examples also.* 

‘Ovivynpt. This classic word (not given in the papyri, according 
to Mayser’s Grammatik) is found only once in the N. T., the sec- 
ond aorist opt. middle évaiuny (Phil. 20). 

TtOnper. The compounds of ridnus in the N. T. (ava—, rpoc-ava-, 
amo—, dia—-, avTi-dla—, Ex—, Ewl—-, OUv-ETL—, KATA—, TUV-KATA—, META—, Ta- 
pa—, Tept—, Tpo-, mpoo—, auv—, bro—) vie with those of iornue and 
equal the papyri use. The first aorist active in —xa alone ap- 
pears (so LXX) in the indicative singular and plural as @n«xav 
(Mk. 6 : 29), but the subjunctive in -04 (Mt. 22 : 44), imperative 
mpoodes (Lu. 17:5). The middle has the regular second aorist 
éero (Ac. 19: 21 and often). 

@ypt. If one is surprised to see this verb put under the list of 
second aorists, he can turn to Blass,® who says that it is ‘‘at once 


doubt,’ some MSS. read édwxes (Jo. 17:7 f.) and adnxere (Mt. 23 : 23), not to 
say éwpaxes (Jo. 8 : 57), \pdrvbes (Ac. 21:22, B also). Moulton (Prol., p. 52) 
considers —es a “mark of imperfect Gk.’”’ For further exx. of this -es ending in 
the LXX and xowf see Buresch, Rhein. Mus. etc., 1891, p. 222 f. For tinue 
and its compounds in the LXX see C. and 8., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 45 f., showing 
numerous —w forms, a¢jxav (Xen. jxav), ete. 

1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. * W.-M., p. 94. 

4 Thack., Gr., p. 254. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 122 f. On ioravac and its compounds 
in the LXX see interesting list in C. and S., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 43 f., giving 
—w forms, transitive écraxa, etc. 5 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 411. 

® Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 50. The verb is mentioned here to impress the fact 
that it is aorist as well as imperfect. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 311 


imperfect and aorist.’’ It is common in the N. T. as aorist (Mt. 
4:7, for instance, édn). It is not always possible to decide. 

2. Some —uw Presents. It is difficult to group these verbs ac- 
cording to any rational system, though one or two small groups 
(like those in —vuy, —nuc) appear. The presents are more com- 
mon in the N. T. than the aorists. The list is based on the un- 
compounded forms. 

Acix-vu-pt. Already in the Attic dexvtw is common, but Blass! 
observes that in the N. T. the middle-passive —u: forms are still 
rather common. It is compounded with ava—, aro-—, év—, émt—, br0-. 
No presents (or imperfects) occur with ava— and tro-. The word 
itself is not used very extensively. The form deixvum is found 
once (1 Cor: 12:31), -dw not at all. So on the other hand deck- 
vies occurs once (Jo. 2:18), -vs not at all. Aeixvuow is read by 
the best MSS. (Mt. 4:8; Jo. 5:20). The middle ééeixvuvtar ap- 
pears in Ro. 2:15. The —w participle active is found in Ac. 18: 
28 (émridecxvis) and 2 Th. 2: 4 (arodecxvivta). The middle —u par- 
ticiple is seen in Ac. 9:39; Tit. 2:10; 3:2 (-buevos, etc.). In 
Heb. 6: 11 the infinitive évéeixvucOar is read, but decxvdey (Mt. 16: 
21 B-wvar).2. The other N. T. verbs in —vye (aroddvmL, Covvum, br0- 
| Savvume, Suvume, oBevvupe, oTpwVvvUmL, KToTTpavyUm, KTA.) Will be dis- 
cussed in alphabetical order of the simplex. The inscriptions show 
these forms still in use (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 178). The 
verbs in —vuye were the first to succumb to the —w inflection. In 
the LXX the —uw forms are universal in the middle, but in the 
active the —-w forms are more usual (Thack., Gr., p. 245). 

Atdwpt. See under (d), 1, for list of compounds in the N. T. 
Attic Greek had numerous examples from the form 6166-w (6idov, 
é6idouv, —ovs, —ov). This usage is extended in the N. T. as in the 
papyri® to 664 (Rev. 3:9), though even here BP have diéwuw. In 
Wisd. of Sol. 12 : 19 did07s occurs, but Lu. 22 : 48 has the regular 
tapadidws. Aidwor is common (in LXX, Ps. 37:21, 660? appears) 
and éiddacw in Rev. 17:18. The uniform imperfect édiéov (Mt. 
15 : 36) is like the Attic. Hort observes that Mk. (15 : 23) and 
Ac. (4:33; 27:1) prefer édidouv. Jo. (19:38) has, however, é6iéo- 
gav and Acts once also (16:4). Aidov (Attic present imperative) 
is read by Syrian MSS. in Mt. 5:42 for 66s. In Rev. 22:2 the 


1 Tb., p. 48. 

2 In the pap. both -vyu and —tw, but only —vua. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. 
Pap., p. 392. 

§ Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 37. Cf. Deiss., B. S., p. 192. Mod. Gk. has 
6ldw. 


312 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


text has participle dodidotv for —dv (marg. —ots), while zapaé- 
dav is read by & in Mt. 26:46 and D in Mk. 14:42, etc.1 The 
middle-passive forms in —ero (imperfect) from a present diéw are 
like the aorist forms, which see above. So dredidevo (Ac. 4:35) and 
mapedloero (1 Cor. 11:23). So also subjunctive rapaéidot is found 
only once (1 Cor. 15:24) and is probably to be rejected (BG), 
though the papyri amply support it.2. In the imperfect édiéocav 
holds its place in the LXX, while in the present the —w forms 
generally prevail (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250). The LXX is quite 
behind the N. T. in the transition from —yu to —w forms. 

Avvapat. The use of dtvn (Mk. 9:22; Lu. 16:2; Rev. 2: 2) in- 
stead of dtvacac argues for the thematic édtvowar. Elsewhere dtvacar 
(Lu. 6 : 42, ete.). This use of div is found in the poets and from 
Polybius on in prose (Thayer), as shown by inscriptions? and 
papyri.* Hort? calls it a “tragic” form retained in the xown. It 
is not surprising therefore to find B reading dtvoyar (also —dueba, 
—ouevos) in Mk. 10:39; Mt. 19:12; 26:53; Ac. 4:20; 27:15; 
Is. 28: 20 (so & in Is. 59:15). The papyri® give plenty of illus- 
trations also. MSS. in the LXX give dtvoua: and divy. 

Kipt. The compounds are with daz-, é—, é&- (only é£earw, €£6r), 
Tap, ovv—, cvv-rap-. The papyri’ show a much more extended use 
of prepositions. This very common verb has not undergone many 
changes, though a few call for notice. In the present indicative 
there is nothing for remark. ‘The imperfect shows the middle 
nunv, jucda regularly (as Mt. 25:48; 23 : 30), as modern Greek 
uniformly has the middle present efua, etc., as well as imperfect 
middle. Cf. already in ancient Greek the future middle écoua. 
The use of junv, seen in the papyri® and inscriptions® also, served 
to mark it off from the third singular 7v. But examples of juev 
still survive (Ro. 7:5, etc.). Moulton’? quotes from Ramsay" 
a Phrygian inscription of e@uac for early fourth century a.p. He 
cites also the Delphian middle forms frat, éwvtar, Messenian jvrat, 


1 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 121. 
2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 37. 3 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 177. 
4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36. Cf. 
also Dieterich, Untersuch., p. 222; Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 597; Deiss., 
Bes apaLos. 
5 Notes on Orth., p. 168. Cf. Lobeck, Phryn., p. 359 f. 
6 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36. 
7 Mayser, ib., p. 394. 
SAlbeaDeoou: ® Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 178. 
° Prol., p. 56. D (M. shows) alone has jv in Ac. 20:18. 
1 Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, II, 565. 


—~ 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) B13 


Lesbian écc0, as early instances of this tendency, not to mention 
the Northwest Greek.! The peculiar classical second person ja0a 
is found in Mk. 14:67; Mt. 26:69, but elsewhere js (Jo. 11: 21, 
32, etc.), the common form in the xowy.? *Hre (Ro. 6 : 20, for in- 
stance) is regular. So with the imperative icf (Mt. 2:13, etc.). 
"Hrw (as 1 Cor. 16: 22) is less common? than the usual éorw (Gal. 
1:8). “Eorwoay (never évtwy nor éorwy), as in Lu. 12:35, is a 
form found in Attic inscriptions since 200 B.c.4- Some of the pa- 
pyri even have jjtwoav.> Mention has already (Orthography) been 
made of the irrational v with the subjunctive 7 in the papyri,® as 
in érav Hv — dntoow. The use of @=eeorr (as 1 Cor. 6:5; Gal. 
3:28, etc.) is an old idiom. ”“Ev.=é and in modern Greek has 
supplanted éort in the form efve or efvar (so for eat also).”? Cf. 
Sir. 37:2. N. T. has no example of imperative éore. 

Eipt. Only in compounds (ar-, eio—, &&-, éx—-, ovv—). The pa- 
pyri® and the inscriptions? show only the compound forms. 
Blass’? indeed denies that even the compound appears in the 
popular xowy, but this is an overstatement. The Attic em- 
ployed épxoua for the present indicative and kept e?uc for the fu- 
ture indicative. The cow followed the Ionic (and Epic) in the 
use of épxoua for all the tenses to the neglect of etu. In the 
N. T. only Luke and the writer of Hebrews (once) use these com- 
pound forms of e@ue and that very rarely. “Azeue only occurs in 
the imperfect indicative (Ac. 17:10, amnecav). Eiceyue appears 
four times, two in the present indicative (Ac. 3:3; Heb. 9:6), 
two in the imperfect indicative (Ac. 21:18, 26), while eicépxouae 
appears over two hundred times. ”E&éeuc also occurs four times, 
all in Acts (13:42; 17:15; 20:7; 27: 48), against a host of instances 
of é£€pxoua. "Eee is read five times in Acts and all of them in 
the participle 77 érvoton (Ac. 7: 26, etc.). Lvverwe is found only in 
Lu. 8:4. B reads eioufs in Ac. 9:6, not eicedOe. Blass" rather 


LeProlip.cl, 

2 W.-Sch., p. 117: 

8 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 56. Both forms in pap. and inser. On fyunr, js, 
hua, rw, éorwoay in the LXX see C. and S., Sel. fr. LX X, p. 31 f. Thack., 
Gr., p. 256f. Beyond this the LXX goes very little. 

4 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 191. 

5 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. 

6 Ib., p. 88. Cf. Gen. 6: 17 E, according to Moulton, Prol., p. 49. 

PCL lastmaxr ON leks paol te) 5 back. p. 257: 

8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355. 

9 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 157. PGrAOlN «LAGk.,.ppao2) 54. 

11 Tb., p. 52. 


314 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


needlessly construes éédvrwy (Ac. 13 : 42) in the aoristic sense (so 
as to 17: 10, 15; 21:18, 26). Ez is nearly gone from the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 257). 

"Eniotapat. This verb occurs fifteen times in the N. T., chiefly 
in Acts (10 : 28, etc.) and always in the present tense.! 

Zevyvupt. Only in the compound ov-febyvum and in the aorist 
active alone, cuvéetevéteyv (Mk. 10:9=Mt. 19: 6). 

Zovvvp.. The compounds are with dva—, dva-, mepi-, bro-. 
Curiously enough the verb does not appear in Mayser, Nach- 
manson nor Schweizer, though Mayser (p. 397) does mention 
¢evyvum, which on the other hand the N. T. does not give save 
the one form above. But the uncompounded form is read in the 
N. T. only three times, one aorist indicative (Ac. 12:8), one future 
indicative (Jo. 21:18), and one imperfect (Jo. 21:18, éavvves, a 
form in —dw, not —vur). There is only one instance of the compound 
with dva— and that an aorist participle (1 Pet. 1:18). The three 
examples of dvaf., all in Jo. (13 : 4, ete.), yield no presents nor im- 
perfects. The same thing is true of the half-dozen instances of 
mepif., aS Lu. 12:38, The LXX has zepifwvyvra (Thackeray, 
Gr., p. 269). The one instance of bof. is in Ac. 27: 17 and shows 
the form in —vut, brofwvvivtes. 

“Hua. It is only in the compound form xa6nuac that this verb 
is seen in the N. T. and thus very frequently, twice with ovv— 
prefixed (Mk. 14:54; Ac. 26:30). It is usually the participle 
xadjuevos that one meets in the N. T. (as Mt. 9:9). The imper- 
fect is regularly éxa@nro, etc. (as Mt. 18:1), the future caOjcouar 
(as Mt. 19 : 28). No -—w forms appear in the present, though «a4 
(Ac. 23 : 3) is a contract form like dtvy for xa@noar (already in Hy- 
perides).2, The short imperative xa@ov for xa@noo (as Jas. 2 : 3) 
is already in the LXX (cf. Mt. 22:44 from Ps. 110:1) and 
indeed in the late Attic (Blass, 7b.), though chiefly postclassical. 

“Inpu. Like efu this verb only appears in the N. T. in the 
compounded form (av—-, af-, xa0—-, rap-, ovv—). The same thing 
appears to be true of the papyri as given by Mayser,! though fif- 
teen combinations greet us in the papyri. But the papyri and 
the xow? inscriptions have not yet furnished us with the —w 
formation with tjuc compounds which we find in 4¢— and ouvinue 


1 Just so the pap., Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 395. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 52. Cf. also for pap., Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, 
p. 38. For LXX see Thackeray p. 272. 

3’ W.-Sch., p. 118; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 177; Reinhold, De Graec., 
p. 89. 4 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) Sl 


in the N. T.1 and the LXX.?_ But Philo* and the N. T. Apoc- 
rypha and early Christian writers* follow the LXX and the 
N. T. ’Avinue indeed has only aviévres (Eph. 6 : 9) in the present 
stem. So also xa@inuc shows only xabéuevoy (—vevnv) in Ac. 10:11; 
11:5, while zapinuw has no present, but only an aorist (Lu. 11: 
42) and a perfect passive (Heb. 12:12). ’Adinu is the form of 
the verb that is common in the N. T. In Rev. 2:20 ade?s is 
probably a present from adew.2 But Blass (p. 51, of N. 7. Gram- 
mar) compares the Attic adies and rifes. Only adinu (Jo. 14: 
27) and adinor (Mt. 3:15) occur, but in Lu. 11 : 4 adiouev is from 
the Ionic dd¢iw (cf. di6w). So also in Rev. 11:9 ddiovew and in 
Jo. 20:23 marg. W. H. have adiovra. Elsewhere adievtrar (Mt. 
9:2, etc.). In the imperfect jduev from adiw is read in Mk. 1:34; 
11:16. ’Adéwryrar (Lu. 5 : 20, 23, etc.) is a perfect passive (Doric 
Arcadian, Ionic).6 Cf. Ionic éwxa. Simcox (Language of the 
N. T., p. 38) quotes also avewvrar from Herodotus. With cvvinue 
the task is much simpler. Blass’ sums it up in a word. In Ac. 
7:25 ovmevar gives us the only undisputed instance of a —ue form. 
All the others are —w forms or have —w variations. However 
ouvevtos is correct in Mt. 13:19 and cumeéevac in Lu. 24:45. There 
is a good deal of fluctuation in the MSS. in most cases. W. H. 
read ovviovow (Mt. 18:18), cvviwcw (Mk. 4:12), cuviwy (Ro. 3: 
11). In 2 Cor. 10:12 W. H. read ovmadow after B. In the LXX 
only the compounded verb occurs, and usually the —u forms save 
with cuvinu (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250 f.). 

“Totypt. Cf. also éx-icrayar (see above) and orhxw (from éo- 
tnka, imperfect éornxe in Rev. 12: 4, ork» in modern Greek). 
For the list of compounds® see list of aorists (1). But the essen- 
tial facts can be briefly set forth. The —uw form in the present 
stem has disappeared in the active voice save in kafiornow (Heb. 
7:28; 2 Pet. 1:8), cuvicrnue (Ro. 16:1) and ovuviornot (2 Cor. 
10:18; Ro. 3:5; 5:8). The middle (passive) forms retain the 
—y. inflection regularly with tornue and its compounds (ar-, a¢-, 
av0—, €&-, éb—-, mpo-, auv—), as Kabiorarac (Heb. 5:1), repiicraco 

1 Mayser, ib., p. 354; Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. 

2 W.-Sch., p. 123. Herod. is cited for the use of é&ie and perie as —w presents. 

3 Ib; 4 Reinhold, De Graec., p. 94. 

5 So Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167; W.-Sch., p. 123; Hatz., Einl., pp. 309, 334. 

6 Moulton, Prol., p. 38 f. 

7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 51. He gives the MS. variations and parallels in 
Hermas and Barn. See further A. Buttmann, Gr., p. 48. 


8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 398. 
9 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 48. 


316 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(2 Tim. 2:16). Two —w forms supplant the —w conjugation of 
iornuc and its compounds, that in —aw and that in —dvw, though 
usually the MSS. vary greatly between the two.? In 1 Cor. 13:2 
NBDEFG read pebcoravar, though W. H. follow ACKL in peb- 
oravev.2 The form in —dw is found in various MSS. for toraw (as 
torauev Ro. 3:31), dmoxad— (Mk. 9:12 Rec.), e&ordw, xafioraw, 
ucoTtdw, suvictaw, but is nowhere accepted in the W. H. text, 
though Hort* prefers cvvicray to ovnoravey in 2 Cor. 3:1. In 
2 Cor. 4:2 a threefold division occurs in the evidence. For ovm- 
atavovres we have ABP (so W. H. and Nestle), for cumortartes 
NCD*FG, for cvrectavres DOEKL.’ ~The form in —dvw is uniformly 
given by W. H., though the form in —4m comes from Herodotus 
on and is frequent in the LXX.®° But the —mw forms hold their 
own pretty well in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 247). The form 
in —a4vw may be compared with the Cretan oraview and is found 
in the late Attic inscriptions.’ Instances of the form in —davyw in 
the:-W:. -H.. text-are Ac: L628: 91s Galo le Corn jae er 
Sad: 5212:56:45 10212018 7Galleoie 1S eho ms 30 lf ooh eer 
Mk. 9:12 W. H. (not so Nestle) accept the form dzoxarisraver after 
B, while ND read damoxatacraver (cf. Cretan oraviw). D has this 
form also in Ac. 1:6 and 17: 15. 

Keitpat. This defective verb is only used in the present and 
imperfect in the N. T. as in the papyri,* and with a number of 
prepositions in composition like the papyrialso. The prepositions 
are ava—, ovv-ava—, avTi—, aTo-, émt—, KaTa—, Tapa—, Tepi—, tpo—. The 
regular —uw forms are always used, and sometimes as the passive 
of ri@nu, aS mepixewar (Ac. 28:20; Heb. 5:2). For dvaxeruar only 
the participle avaxeiuevos appears (so Mt. 9 : 10) save once davéxerto 
(Mt. 26:20) and twice with ov (Mt. 9:10=Mk. 2:15). In 
Lu. 23:53 Av Keiuevos follows the Attic, but NB have jv refepeé- 
vos in Jo. 19:41.° So in the LXX rifnw partially replaces xetuar 
(Thackeray, Gr., pp. 255, 272). 

Kpépapat. This verb is used as the middle of the active xpeuar- 
yuu (this form not in N. T.) and does not appear in Mayser’s list 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 49. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. 

8’ Here Hort (Notes, etc., p. 168) differs from Westcott and prefers —dvac. 

4 Ib. » Blass.GraoluNetl  Gkamedss 

6 Ib. W.-Sch., p.-122. 

7 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 177. For many —»w verbs in mod. Gk. see 
Thumb, Handb., p. 133 f. 

8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 354, 399. For the Byz. and mod. Gk. 
usage see Dieterich, Unters., p. 223. ® Blass, Gr. of Ns T. Gk., p. 51. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) ols 


for the papyri. The form! xpéuara is read in Mt. 22:40 and the 
participle xpeudauevos(v) in Gal. 3:18; Ac. 28:4. In Lu. 19:48 NB 
(so W. H. and Nestle) read é&expéuero, an —w form and the only 
compound form of the verb in the N. T. The other forms are 
aorists which come from an active present kpeudvryp, —avviw, —dw 
or -—afw. They are xpeuacartes (Ac. 5:30) and kpeuacb7 (Mt. 18: 
6). But none of these presents occurs in the N. T. Cf. Veitch, 
Greek Verbs, p. 348 f., for examples of the active and the middle. 
So also no present of Kepdvvupt (compound ovr—) is found in the 
N. T., but only the perfect passive (Rev. 14:10) and the aorist 
active (Rev. 18 : 6). 

Mtyvupr. The only —w form is the compound ovpy-ava-piyrucbat 
(1 Cor. 5:9, 11) and so 2 Th. 3 : 14 according to W. H., instead of 
ovv-ava-yiyvucbe. Elsewhere, as in the papyri,”? the N. T. has only 
the perfect passive (Mt. 27: 34) and the aorist active (Lu. 13 : 1). 

Ovyvupt. This verb does not appear in the N. T. in the simple 
form, but always compounded with ay— or éi-av—. Besides it is 
always an -w verb as in the papyri® and the LXX.* It is worth 
mentioning here to mark the decline of the —w forms. 

"OdAvpt. Only in the common az— and once with ovv-ar— (Heb. 
11:31). In the active only the —w forms are found as azod\be. 
(Jo. 12:25), awéd\d\ve (Ro. 14:15). But in the middle (passive) 
only the —uw forms® meet us, as a7oddvTat (1 Cor. 8: 11), arwddvvTo 
(1 Cor. 10:9). So the LXX. 

"Opvupt. A half-dozen examples of the present tense of this 
verb occur in the N. T. All but one (éurvivar, Mk. 14:71) belong 
to the —w inflection, as duvie. (Mt. 23 : 21 f.). The Ptolemaic pa- 
pyri also have one example of durum, the rest from duriw.6 The 
LXX sometimes has the —uw form in the active and always in the 
middle (Thackeray, Gr., p. 279). Neither mHyvupe (aorist Heb. 
8:2) nor mpoornyvuue (aorist Ac. 2: 23) appears in the present in 
the N. T. 

Tlipardnpt. No present tense in the N. T., though a good many 
aorists, save the compound participle éumiAav, from the —w verb 
—aw. Mayser? gives no papyri examples. LXX has -w form 
usually. 

1 In the LXX the active goes over to the -w class. Thack., Gr., p. 273. 

2 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 403. 

Ib., p. 404. And indeed the old Attic avoiyw, Meisterh., p. 191. 
Thack., Gr., p. 277. 
So the pap. Mayser, Gr., p. 352; Thackeray, p. 246. 


Mayser, ib., pp. 351 f., 404. 
7 Ib., p. 406. 


(— 


318 A GRAMMAR OF .THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


II(yarpypt. The simple verb occurs once only, wiurpacba (Ac. 
28:6) according to W. H.! This is the only instance where a 
present occurs at all in the N. T. The papyri give no light as yet. 
No simplex in the LXX, but éveriurpwv in 2 Mace. 8: 6 (Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 249). ; 

“Pyhyvupt. The compounds are with éca—, repi—, rpoo—. No pres- 
ents appear save in the simple verb and écap—-. With dap. only the 
—w forms are used as dtepnaceto (Lu. 5:6), duapnoowy (Lu. 8 : 29). 
But we have pyyvuvtac (Mt. 9:17) and pnooe (Mk. 9:18). May- 
ser gives no papyri examples of the present. 

“Povvupe has no presents at all in the N. T., but only the per- 
fect passive imperative éppwobe (Ac. 15 : 29). 

ZBévvupt. This verb has only three presents in the N. T. 
and all of the —w form, one active cBerrute (1 Th. 5:19, Tisch. 
CBevv.), two middle cBevyutar (Mk. 9 : 48) and cBevyvvvtac (Mt. 25: 
8). The LXX has only —w forms and in the more literary books 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 284). 

LZTpavvupt. The compounds are with xata—, tro—. There are 
only two present stems used in the N. T., éorpavrvov (Mt. 21 : 8) 
and.tzoor. (Lu. 19:36). Thus the —w form is wholly dropped as 
in the papyri? and the LXX.? 

TcOnpt. For the list of compounds see Aorist (1). This verb has 
preferred the —u form of the present stem as a rule in the xou7. 
The inscriptions‘ do so uniformly and the papyri® use the —w in- 
flection far less than is true of dié6wus. In the present indicative D 
has ri6e (rife) for rinor® (Lu. 8:16). In the imperfect érife: is read 
twice (Ac. 2 : 47; 2 Cor. 3:13) from riféw, as already in the Attic. 
So likewise érifovy (as in Attic) twice (Ac. 3: 2; 4:35), but the best 
MSS. have éridecav in Mk. 6:56 (NBLA) and Ac. 8:17 (NAC, 
though B has —-osay and C —-eoav).’ The reading of B in Ac. 8:17 
(é€riMocav) calls for a present rifw which the papyri supply against 
the idea of Winer-Schmiedel,® as zapariOouevos (BM 239), zapa- 
katati#oua (B.U. 326).° Good cursives show that the late language 
used ridéw in the present (Mk. 10:16; 15:17). Cf. brorotca in 
second century papyrus (B.U. 350).1° In the LX X —w forms pre- 
vail in the present and imperfect (Thackeray, Gr., p. 250). 

1 Tisch. reads éurirpac0a from murpdw. Nestle agrees with W. H. 

2 Mayser, Gr., p. 352. *sThack’) Gr. piso. 

4 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 156; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 176. 

5 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 352 f. 7 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49. SePol2ie 


® Deiss., B. S., p. 192 f.; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 37. 
10 Ib. Mod. Gk. has 6€érw. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 319 


$ynpt. The only N. T. compound is with ovy-, none in the pa- 
pyri according to Mayser.! In the papyri ¢acxw (lengthened 
form) is usually employed for the participle and infinitive? of 
gnuit. The participle is so used in the N. T. (Ac. 24:9; Ro. 1: 
22). Lvvdnuc appears only once (Ro. 7:16). The — inflection 
is uniform in ¢yyi both in the present and the imperfect (aorist). 
The only forms in the N. T. are @nui (1 Cor. 7 : 29), dnoiv (Mt. 
13 : 29), dacity (Ro. 3:8), and the common é¢y (Mt. 4:7). It is 
regular —w in the LXX. 

Xpy. This impersonal verb had a poetic infinitive xpfvar of the 
—w inflection, but Veitch (p. 627) and L. and 8. get it from ypaw. 
At any rate xp7 is found only once in the N. T. (Jas. 3:10), de? 
having supplanted it. Mayser does not find it in the papyri nor 
Nachmanson and Schweizer in the inscriptions. 

3. Some —uw Perfects. ‘There are only three verbs that show the 
active perfects without (x)a in the N. T. (mere root, athematic). 

OvyjoKo. The compounds are azmo— (very common), cvy-aro- 
(rare). The uncompounded verb occurs nine times and forms 
the perfect regularly as an —w verb (réOvnxa), save that in Ac. 14: 
19 DEHLP read reO@vavar instead of rebynxevar, but the —ue form 
is not accepted by W. H. The N. T. has always reOvnxws, never 
teOvews. In the LXX these shorter second perfect forms occur a 
few times in the more literary books (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 253, 270). 
They show ‘“‘a partial analogy to verbs in —u”’ (Blass, Gr., p. 50). 

OtSa is a —w perfect in a few forms (icuer, tore) from root 15— (cf. 
Latin vid-eo, Greek ef5ov). The word is very common in the N. T. 
and civo.da is found twice (Ac. 5: 2; 1 Cor.4:4). The present per- 
fect indicative like the papyri® usually has o@éa, oféas, ofde, oldaper, 
—ate, —ac.v, Which was the Ionic inflection and so naturally pre- 
vailed in the xown. Three times indeed the literary Attic tore ap- 
pears (Jas. 1:19; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12:17). The passage in James 
may be imperative instead of indicative. In Ac. 26 : 4 icacv (lit- 
erary Attic also) is read. The imperfect also runs jéew, jders, etc. 
"Hideccav (Mk. 1:34; 14:40) is like iornxecoay (Rev. 7:11).4. The 
other modes go regularly «6a (Mt. 9:6), eda (1 Th. 5:12), 
eldws (Mt. 12:25). The LXX usage is in accord with the N. T. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 278. 

“IotyHpt. See Aorist (1) for compounds. The second perfect is 
in the N. T: only in the infinitive éoravac (Lu. 13 : 25; Ac. 12 : 14; 


1 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 355. 2 Ib. So inscr., Nachm., p. 157 
3 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 372. 
4 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 114f. Neither ofc@q nor jjéevc0a appears in the N. T. 


320 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1 Cor. 10 : 12) and the participle éorws (Mt. 20 : 3, 6, etc.) though 
éotnkws (—w form) also sometimes (Mk. 13: 14; 15: 35, etc.), éoraca 
(1 Cor. 7 : 26; 2 Pet. 3 : 5), éords (Mt. 24:15; Rev. 14: 1) although 
éotnkds also (Rev. 5 : 6 text, W. H. marg. —ws). The same variation 
occurs in the papyri.! Curiously enough the earlier LX X books 
show less of the short perfect than the later ones and the N. T. 
Thackeray (Gr., p. 253) suggests an ‘‘Atticistic reversion” for a 
while. The form écraxa (papyri also) belongs to the —w form as 
well as the late present ornxw from the perfect stem. These —y 
perfects of icrnuw are always intransitive, while éornxa is intransi- 
tive and éoraxa is transitive. This in brief is the story of the —w 
verbs in the N. T.? The new transitive perfect éoraxa 1s common 
in the xowy from second century B.c. onwards. Cf. Schweizer, 
Perg. Inschr., p. 185; Mayser, Gr., p. 371. 

V. The Modes (€ykAtoets). The meaning and use of the modes 
or moods belongs to syntax. We have here to deal briefly with 
any special items that concern the differentiation of the modes 
from each other by means of mode-signs. There is no clearly 
proper method of approaching the study of the verb. One can 
begin with tense, voice and then mode or vice versa. The first is 
probably the historical order to a certain extent, for the matter is 
complicated. Some tenses are later than others; the passive voice 
is more recent than the other two, the imperative as a complete 
system is a late growth. Since no purely historical treatment is 
possible by reason of this complicated development, a practical 
treatment is best. There are reasons of this nature for taking 
up modes first which do not apply to syntax. The two main 
ideas in a verb are action and affirmation. The state of the action 
is set forth by the tense, the relation of the action to the subject 
by voice, the affirmation by mode. Tense and voice thus have 
to do with action and mode with affirmation. Mode deals only 
with the manner of the affirmation. The same personal endings 
used for voice limit the action (hence finite verbs) in person and 
number. 

(a) THe NuMBER oF THE Moops or Mopss (Modi). This is 
not so simple a matter as it would at first appear. Modern gram- 
marians generally agree in declining to call infinitives, participles 
and the verbal adjectives in —76s and —réos moods. Some refuse 
to call the indicative a mood, reserving the term for the variations 


1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 370 f. 2 Ib. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 119. 
3 See Hoffmann, Die griech. Dial., Bd. II, pp. 572 ff., for —ue verbs in North 
Achaia. For the “strong” perfects, like yéyova, see vil, (g), 2. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) o21 


from the indicative as the normal verb by means of mode-signs. 
Thus Clyde! thinks of “‘only two moods, viz. the subjunctive 
and the optative, because, these only possess, in combination with 
the personal endings, a purely modal element.” There is point 
in that, and yet the indicative and imperative can hardly be 
denied the use of the term. Jannaris? admits three moods; in- 
dicative, subjunctive and imperative. He follows Donaldson® in 
treating the subjunctive and optative as one mood. Others, like 
Monro,‘ find the three in the subjunctive, optative and impera- 
tive. Once again five moods are seen in early Greek by Riemann 
and Goelzer®: the indicative, injunctive, subjunctive, optative, 
imperative. On the injunctive see Brugmann, Giriechische Gram- 
matik, p. 332, though he does not apply the term mode to the 
indicative. So Hirt, Handbuch, p. 421 f. —Moulton® admits this 
primitive division, though declining to call the indicative a mode 
save when it is a ‘‘modus trrealis.”’ The injunctive is no longer 
regarded as a separate mood, and yet it contributed so much to 
the forms of the imperative that it has to be considered in an his- 
torical review. The indicative can only be ruled out when it is 
regarded as the standard verb and the moods as variations. Cer- 
tainly it is best to let the indicative go in also. The modern 
Greek, having no optative, has a special conditional mode (b7oe- 
run). Cf. Sanskrit. Indeed, the future indicative is considered 
by some grammarians as a separate mode. Cf. Thompson, 
Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 494; Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 151. 
Thumb accepts the four modes in modern Greek (Handbook, 
p. 115): 

(b) THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE Moops. These are not 
absolute, as will be seen, either in form or in syntax. The indica- 
tive and the imperative blend in some forms, the subjunctive 
and the indicative are alike in others, the injunctive is largely 
merged into the imperative and subjunctive, while the subjunc- 
tive and optative are closely akin and in Latin blend into one. 
Greek held on to the optative with separate values to each 
mood.? Moulton® indeed despairs of our being able to give the 
primitive root-idea of each mood. That subject belongs to 


1 Gk. Synt., p. 62. Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 417. 

2a ist aGkeGr. p29. 4 Hom..-Gr., p..49. 

3 New Crat., p. 617 f. 5 Phonét., p. 455. 

6 Prol., p. 164f. Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 45) refers to Protagoras as the one 
who first distinguished the moods. 

7 Giles, Man., p. 459, 8 Prol., p. 164, 


SPA A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


syntax, but the history of the mode-forms is in harmony with 
this position. As with the cases so with the moods: each mood 
has fared differently in its development and long history. Not 
only does each mood perform more functions than one, but 
the same function may sometimes be expressed by several? 
moods. The names themselves do not cover the whole ground 
of each mood. The indicative is not the only mood that indi- 
cates, though it does it more clearly than the others and it is 
used in questions also. The subjunctive not merely subjoins, but 
is used in independent sentences also. The optative is not merely 
a wish, but was once really a sort of past subjunctive. The im- 
perative has the best name of any, though we have to explain 
some forms as “permissive” imperatives, and the indicative and 
subjunctive, not to say injunctive, invade the territory of the im- 
perative. ‘It is probable, but not demonstrable, that the indica- 
tive was the original verb-form, from which the others were 
evolved by morphological changes” (Thompson, Syntax of Aitic 
Greek, p. 494). The origin of the mode-signs cannot yet be ex- 
plained. 

(c) THE INDICATIVE (optotixy éyxXtots). There is indeed little 
to say as to the form of the indicative since it has no mode-sign. 
It is the mode that is used in all the Indo-Germanic languages 
unless there is a special reason to use one of the others. In fact 
it is the normal mode in speech. It is probably the earliest 
and the one from which the others are derived. Per contra it 
may be argued that emotion precedes passionless intellection. 
The indicative continues always to be the most frequent and per- 
sists when others, like the injunctive and optative, die. It is the 
only mode that uses all the tenses in Sanskrit and Greek. In the 
Sanskrit, for instance, the future is found only in the indicative (as 
in Greek save in the optative in indirect discourse to represent 
a future indicative of the direct) and the perfect appears only in 
the indicative and participle, barring many examples of the other 
modes in the early Sanskrit (Vedas). In the Sanskrit the modes are 
commonest with the aorist and the present.?, And in Greek the 
imperfect and past perfect never got beyond the indicative. The 
future barely did so, never in the subjunctive till the Byzantine 
period. The perfect subjunctive and optative, not to say impera- 
tive, were always a rarity outside of the periphrastic forms and 

1 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 62. Cf. Kohlmann, Uber die Modi des griech. und 


des lat. Verbums (1883). 
2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) B20 


in the xown have practically vanished.! Thus we can clearly see 
the gradual growth of the modes. In modern English we have 
almost dropped the subjunctive and use instead the indicative. 
In the modern Greek the indicative survives with as much vigor 
as ever. The N. T. peculiarities of the indicative can best be 
treated under Syntax. It may be here remarked, however, that 
besides the regular indicative forms a periphrastic conjugation 
for all the tenses of the indicative appears in the N. T. The 
present is thus found as éoriv rpocavarAnpotca (2 Cor. 9: 12), the 
perfect as éorlv rerpayyevoy (Ac. 26 : 26), the imperfect as jv 6d4- 
oxwy (Lu. 5:17), the past perfect as joav mpoewpaxores (Ac. 21: 29), 
even the aorist as jv Bdnbeis (Lu. 23:19), the future as éveobe da- 
hodvres (1 Cor. 14:9), the future perfect as écouar rerodws (Heb. 
2:13). This widening of the range of the periphrastic conjuga- 
tion is seen also in the LXX. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 195. 

(d) THe SUBJUNCTIVE (U7rotaxTiky). The function of the sub- 
junctive as of the other modes will be discussed under Syntax. 
Changes come in function as in form. Each form originally had 
one function which varied with the course of time. But the bond 
between form and function is always to be noted.2, The German 
grammarians (Blass, Hirt, Brugmann, etc.) call this the conjunc- 
tive mode. Neither conjunctive nor subjunctive is wholly good, 
for the indicative and the optative both fall often under that 
technical category.’ It is in the Greek that mode-building reaches 
its perfection as in no other tongue.*’ But even in the Greek sub- 
junctive we practically deal only with the aorist and present 
tenses, and in the Sanskrit the subjunctive rapidly dies out save 
in the first person as an imperative.” In Homer iuer is indicative® 
and iowevy is subjunctive so that non-thematic stems make the 
subjunctive with the thematic vowel o/e. Thematic stems made 
the subjunctive with a lengthened form of it w/n. Cf. in the Ionic, 
Lesbian, Cretan inscriptions? forms like auelWerar. The same thing 
appears in Homer also in the transition period.? Jannaris® in- 
deed calls the aorist subjunctive a future subjunctive because he 


1 See discussion bet. Profs. Harry and Sonnenschein in Cl. Rev., 1905-6. 
Cf. also La Roche, Beitr. zur griech. Gr., 1893; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 197. 

2 For contrary view see Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 1. 

3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 45 f. 

4 K.-Bl., Bd. II, p. 40. 5 Giles, Man., p. 458 f. 

6 Ib., p. 459. In the Boeotian dial. the subj. does not appear in simple 
sentences (Claflin, Synt. of Boeotian, etc., p. 73) 

7 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 456 f. 

8 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 49. e Histetske. (ali, Del so. 


324 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


conceives of the aorist as essentially past, a mistaken idea. The 
subjunctive does occur more freely in Homer than in the later 
Greek, partly perhaps because of the fact that the line of dis- 
tinction between it and the indicative (especially the aorist sub- 
junctive and the future indicative) had not been sharply drawn.1 
Add to this the fact that rounon and rornoe came to be pronounced 
exactly alike and one can see how the confusion would come again. 
Cf. iva dwcer (6won) in the N. T. MSS.? On the short vocal ending 
of the subjunctive and its connection with the indicative one may 
recall éd0uar, iowa, dayoua in the N. T., futures which have a 
strange likeness to the Homeric subjunctive touer. They are really 
subjunctives in origin. It is still a mooted question whether the 
future indicative is always derived from the aorist subjunctive 
or in part corresponds to the Sanskrit sya. The only aorist 
subjunctives that call for special comment in the N. T. are the 
forms yvot and 602, for which see this chapter, Iv, (d), 1.4 There are 
parallels in the papyri as is there shown. The form 6yno6e in Lu. 
13 : 28 (supported by AL, etc., against d~eo#e, BD) is probably a 
late aorist form like é6woa (6won) rather than the Byzantine future 
subjunctive.’ As already pointed out, the examples in N. T. MSS. 
of the Byzantine future subjunctive are probably due to the 
blending of o with w, e with yn, e with n, ete. N. T. MSS., for in- 
stance, show examples of apxecOnowueba (1 Tim. 6:8), yroowvtTar 
(Ac. 21 : 24), yevnonofe (Jo. 15:8), d&owow (Lu. 20:10; Rev. 4: 
9), ebpnowow (Rev. 9:6), &nonrar (Mk. 5 : 23), nEwow (Rev. 3: 9), 
kavOnowpuat (1 Cor. 13:3), KepdnOnowvrar (1 Pet. 3:1), ropebowpuar 
(Ro. 15: 24), cwOnonra (Ro. 11: 26), ete. It is to be admitted, 
however, that the Byzantine future subjunctive was in use at the 
age of our oldest Greek N.T. MSS. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 107. 
Hort dismisses them all (Appendix, “Notes on Orthography,” 
p. 172). The present subjunctive 6.600 is parallel to 607. No ex- 


1 Sterrett, Hom. Il., Dial. of Homer, p. 27 (1907). Cf. Moulton, The Suffix 
of the Subj. (Am. Jour. of Philol., 10, 185 f.); La Roche, Die conj. und opt. 
Formen des Perfects (Beitr. I, pp. 161 ff.). 

2 Cf. already in the Attic inser. the spelling of the subj. in -ea. Meisterh., 
Att. Inscr., p. 166. For this phenomenon in the pap. see Mayser, Gr. d. 
griech. Pap., p. 324. 

§ Cf. Henry, Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., Elliott’s transl., 1890, p. 115 f. and 
note; Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 459. 

4 Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 37, and 1904, p. 111, for subjs. d&zoéo?, 
émvyvot in the pap. 

5 Cf. apémobe in Lu. 13 : 25, but apeo#e (BEG, ete.) and dpinobe (NAD, etc.) 
in verse 26. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) yt 


ample of the periphrastic present subjunctive appears in the 
N.T. In Gal. 4:17 (iva &ndodz7e) the contraction of oy is like that of 
the indicative oe,’ unless indeed, as is more probable, we have here 
(cf. also 1 Cor. 4 : 6, dvctotcbe) the present indicative used with iva 
as in 1 Jo. 5: 20 (yuwwoxouev). In Gal. 6: 12 ACFGKLP read iva pi 
duwaxovra. Cf. Ro. 14:19. Cf. Homer. The perfect subjunctive 
does not exist in the N. T. save in the second perfect 68 (iva 
eld@puev, 1 Cor. 2: 12) and the periphrastic form as 7 zemounkws (Jas. 
5:15. Cf. wemroWores Quev, 2 Cor. 1:9) and usually in the passive 
as 7 TeTAnpwpern (Jo. 16 : 24). In Lu. 19 : 40 Rec. with most MSS. 
read xexpagovrar (LXX). In the papyri jv sometimes is subjunctive 
=n. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 38, 1904, p. 108; Prolegom- 
ena, pp. 49, 168. He cites dca éay fv in Gen. 6:17E. But the 
modern Greek constantly uses éay with the indicative, and we find 
it in the N. T. and papyri (Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 203 ff.). 
Some of the papyri examples may be merely the indicative with 
éav, but others undoubtedly give the irrational v. In the LXX the 
subjunctive shows signs of shrinkage before the indicative with 
éav, drav, va (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). 

(e) THE OPTATIVE (evxTixy). Like the subjunctive the opta- 
tive is poorly named, as it is much more than the wishing mood. 
As Giles? remarks, difference of formation is more easily discerned 
in these two moods than difference of meaning. In the Sanskrit 
the subjunctive (save in first person) gave way before the 
optative, as in Latin the optative largely (sim originally op- 
tative) disappeared before the subjunctive. The Greek, as 
already stated, is the only language that preserved both the 
subjunctive and the optative,t and finally in the modern 
Greek the optative has vanished, yu) yevorro being merely ‘the 
coffin of the dead optative.’’> It is doubtful if the optative was 
ever used much in conversation even in Athens (Farrar, Greek 
Syntax, p. 142), and the unlearned scribes of the late Greek blun- 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. But in 1 Cor. 16 : 2 we have regularly evo- 
dra (marg. ebodw7). Hort (Notes on Orth., pp. 167, 172) is uncertain whether 
ebod@rat is perf. ind. or subj. (pres. or perf.). He cites wapagn\oduer (1 Cor. 
10 : 22) and d:aBeBarcotvra (1 Tim. 1 : 7) as possible pres. subjs. 

2 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 458. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 337, for list 
of works on optative. 

3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 503 f. 

4 Giles, ib., p. 459. On the blending of subj. and opt. in Ital., Germ. and 
Balto-Slav. tongues see Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., 2. Tl., p. 585. Cf. the Byz. 
Gk. mingling of subj. and ind. in Hatz., Einl., p. 216 f. 

5 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 84. 


326 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dered greatly when they did use it (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 
204). Moulton (Prol., p. 240) agrees with Thumb that the opta- 
tive was doomed from the very birth of the xo.vy, and its disappear- 
ance was not due to itacism between o and 7, which was late. 
Clyde,! however, suggests that the blending of sound between or 
and y had much to do with the disappearance of the optative. 
But apart from this fact the distinction was never absolutely 
rigid, for in Homer both moods are used in much the same way.’ 
And even in the N. T., as in Homer and occasionally later, we 
find an instance of the optative after a present indicative, ov ratvo- 
par evxapioTav iva dwn (Eph. 1:17, text of W. H., subj. dan or 6d 
in marg., question of editing). Jannaris* calls the Greek optative 
the subjunctive of the past or the secondary subjunctive (cf. Latin). 
Like the indicative (and originally the subjunctive) the non-the- 
matic and thematic stems have a different history. The non-the- 
matic stems use en (ve) and the thematic o. (composed of o and 1). 
The o aorist has a+ce besides the form in —ea. This two-fold 
affix for the optative goes back to the earlier Indo-Germanic 
tongues‘ (Sanskrit y@ and 7). The optative was never common in 
the language of the people, as is shown by its rarity in the Attic 
inscriptions.®> The Boeotian dialect inscriptions show no optative 
in simple sentences, and Dr. Edith Claflin reports only two ex- 
amples in subordinate clauses. The optative is rare also in the 
inscriptions of Pergamum.’ The same thing is true of the pa- 
pyri. In the N. T. the future optative no longer appears, nor does 
the perfect. The classic idiom usually had the perfect subjunctive 
and optative in the periphrastic forms.? Examples of the peri- 
phrastic perfect optative survive in the papyri,!? but not in the 
N.T. There are only sixty-seven examples of the optative in the 
N. T. Luke has twenty-eight and Paul thirty-one (not including 
Eph. 1:17), whereas John, Matthew and James do not use it at all. 
Mark and Hebrews show it only once each, Jude twice and Peter 
four times. The non-thematic aorist appears in the N. T. some- 
times, as 6wn (perhaps by analogy). So W. H. read without reser- 
vation in-2: Th. 33.16, R0.s oop een 1 Oe See nis sise one 


1 Gr.§., p.85. 2? Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 219. * Histo Gk. Gr. poles. 
4 Riem. and oe as Phonét., p. 461. Cf. K.-BI., Bd. II, p.40 f.; Brug., Gk. 
Grn np oal ie 5 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 166. 
. 6 Synt. of Boeot. Dial. Inscr., pp. 77, 81. 
7 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 191. 
8 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 326. 9 K.-BIL., Bd. II, p. 99. 
10 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) BVH) 


preferred text in Eph. 1:17; 2 Tim. 2: 25, but in Jo. 15:16; Eph. 
3:16, W. H. read 66 (subjunctive). In Eph. 1:17 the margin has 
dwn (subjunctive) also.1. The inscriptions? and the papyri*® show 
the same form (—@yv instead of —oinv). In Eph. 1:17 Moulton* 
considers 6wy (subjunctive) absolutely necessary in spite of the 
evidence for éwn (optative). But see above. The aorist optative 
in —a is the usual form, as xatrevOivar (1 Th. 3:11), rreovdcar xal 
mepiocevoa (1 Th. 3:12), xarapricas (Heb. 13:21), etc., not the 
fKolic-Attic -ee. So also roujoaey (Lu. 6:11), but Pnr\adjoeay 
(Ac. 17: 27) according to the best MSS. (B, etc.).6 Blass® com- 
ments on the fact that only one example of the present optative 
appears in the simple sentence, viz. ein (Ac. 8:20), but more 
occur in dependent clauses, as macyore (1 Pet. 3:14). The opta- 
tive is rare in the LXX save for wishes. Thackeray, Gr., p. 193. 

(f) THe IMPERATIVE (7pootaxtixy). The imperative is a later 
development in language and is in a sense a makeshift like the 
passive voice. It has no mode-sign (cf. indicative) and uses only 
personal suffixes.’?7 These suffixes have a varied and interesting 
history. 

1. The Non-Thematic Stem. An early imperative was just 
the non-thematic present stem.’ In the imperative the aorist is 
a later growth, as will be shown directly. Forms like torn, deixvu 
are pertinent. 

2. The Thematic Stem. Cf. aye, eye. This is merely an in- 
terjection (cf. vocative doye).2 This is the root pure and simple 
with the thematic vowel which is here regarded as part of the 
‘stem as in the vocative oye. The accent eizeé, edé, eve, id€, AaBE 
was probably the accent of all such primitive imperatives at the 
beginning of a sentence.’° We use exclamations as verbs or nouns." 


PeLLOrL, ntretOsNe Ls Grk., Po 1lOs., CloUXX. 

2 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 191. 

3 Mayser, Gr.d. griech. Pap., p. 326 f.; Croénert, Mem. Gr. Hercul., p. 215 f.; 
Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 111 f. Ao? also appears in pap. as opt. as well as 
subj. 

4 Prol., p. 55. Cf. Blass’ hesitation, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 49 f. 

5 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 114. In the LXX the form in —ee is very rare. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 68 f. The LXX has also —-owav, —acav for 3d plu. Cf. 
Thack., Gr., p. 215. Opt. is common in 4 Macc. 

6. Gr. of Ne T:.Gk., p) 220: 8 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 464. 

7 K.-BI., Bd. II, p. 41. 9 Ib., p. 269. 

10 Ib., p. 464. Cf. Brug., Grundr., II, § 958; Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., 
p. 359. It is coming more and more to be the custom to regard the thematic 
vowel as part of the root. Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 415. 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 171 f. 


328 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


In Jas. 4:13 we have aye viv of Neyovres, an example that will il- 
lustrate the origin of aye. Note the common interjectional use 
of ide (so N. T.). Cf. also accent of A\aBe. The adverb dedpo (Jo. 
11:43, Adtape dedpo €&w) has a plural like the imperative in —7e 
(Mt. 11:28, dedre mpos pe wavres of Komiavres). 

3. The Suffix -. The non-thematic stems also used the suf- 
fix 0c (cf. Sanskrit dhi, possibly an adverb; cf. “you there!’’). So 
yv@o. for second aorist active, ic for present active, davyf, dv- 
6n7e for second and first aorist passive.1. In the N. T. sometimes 
this —-#. is dropped and the mere root used as in davaBa (Rev. 4: 
1), wera Ba (Mt. 17: 20), avacra (Eph. 5:14; Ac. 12:7) according 
to the best MSS.2. The plural avaBare (Rev. 11:12) instead of 
évaBnre is to be noted also. The LXX MSS. exhibit these short 
forms (avaora, aroora, but not avaBa) also. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 70; Con. and Stock, Sel. from LXX, p. 46. See éuBa, 
kataBa, ete., in Attic drama. But dvaornfr (Ac. 8 : 26), eriarnhe 
2 Tim. 4:2), pera BnOc (Jo. 7:3), KaraBnOe (Lu. 19:5), rpocavaBnAr 
(Lu. 14:10) occur as usual. In the papyri —& has practically 
disappeared save in ich.® 

4. The Suffix -rw. It is probably the ablative of the demon- 
strative pronoun (Sanskrit tad). It is used with non-thematic 
(éorw) and thematic stems (Aeye-Tw). The Latin’ uses this form for 
the second person also (agito). In the case of éorw (Jas. 1:19) 
the N. T. has also #rw (Jas. 5:12).5 The form xataBarw (Mt. 24: 
17) has the unlengthened stem, but é\@arw is like the first aorist 
émiotpewatw. The N. T. like the xown generally® has the plural only 
in twoay which is made by the addition of cay to tw. Cf. éotwoav 
(Lu. 12:35). The middle o@w (of uncertain origin)’ likewise has 
the plural in the N. T. in cOwoav. So rpocevéacOwoay (Jas. 5 : 14). 
This is true of the plural of both present and aorist as in papyri 
and inscriptions. So the LXX cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 69 f. 

5. The Old Injunctive Mood. It is responsible for more of the 
imperative forms than any other single source. ‘The injunctive 


1 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 341. 2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 168. 

3 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. 

4 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 466. Cf. Brug., Gk. Gr., p. 341. 

5 So pap. and late inser., Moulton, Prol., p. 56. 

6 Cf. for pap. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 327. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., 
p. 343. It is after iii/B.c. that -rwoay completely supplants -yrwy. Cf. 
Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 167. Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 149. Schweizer, 
Perg. Inschr., p. 167. 

7 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 343 (he cfs. érécOw with éréoOar); Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 
430. Giles (Comp. Philol., p. 467 f.) gets it from tw by analogy of re and oe. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 329 


was simply an imperfect or aorist indicative without tne aug- 
ment.”! -So AaBod corresponds to é-AaBeco, NaBecbe was é-haBebe, 
AndOnre Was é-AnPOnre, AaBere was é-aBeTe.2 So oxes (E-cyres) May 
be compared with &)ves (Gives with @Oryes), but dds, és, 0és Brug- 
mann considers of uncertain origin, possibly subjunctive.* Forms 
like Nvere may be injunctive (é-Avere)* or merely the indicative. 
Note the difficulty of deciding on imperative and indicative in 
forms like épavvare (Jo. 5:39), muorevere (Jo. 14:1), tore (Jas. 1: 
19). But in these cases, except Jo. 5:39, we probably have the 
imperative. In the case of iore the N. T. indicative would be 
oldare.6 In the N. T. xaov (Jas. 2:3) is the shorter form of 
xa0noo, though not by phonetic processes. The injunctive survives 
to some extent in the Sanskrit and borders on the subjunctive 
and the imperative and was specially common in prohibitions.’ 
It consists of the bare stem with the personal endings. 

6. Forms in -ca. These, like Barrica (Ac. 22:16), are prob- 
ably just the infinitive sigmatic aorist.2 Cf. de?&a. Cf. also Latin 
legimint with the Homeric infinitive Neyeuevar.® The infinitive is 
common in the Greek inscriptions in the sense of an imperative.!° 
In the N. T. as in the papyri this use is not infrequent. So 
xaipev (Jas. 1:1), crorxetvy (Ph. 3:16), wh cvvavapiyrvcba (2 Th. 
3:14). In modern Greek instead of the imperative in —ca the 
form )vcov occurs with the sense of AVA@n7L.U 

7. The Form in —cov (Ndoov). It is difficult of explanation. It 
may be injunctive or a verbal substantive.” The N. T. has eizov 
(Mt. 4:3) rather than eiré (Mt. 8:8) in about half the instances 
in W. H.® This is merely in keeping with the common xow7 cus- 
tom of using first aorist endings with second aorist stems. The 
form eizoy is traced to the Syracusan dialect." 

8. First Person. The Sanskrit used the first person subjunctive 
as imperative of the first person. Cf. English “charge we the foe.”’ 
The Greek continued this idiom. But already in the N. T. the 
use of the imperative ades (cf. modern Greek ds and third person 
subjunctive) is creeping in as a sort of particle with the subjunc- 
tive. So ddes éxBartw (Mt. 7:4). Cf. English “let”? with infini- 

PVCU ee TOL Apa lOo we brue,,Griech,,Gr.,p. coc. * 1b. | * Ib. 

6 Hirt, Handb., p. 429 f. 6 W.-Sch.,p. 119. . 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 165. 

8 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 372. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 345. 

9 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 468; Hirt, Handb., p. 430; Wright, Comp. Gk. 
Gr, Dp. 334. 10 Moulton, Prol., p. 179 f. 

‘ iY, and D., Handb., p. 81. Cf. Dieterich, Unters., p. 205. 


2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 345; Hirt, Handb., p. 427. 
13 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 164. MOK Dials De 40. 


330 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tive. Cf. dedre aroxreivwuev in Mt. 21:38. Besides aye, dette we 
may have dpa with the subjunctive (Mt. 8 : 4), Bdérere with future 
indicative (Heb. 3: 12). 

9. Prohibitions. Here the aorist subjunctive with uy held its 
own against the aorist imperative quite successfully. In the 
Sanskrit Veda the negative ma is never found with the impera- 
tive, but only with the subjunctive.! Later the Sanskrit uses the 
present imperative with md, but not the aorist. This piece of 
history in the Greek? is interesting as showing how the impera- 
tive is later than the other modes and how the aorist imperative 
never won its full way into prohibitions. However, in the N. T. 
as in the inscriptions and papyri, we occasionally find the aorist 
imperative with uy in 3d person. So mu) caraBarw (Mt. 24:17). 

10. Perfect Imperative. In the Sanskrit the imperative is 
nearly confined to the present tense. The perfect imperative is 
very rare in the N. T. (only the two verbs cited) as in all Greek. 
We find éppwobe (Ac. 15: 29; in 23:30 W. H. reject éppwoo) and 
mediuwoo (Mk. 4:39). The perfect imperative also occurs in the 
periphrastic form as éorwoay reprefwopuevar (Lu. 12 : 35). 

11. Periphrastic Presents. Other periphrastic forms of the im- 
perative are tot edvodv (Mt. 5 : 25), toe éxwv (Lu. 19 : 17), wu yiveode 
érepotuyobdvres (2 Cor. 6: 14) and even tore yuwwoxovres (Eph. 5: 5). 

12. Circumlocutions. But even so other devices (see Syntax) 
are used instead of the imperative, as the future indicative (aya- 
ahoes, Mt. 5:43); va and the subjunctive (Eph. 5 : 33); a ques- 
tion of impatience like od ratcn dvactpéedwv (Ac. 13 : 10), ete. 

VI. The Voices (8ta0écets). 

(a) TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE. The point is that “tran- 
sitive’ is not synonymous with ‘‘active.”’ Transitive verbs may 
belong to any voice, and intransitive verbs to any voice. Take 
éldaka, eudatdunv, 6.64xOnv, which may be transitive in each voice. 
On the other hand eiui, yivoua, édvOnv are intransitive. The same 
verb may be transitive or intransitive in the same voice, as a@yw. 
A verb may be transitive in Greek while intransitive in English, 
as with xarayedadw and vice versa. This matter properly belongs 
to syntax, but it seems necessary to clear it up at once before we 
proceed to discuss voice. Per se the question of transitiveness 
belongs to the idea of the verb itself, not to that of voice. We 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 240. 

? Ib.; cf. also Delbriick, Synt. Forsch., IV, p. 120. Hence Delbriick argues 
that the aorist imper. did not come into use until after the pres. imper. The 
imper. was originally only positive, not negative, ; 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) dol © 


actually find Green! making four voices, putting a neuter (ovédé- 
repov) voice (using active and middle endings) on a par with the 
others! The Stoic grammarians? did speak of a neuter voice as 
neither active (karnyopnua dpOdv) nor passive (imriov), meaning the 
middle (ywéon). Jannaris* confounds transitiveness with voice, 
though he properly says (p. 356) that ‘the active voice is usually 
transitive,” i.e. verbs in the active voice, not the voice itself. 
Even Whitney* speaks of the antithesis between transitive and 
reflexive action being effaced in Sanskrit. Was that antithesis 
ever present? Farrar’ speaks of verbs with an ‘active meaning, 
but only a passive or middle form,” where by ‘‘active’”’ he means 
transitive. Even the active uses verbs which are either transi- 
tive (a4\dorabys) or intransitive (at’rorabjs). So may the other 
voices. If we clearly grasp this point, we shall have less difficulty 
with voice which does not deal primarily with the transitive idea. 
That belongs rather to the verb itself apart from voice.6 On 
transitive and. intransitive verbs in modern Greek see Thumb, 
Handb., p. 112. 

(b) THE NAMES OF THE Voices. They are by no means good. 
The active (évepyerixn) is not distinctive, since the other voices ex- 
press action also. This voice represents the subject as merely act- 
ing. The Hindu grammarians called the active parasmai padam 
(‘a word for another,’) and the middle (uéon) atmane padam (‘a 
word for one’s self’).’ There is very little point in the term mid- 
dle since it does not come in between the active and the passive. 
Indeed reflexive is a better designation of the middle voice if 
direct reflexive is not meant. That is rare. The middle voice 
stresses the interest of the agent. Cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, 
p.155f. In truth we have no good name for this voice. Passive 
(xaOnrixh) is the best term of all, for here the subject does experi- 
ence the action even when the passive verb is transitive, as in 
é6.daxOnv. But this point encroaches upon syntax. 


1 Handb. to the Gk. of N. T., p. 55. 

2 Cf. Dion. Thr., p. 886. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 40. 

sist. Gk.-Gry p. 179. 

4 Sans. Gr., p. 200. 

5 Gk. Synt., p. 41. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 467 f. 

6 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 476: “The distinction between the transitive and 
intransitive meanings of the active voice depends upon the nature of the root 
in each case.” 

7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. Cf. also Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 492. 
See also Clark, Comp. Gr., p. 182, for the meaningless term “middle.” It is 
as active as the “active” voice. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 119, 


332 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) THe RELATIVE AGE OF THE Voices. It is a matter of doubt 
as between the active and middle. The passive is known to be a 
later development. The Sanskrit passive is the yd class! In 
Homer the passive has not reached its full development. The pas- 
sive future occurs there only twice. The aorist middle is often used 
in passive sense (8Aj7o, for instance). That is to say, in Homer 
the passive uses all the tenses of the middle with no distinct forms 
save sometimes in the aorist. In later Greek the future middle (as 
Tiunoouar) continued to be used occasionally in the passive sense. 
The aorist passive in fact used the active endings and the future 
passive the middle, the passive contributing a special addition in 
each case (n, 0, no, Onc). Some languages never developed a 
passive (Coptic and Lithuanian, for instance), and in modern 
English we can only form the passive by means of auxiliary verbs. 
Each language makes the passive in its own way. In Latin no 
distinction in form exists between the middle and the passive, 
though the middle exists as in potior, utor, plangor, etc. Giles? 
thinks that the causative middle (like dvéacxoua, ‘get taught’) is 
the explanation of the origin of the Greek passive. Cf. Bamricar 
(Ac. 22:16). It is all speculation as between the active and mid- 
dle. An old theory makes the middle a mere doubling of the active 
(as pa-we=par).4 Another view is that the middle is the original 
and the active a shortening due to less stress in accent, or rather 
(as in riMewar and ridnur) the middle puts the stress on the reflexive 
ending while the active puts it on the stem.? But Brugmann® 
considers the whole question about the relation between the per- 
sonal suffixes uncertain. Of one thing we may be sure, and that 
is that both the active and the middle are very old and long 
antedate the passive. 

(d) THE So-caLLep “DEPONENT’’ VERBS. These call for a 
word (cf. ch. XVII, m1, (k)) at the risk of trespassing on syntax. 
Moulton’ is certainly right in saying that the term should be ap- 
plied to all three voices if to any. The truth is that it should not 
be used at all. As in the Sanskrit® so in the Greek some verbs 
were used in both active and middle in all tenses (like vw); some 
verbs in some tenses in one and some in the other (like Baivy, 


1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 275; Thumb, Handbuch d. Skt., pp. 394 ff. 

2 Sterrett, Hom. Il., Dial. of Hom., p. 27. | 4 Clyde, Gk. Syn., p. 55. 

3 Comp. Philol., p. 477. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 152. 

6 Griech. Gr., p. 346. Cf. Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 599. Cf. Giles, Comp: 
Philol., p. 419. 

7 Prol., p. 153, 8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 339 


Bnooua); Some on one voice only (like xetuar). As concerns voice 
these verbs were defective rather than deponent.! Note also the 
common use of the second perfect active with middle verbs (yivouar, 
veyova).2. A number of verbs sometimes have the future in the 
active in the N. T. which usually had it in the middle in the older 
Greek. These are: axobow (Jo. 5:25, 28, ete., but dxobcoua, Ac. 
17:32), duaptpow (Mt. 18:21), aravtnow (Mk. 14:13), apracw 
(Jo. 10: 28), Brew (Ac. 28 : 26), yedaow (Lu. 6:21), duwéw (Mt. 
23 : 34), Snow (Jo. 5 : 25), eriopxnow (Mt. 5 : 33, LXX), mabow (Lu. 
6:25), cpagw (Lu. 19:40), maiz (Mk. 10 : 34), petow (Jo. 7 : 38), 
cwmnow (Lu. 19:40), orovddow (2 Pet. 1:15), cvvavtiow (Lu. 22: 
10). But still note arofavodua, éoouor, (hoouat, Pavudcouar, Anupo- 
Mat, OYouar, Tecoduar, mlouar, Te~omal, Payoua, devéouar, etc. Cf. 
Blass, Gr. of N. T.'Gk., p. 42 £.; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 107; Moul- 
ton, Prol., p. 155. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 89 f.; Thackeray, 
pp. 231 ff., for illustrations in the LXX. The term “deponent” 
arose from the idea that these verbs had dropped the active 
voice. Verbs do vary in the use of the voices in different stages 
of the language. | 

(e) THE PasstvE SUPPLANTING THE Mippie. In Latin the 
middle and passive have completely blended and the grammars 
speak no more of the Latin middle. Greek indeed is the only 
European speech which retains the original middle form and 
usage.’ In fact, when we consider other tongues, it is not strange 
that the passive made inroads on the middle, but rather that 
there was any distinction preserved at all.4. In most modern lan- 
guages the middle is represented only by the use of the reflexive 
pronoun. The Greek itself constantly uses the active with re- 
flexive pronoun and even the middle. Jannaris*® has an interest- 
ing sketch of the history of the aorist and future middle and 
passive forms, the only forms where the two voices differ. As 
already remarked, the old Greek as in Homer® did not distinguish 
sharply between these forms. In Homer the middle is much 
more common than in later Greek,’ for the passive has no distinct 
form in the future and not always in the aorist. In the modern 
Greek the middle has no distinctive form save Nvaou (cf. dca) 


1 Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., p. 598; Moulton, Prol., p. 153. 
2 Hirt, Handb., p. 334; Moulton, Prol., p. 154. 

8 Delbriick, Synt. Forsch., Bd. IV, p. 69. 

4 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 55. 5 Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 362 ff. 
6 Sterrett, Hom. Il., Hom. Dial., p. 27. 

7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 7. 


334 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and this is used as passive imperative second singular.! Else- 
where in the aorist and future the passive forms have driven out 
the middle. These passive forms are, however, used sometimes 
in the middle sense, as was true of dzexpi#n, for instance, in the 
N.T. The passive forms maintain the field in modern Greek and 
appropriate the meaning of the middle. We see this tendency at 
work in the N. T. and the xow7 generally. Since the passive used 
the middle forms in all the other tenses, it was natural that in 
these two there should come uniformity also. The result of this 
struggle between the middle and passive in the aorist and future 
was an increasing number of passive forms without the distinc- 
tive passive idea.? So in Mt. 10 : 26 (ux doBnOAre abrobs) the pas- 
sive is used substantially as a middle. Cf. the continued use of 
Tiunoowac as future passive in the earlier Greek as a tendency the 
other way. The history of this matter thus makes intelligible 
what would be otherwise a veritable puzzle in language. Here is 
a list of the chief passive aorists in the N. T. without the passive 
idea, the so-called ‘“deponent”’ passives: amexpibny (Mt. 25:9 and 
often, as John, Luke chiefly having Attic dzexpivaro also, Ac. 
3:12), dvexpiOnv (Ro. 4 : 20), cvvurexpiOnv (Gal. 2:13), aedoynOnv (Lu. 
21:14, but see 12:11), nyaddaOnv (Jo. 5: 35), eyernOnv (Mt. 6: 10, 
but also éyevounv often, as Ac. 20:18); cf. yéyova and yeyévnuar, 
esenOnv (Lu. 5:12); AyépOnv (Lu. 24: 34), pévvacOnv (Mk. 7 : 24, 
as New Ionic and LXX) and 7jduvqbnv (Mt. 17 : 16), dveAexOnv (Mk. 
9 : 34), @avudobnv (Rev. 13:3, but passive sense in 2 Th. 1: 10), 
HauBnonv (Mk. 1:27), e&vOvundeis (Mt. 1: 20), wereuednOnv (Mt. 21: 
32), époBHOnv (Mt. 21:46), edrAaBnbeis (Heb. 11:7), etc. For the 
LXX usage see Thackeray, p. 238. The future passives without 
certain passive sense are illustrated by the following: avaxd6jc0- 
pac (Mt. 8:11), droxpiOncoua (Mt. 25:37), eravaranoera (Lu. 
10:6), OavuacOjoouae (Rev. 17:8), xotunPnoouae (1 Cor. 15:51), 
évrparnoovtae (Mk. 12:6), werapwednOnoouac (Heb. 7 : 21), davncoua 
(Mt. 24:30), doBnOncouae (Heb. 13:6). But we have yerjcouat, 
duynoomar, éwiueAnooua, topevooua. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gr., p. 
44 f.; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 108. For the rapid development of this 
tendency in later Greek see Hatzidakis, Hinl., p. 192 f. See Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 97-100, and Thackeray, p. 240 f., for simi- 
lar phenomena in the LXX. These so-called deponents appear 
in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 113). Cf. ch. XVII, rv, (e). 


1 Thumb, Handb., p. 111. So mod. Gk. has only two voices; V. and D., 
Handb., to Mod. Gk., p. 81. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 362. 
8 Ib. Kovw7y exx. are numerous, like 7déc0nv, eveOuuHOnv, ExopebOnv, éhoBHOnr, etc. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 330 


(f) THe Personau Enpines. They are probably pronominal,! 
though Brugmann? does not consider the matter as clear in all 
respects. One point to note is the heavy burden that is placed 
upon these endings. They have to express voice, person and num- 
ber, everything in truth that has to do with the subject. Mode 
and tense are indicated otherwise. There was a constant ten- 
dency to slough off these personal endings and get back to the 
mode and tense-stems. Hence didwyus becomes 6i6w (papyri) in 
late Greek. Aéyw was originally Neyou.? 

(g) Cross-Divisions. These personal endings have two 
cross-divisions. The active and middle have a separate list, the 
passive having none of its own. Then there is another cleavage 
‘on the line of primary and secondary tenses in the indicative, i.e. 
the unaugmented and the augmented tenses.. The subjunctive 
mode falls in with the primary endings and the optative uses the 
secondary endings. But the first person active singular of the 
optative has one primary ending (as Avouw).4 But may it not be 
a reminiscence of the time when there was no distinction between 
subjunctive and optative? The imperative has no regular set of 
endings, as has already been shown, and does not fall in with 
this development, but pursues a line of its own. As a matter of 
fact the imperative always refers to the future. 

(h) Toe ActivE Enpines. They have received some modifica- 
tion in the N. T. Greek. The imperative can be passed by as 
already sufficiently discussed. The disappearance of the —mw 
forms in favour of the -w inflection has been carefully treated 
also, as adiouey (Lu. 11:4). The subjunctive dot and optative dan 
have likewise received discussion as well as the optative —a and 
-ee. But some interesting points remain. 

The use of —ocay instead of —ov is very common in the LXX (as 
Jer. 5 : 23, 26) and was once thought to be purely an Alexandrian 
peculiarity (Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 37). For the 
LXX phenomena see Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 65-67; Con. and 
Stock, Sel. from the LXX, p. 32f. The LXX is the principal 
witness to the —ocay forms (Thackeray, Gr., p. 195), where they 


1 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 53. 2 Gk. Gr., p. 346. 

3 Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 54. The same thing has happened in Eng. 
where the loss is nearly complete save 2d and 3d pers. sing. 

4 It is not worth while here to take time to make a careful discussion of each 
of these endings. For the hist. treatment of them see Brug., Griech. Gr., 
pp. 345 ff.; Giles, Comp. Philol., pp. 413 ff.; Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 
348 ff. 


336 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


are exceedingly frequent (7b., pp. 212 ff.). It is not so abundant 
outside of the LXX, but the Boeotians used it for the imperfect 
and optative.! Mayser? has found more examples of it in the 
Tebtunis Papyri, both aorist and imperfect, than Moulton* had 
discovered. The inscriptions also show it.* In the N. T. the con- 
tract verb édo\votcavy (Ro. 3:13) is a quotation from the LXX. 
In Jo. 15 : 22, 24, the imperfect eiyooay has to be admitted. In 
2 Th. 3:6 zapedaBooay is read by NAD and W. H. put it in 
the margin. The text zapedaBere is supported by BFG. This 
use of the —u inflection may be compared with the use of tw-cay 
in the imperative. In the modern Greek it is common with con- 
tract verbs (cf. LXX) like éd0\votcavy above. The modern Greek 
épwrotca is a new formation (Thumb, Handb., p. 171) modelled 
after it. 

Blass® needlessly hesitates to accept —av in the present perfect 
instead of the usual —acr, and even Moulton® is reluctant to ad- 
mit it for Paul and Luke, preferring to regard it “a vulgarism 
due to the occasional lapse of an early scribe.” It is certainly 
not a mere Alexandrianism as Buresch’ supposed. The ending 
—avrt in the Doric usually dropped v and became —acx in Attic, but 
the later Cretan inscriptions show —av after the analogy of the 
aorist.. The Alexandrian xow7 followed the Cretan. The papyri 
examples are very numerous? and it is in the inscriptions of Per- 
gamum! also. Hort (Notes on Orthography, p. 166) considers it 
“curious,” but has to admit it in various cases, though there is 
always some MS. evidence for —aor.. Thackeray (Gr., pp. 195, 
212) thinks that in some instances —av with the perfect is gen- 
ule in the LXX. The earliest examples are from Lydia, zapei- 
Angay (246 B.c.) and amréoraXxav (193 B.c.). Cf. Dieterich, Unters., 
p. 235f. The N. T. examples are ézécrahxay (Ac. 16 : 36), yéeyo- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 33. Cf. Dieterich, Unters., p. 242. 

2-Grad: priech. Papa peace, 

§ Prol., p. 52;.Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36, 1904, p. 110. 

4 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 148; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p.166. See fur- 
ther Dieterich, Unters., p. 242 f. Cf. Deiss., B.S., p. 191; W.-Sch., p. 112 f. 


Sr Ole Gig pao. §* Prolene: 
7 Téyovay und anderes Vulgiirgriechisch, Rhein. Mus., 1891, pp. 193 ff. Cf. 
Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36. 8 K.-BI., Bd. II, p. 48 f. 


® Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 323f. “A fair show in the papyri,”’ 
Moulton, Prol., p. 52. 

10 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 167. Thumb (Hellen., p. 170) rightly denies 
that it is merely Alexandrian. For LXX exx. (éepaxay, rérpaxay, etc.) see Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 67. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 330 


vay (Ro. 16:7; Rev. 21:6), éyvwxay (Jo. 17:7), elpneay (Rev. 19: 
3), eicednrvbay (Jas. 5:4), éwpaxay (Lu. 9:36; Col. 2:1), rérrwxav 
(Rev. 18:3), ternpynxay (Jo. 17:6). On the other hand the Western 
class of documents (NADN Syr. Sin.) read #xaow in Mk. 8:3 
instead of eiciv. But it is in the LXX (Jer. 4: 16), and Moulton! 
finds jxayev in the papyri. The form of jxw is present, but the 
sense is perfect and the « lends itself to the perfect ending by an- 
alogy. 

Another ending that calls for explanation is the use of —es in- 
stead of —as in the present perfect and the first aorist (in —xa es- 
pecially). Hort considers the MS. evidence “scanty” save in 
Revelation. The papyri give some confirmation. Moulton? 
cites adjjxes, €ypayes, etc., from “uneducated scribes” and thinks 
that in Revelation it is a mark of “imperfect Greek.’ Deiss- 
mann? finds the phenomenon common in a “badly written private 
letter”? from Faytim. Mayser‘ confirms the rarity of its occur- 
rence in the papyri. In the inscriptions Dieterich? finds it rather 
more frequent and in widely separated sections. In Mt. 23 : 23 
B has adjxere; in Jo. 8:57 B has éwpaxes; in Jo. 17:7 and in 
17:8 B has ééwxes; once more in Ac. 21:22 B gives édndvbes.6 It 
will hardly be possible to call B illiterate, nor Luke, whatever 
one may think of John. D has damexadvWes in Mt. 11:25." W.H. 
accept it in Rev. 2:3 (kexoriaxes), 2:4 (adixes), 2:5 (werrwxes), 
11:17 (eiAndes), all perfects save adjxes. It is rare in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 215); found in A (Ex. 5 : 22, améoradxes) and 
in éOwxes (Ezek. 16:21; Neh. 9:10). The modern Greek has it 
as in éeca, —es (Thumb, Handb., p.. 152). 

We have both jada (Mt. 26:69) and js (Mt. 25:21). The form 
in —§a is vanishing (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 166). Cf. also 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 321. The papyri have oféas, as 
N. T., and édns. But see —uw Verbs. 

Much more common is the use of the first aorist endings —a, 
—as, etc., with the second aorist stem and even with the imperfect. 
This change occurs in the indicative middle as well as active. 
This matter more technically belongs to the treatment of the 


1 Prol., p. 53. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 169. The N. T. does not follow 
illiterate pap. in putting —aox to aorist stems (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36). 

APL buserol., pros. 

f° BS., po 192% 4 Gr. d:-griech. Pap., p. 321. 

5 Unters. etc., p. 239. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 46, cites Apoll., Synt., 
I, 10, p. 37, as saying that etpnxes, éypaves, ypayérw, etc., gave the grammarians 
trouble. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 46. 7 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 118. 


338 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


aorist tense, as the —a is part of the tense-stem, but it is also con- 
veniently discussed here. The Attic already had efza, éreca, jveyxa. 
The Attic inscriptions indeed show écxa, evspaunvy and even the 
imperfects Ama, edepa.! This tendency towards uniformity 
spread in the xow7n somewhat extensively. Moulton® finds the 
strong aorists with —a chiefly in “‘uneducated writing” in the 
papyri, but common in general. This process of assimilation of 
the strong with the weak aorist was not yet complete. Blass® 
thinks it an “intermediate”? form already in the ancient Greek 
which spread in the xowy. Cf. the liquid form j#yyera. But both 
the strong and the weak aorists appear in the N. T. Thackeray 
(Gr., p. 195; ef. also pp. 210 ff.) notes that the —-ay termination 
was finally extended to all past tenses, though in the LXX the 
imperfect forms are due to later copyists. In the modern Greek 
we note it regularly with xaré\aBa, #Oeda, efxa, etc. (Thumb, 
Handb., pp. 152, 160, etc.). Hort® has a detailed discussion of the 
matter in the N. T. This mixture of usage is shown in efza and 
etrov. The —a form is uniform with endings in —7 (eizare, eirarw, 
eiratwoav). Both eixov and eiwe occur. We have aremdapuca (2 
Cor. 4:2) and mpocirapey (1 Th. 4:6). The participle is usu- 
ally —wv, but sometimes cizas. Both efzas and eizes, efrov and 
eiray meet us. We always have the jveyxa inflection save in the 
infinitive and the imperative. And even here we once have dve- 
veyxat (1 Pet. 2:5) and once also mpocéveyxov (Mt. 8:4 BC). So 
also with éreca we have the weak or first aorist inflection in the 
indicative and imperative plural récare (Lu. 23 : 30; Rev. 6: 16). 
But in these two examples Hort’ (against W. H.) favours zécere 
on MS. grounds (NABD, NBC). In Lu. 14:10; 17:7 dvamece is 
correct. The other forms that are accepted by W. H. are €Badav 


1 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 183 f. 

2 Dieterich, Unters., p. 237 f. For the inscr. see Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., 
p. 181 f.; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 166 f. 

3 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 86. Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 368 f. 

4 Th; te DeisssBiosi pal ood: 

5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 45. The LXX is in harmony with this tendency also. 
Is it Cilician according to Heraclides? W.-Sch., p. 111 note. Cf. in Hom. 
forms like #£ovro, é8noero, where the sec. aorist endings go with the first aorist 
stem (Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 42). 

6 Notes on Orth., p. 164 f. See also Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 45; W.-Sch., 
p. 111f. The LXX MSS. tally with the N. T. in the use of -a. Cf. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., pp. 62-65; C. and 8., Sel. fr. LXX, p. 35f. 

7 Notes on Orth., p. 164. Moulton (Prol., p. 51) speaks of “the functionally 
useless difference of ending between the strong and the weak aorist.”’ 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 339 


once (Ac. 16:37); éréBadav twice (Mk. 14:46; Ac. 21 : 27); eféay, 
eldayev in a few places (Mt. 13:17; Lu. 10: 24; Mt. 25: 37, etc.); 
the indicatives dvethav (Ac. 10:39), aveiNate (Ac. 2 : 23), dveidaro 
(Ac. 7:21), etAaro (2 Th. 2:18), e&erraunv (Ac. 23 : 27), ékeidaro 
(Ac. 7:10; 12:11); edpay once (Lu. 8 : 35, or avedpar), ebpauev once 
(Lu. 23:2), and ebdpauevos once (Heb. 9: 12); the imperatives @- 
dare, éXMa7w uniformly, both 7Mav and 7AMov, once am7jdOa (Rev. 
10:9), regularly #\@ayev (Ac. 21:8). There are many other ex- 
amples in various MSS. which W. H. are not willing to accept, 
but which illustrate this general movement, such as aréOavay (Mt. 
8 : 32, etc.), aBav (Jo. 1:12), edaBayev (Lu. 5:5), &\dBare (1 Jo. 
2:27), €€€Badav (Mk. 12 : 8), émcay (1 Cor. 10:4 D), égvyay (Lu. 8: 
34 D), xatedayav (Mk. 4:4 D), cuvecxay (Ac. 7:57 D), yevdpuevos 
(Lu. 22:44), etc. But let these suffice. Moulton! is doubtful 
about allowing this —a in the imperfect. But the papyri support 
it as Deissmann? shows, and the modern Greek? reinforces it also 
as we have just seen. W. H. receive efxavy in Mk. 8:7; Ac. 28:2 
(rapetxav); Rev. 9:8; eixavev in 2 Jo. 5. But D has efyay in Jo. 
15 : 22, 24; N has é\eyar in Jo. 9:10; 11:36, etc. There is a dis- 
tinct increase in the use of the sigmatic aorist as in judaptrnoa 
(Mt. 18 : 15), dWnoGe (Lu. 13 : 28). It appears already in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 235). But see further under vir, (d). 
_ The past perfect has the —ew forms exclusively as uniformly in 
the xowy.4 So eiornxecay (Rev. 7: 11), Héecay (Mk. 14: 40), ze- 
mounxecay (Mk. 15:7). So the LXX. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
p. 68. But the imperfect é&ecav (Ac. 17: 15) is to be observed. 

(1) THe MippLe Enpines. These call for less remark. Bov- 
Ae (Lu. 22 : 42) is the only second singular middle form in —e, for 
dyn (Mt. 27:4) displaces éve. The inscriptions® sometimes show 
BotAn. Blass® regards Bove a remnant of literary style in Luke, 

1 Prol., p. 52. So Buresch, Rhein. Mus., 46, 224. Hort (Notes on Orth., 
p. 165) needlessly considers éxxéere (Rev. 16: 1) a second aorist imper. instead 
of the present. Cf. é£éxeav (usual form in Rev. 16:6). Cf. W.-Sch., p. 111. 
But xaréxeev (Mk. 14:3) is the usual Attic aorist. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 55. 

2 B.S., p. 191, érevas, etc. 

3 Cf. Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 36; Geldart’s Guide to Mod. Gk., p. 
272 note. 
_ 4 With rare variations in the inser. and pap. Moulton, Prol., p. 53. Cf. 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 320 ff. 

5 Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 168. Cf. also Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 
328. The pap. do not show ote and éva, but only Bobde. 

6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 47. For oty, é~n, and BobdAn in LX-X MSS. see Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 60 f.; C. and S., Sel. fr. LX X, p.33f. Bin the LXX shows a 
fondness for —e forms (itacism). Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 217. 


340 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


but the papyri also have Bot\e. The occasional use of dtvy (Mk. 
9 : 22 f.) has been discussed under —uw Verbs. It appears only 
once in the LXX, but the “‘poetic and apparently Ionic” ériorn 
is more frequent (Thackeray, Gr., p. 217). Cf. also xadov (Jas. 2: 3) 
as LXX and xd6yn (Ac. 28:3). On the other hand we have dayecar 
and zieca (Lu. 17:8). This revival of the use of —ca parallel with 
—yat, —rac in the perfect of vowel verbs in the vernacular amounts 
to a “new formation” in the view of Blass.!.- So Moulton, Prol., 
p. 54f. To call this revival a “survival” is “antediluvian philol- 
ogy.” In the LXX ieoa is universal and ¢ayeoa: outside of the 
Pentateuch where ¢ayn holds on (Thackeray, p. 218). The —oat 
form is universal in modern Greek. The love of uniformity made 
it triumph. But see Contract Verbs for further discussion. The 
middle form juny (Mt. 25:35) and juca (Mt. 23 : 30) is like the 
xown generally and the modern Greek efua. Cf. also éooua. For 
é£édero (Mt. 21:33) with loss of root o and w inflection (thematic 
e) see —uw Verbs. Cf. also é&expéuero (Lu. 19:48). The LXX has 
—evto for -ovro (Thackeray, p. 216). 

(7) Passtvk Enpines. As already observed, the passive voice 
has no distinctive endings of its own. The second aorist passive, 
like é-avy-v, is really an active form like €£y-» (€-davy-v is the 
proper division).? Cf. Latin tacé-re. So é-xapn-v from xaipew. The 
first aorist in —Onv seems to have developed by analogy out of 
the old secondary middle ending in —@ns (€-66-0ns) parallel with 
go (Sanskrit thds).2 The future passive is a late development 
and merely adds the usual oo/e and uses the middle endings. 
The ending in -6nv is sometimes transitive in Archilochus,’* as 
the middle often is, and perhaps helps to understand how in the 
xowwn these forms (first aorist passive) are so often transitive (‘‘de- 
ponents’’) as in azexpiOnv, epo8nOnv, etc. The second aorist passive 
as noticed above is really an active form. So the passive forms 
have a decidedly mixed origin and history. There is nothing 
special to note about these passive endings in the N. T. save the 
increased use of them when even the passive idea does not exist. 
In some verbs o is inserted contrary to Attic practice. So kéx- 
Necorae (Lu. 11:7), N€Aovowar (Heb. 10:22). It is a common 
usage in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 219ff.). See also vu, 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 47: Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p.-328. 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., pp. 410, 427. 

3 Ib., pp. 411, 422. On “Passive Formations” see Hadley, Ess. Phil. and 
Crit., p. 199. On the strong passive forms in LXX see C. and S., Sel. fr. LX X, 
p. 41. * Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 411, 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 341° 


(g), 9. In Rev. 8:12; 18:23, W. H. print dary (first aorist 
active, cf. ém@ava in Lu. 1:79) rather than the passive dav}. 
Note exdin (Mt. 24:32, but Rec. exduf, though édby in Mk. 
13: 28), ovvdvetoar (Lu. 8:7) and rapecedinoay (Ju. 4) for eduy 
(Rec. Mk. 1:32) which the LXX retains (Thackeray, Gr., p. 
235). In the LXX, when a verb had both first and second aorist 
passive forms, the first disappeared (7b., p. 237). But see vu, (d), 
for further discussion. 

(k) Contract VERBS. The use of —ca: was mentioned above. 
It appears! in xavxéoa (1 Cor. 4:7; Ro. 2:17, etc.) and ddvvaca 
(Lu. 16:25) where ae regularly contracts into a. See yapleca 
(=-etoa) P. Oxy. 292 (A.D. 25). 

Verbs in -aw. The confusion with verbs in -ew is already seen 
in the Ionic (Herodotus). The LXX in general preserves the dis- 
tinction between —aw and —ew verbs, but NAB occasionally have 
the confusion (Thackeray, Gr., p. 241). In the modern Greek the 
blending is complete. One conjugation is made up, some forms 
from —aw, some from —ew (Thumb, Handb., p. 169 f.). The N. T. 
MSS. vary. W. H. receive jpwrovy in Mt. 15:23 (NBCD), but 
npwrwv in Mk. 4:10 though —ovy is here supported by NC and by 
single MSS. elsewhere. Hatzidakis (Hinl. in d. Neug., p. 128 f.) 
considers 7pwrovy due to Ionic influence. In Mt. 6:28 we have 
korovow in B 33, but W. H. reject? it, as they do mxodyre in Rev. 
227, 17; 15:2,;and xareyédovv (Lu. 8:53). In Mk. 14:5 W. H. 
read éve8piuavto (NC —-odvro) and in Jo. 11: 38 éuBpiuapevos (NA 
—olpevos). So there is a variation as to Arravra (2 Pet. 2 : 20) 
from 7rTaouac and joowbnre (2 Cor. 12:13) from éooow after the 
analogy of é\accow.2 W. H. print ¢fv (Ro. 8:12). This is a 
matter of much dispute with the editors, but it is more than 
doubtful if W. H. are correct. On the other side see Winer- 
Schmiedel* and Moulton.2 But both faw (Ro. 8:12) and xpdo- 
mac (1 Tim. 1:8) have the 7 contraction rather than a (yw 
verbs, Moulton, Prol., p. 54). In Ro. 7:9 B even has &ny for 
étwyv. But the xowy uses xpac6a, though not in the N. T.6 Paul 


1 Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 328, for xapuetoar. The LXX (1 Ki. 14: 
6 A) shows azetevotca. The only certain instance in the LXX is xraéoa: (Sir. 
6:7). See Thack., p. 218. Cf. further Hatz., Einl., p. 188. 

2 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 166. 

* Ib. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 36) cites e&ixe. and ruodvres from pap. 
' 4 Pp. 42, 116 note. 

5 Prol., p. 54. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 61. The pap. support ¢qy, not ¢jr. 
Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 347. So in general the pap. are in harmony 
with N. T. usage here, Mayser, pp. 346 ff. § Moulton, Prol., p. 54. 


342 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


has xpira (pres. subj.) in 1 Tim. 1:8. Elsewhere also the a 
forms prevail in the xowy as in duvay and ravay. So rewd (1 Cor. 
11:21), revay (Ph. 4:12), dwWa (Ro. 12:20) as subjunctive (so 
mwewa same verse). The LXX keeps Attic (qv and xpjoba, but 
duvav and wevav (Thackeray, Gr., p. 242).1 | 
Verbs in —ew sometimes show forms in —aw. So éddoya in Phil. 
18, €\XNoyarac in Ro. 5:18, €deGre in Ju. 22, 23, and eXreSvros in 
Ro. 9:16, but é\eet in Ro. 9:18. LXX has both forms. The 
kowyn usually has the —ety forms.” For further examples of this 
confusion between —aw and —ew in LX X and isolated N. T. MSS. 
see Winer-Schmiedel.? In 1 Cor. 11:6 all editors print fvpacbav 
(cf. ketpacOa just before), though in 1 Cor. 11: 5 éévpnuevn and évpn- 
covrat (Ac. 21 : 24) probably come from £upéw.4 Cf. éaw, éaow.5 
Contraction does not always take place with ee in verbs in —ew. 
In Lu. 8:38 W. H. follow BL in giving éée?70, but Hort® admits 
that it is not free from doubt. Blass’ and Moulton® consider 
édéero correct and the contraction a mere correction, and it is sup- 
ported by the LXX and papyri. AP even have édeet7o. In Rev. 
16:1 éxéevre is undoubtedly right and éfexeev in 16:2, but note 
éxxetrat (Mt. 9:17). In Mk. 14:3 xaréyeev is to be noticed also 
(cf. Attic aorist). On the other hand in Jo. 3:8 note vet, é£érde 
(Ac. 18:18), wdetv, aromdety (Ac. 27:1f.). In the LXX these 
words appear now one way, now the other.® Aéw (‘to bind’), péw 
have no ee forms in the N. T. W. H. accept in text only éfovdevéw 
in all the dozen examples in the N. T. (as Lu. 18 : 9, é£ov8evotyras), 
but in Mk. 9:12 they have 6 instead of 6.1° Observe also adéwr- 
tat (Lu. 5 : 20, etc.) instead of a¢vrar or the regular adetyrar. In 
the N. T., W. H. give éppéOn (Gal. 3:16; Mt. 5:21, etc.), but 
Hort" thinks the Attic épp7jn should appear always in Matthew. 
Verbs in —ow have two knotty problems. In Gal. 4:17 ¢n\odre 
and 1 Cor. 4 : 6 ¢vaotobe are regular if indicative. But if they are 
subjunctive, the contraction ov is like the indicative oe (cf. indica- 


1 W.-Sch., p. 116 note. Cf. xarnpayévos (Mt. 25: 41). 

2 Hatz., Einl., p. 128f. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 110) cites dpovarres and 
per contra &yarobdvres from pap. ta PSE tote, 

4 Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 166) prefers fipacOac after Plut. and Lucian. 

6 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 116 f. See further on this mixing of contract verbs, Mayser, 
Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 349. The LXX MSS. show much the same situation as 
to contract verbs that we find in the N. T. and the pap. Helbing (Gr. d. Sept., 
pp. 110-112) gives the facts in detail. 

6 Notes on Orth., p. 166. 9% Cf. Thack., Gr., pp. 242ff.; W.-Sch., p. 115 note. 

7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 47. 1° Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 166. 

8 Prol., p. 54. 1 Ib. BD always have it. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 343 


tive and subjunctive of —ow verbs). So Blass! and Moulton.2 
Hort® doubts the indicative here. If evoddra: (1 Cor. 16:2) be 
regarded as a present subjunctive no problem in contraction is 
raised.4 But in Col. 4:17 we have the subjunctive in ta wAn- 
pots as in Attic for both indicative and subjunctive. In Ro. 
3:13 éodv0tcay is the common LXX form in -ogay. The other 
point is the infinitive in -ody or -oty. W. H. give -oty for 
this infinitive everywhere except mAnpoty in Lu. 9:31.5 Cf. -d 
and —jv in W. H. Blass® considers the —oty termination “hardly 
established for the N. T.” since even in the N. T. the evidence is 
“small,” though “fof good quality’? Hort contends.? In Mt. 13: 
32 Katackynvoty is supported by BD (in Mk. 4:32 by B), in 1 Pet. 
2:15 diumoty has N, and in Heb. 7:5 dzodexarotyv has BD. Moul- 
ton® finds no support earlier in date than B save one inscription 
cited in Hatzidakis (Hinl., p. 193) and one papyrus of second cen- 
tury A.D. Mayser® likewise finds no infinitive in —o?y till after 
- first century A.D. and gives some references for this late infinitive 
form. It looks as if the case will go against W. H. on this point. 
The form is probably due to some late grammarian’s refinement 
and is linguistically unintelligible. 

IIvetv is often contracted (sounded finally 7%, then 1) into ety 
(so W. H., Jo. 4:7, 9, etc.) and in some MSS. (N 8/9 times) into 
av. But mety is the Syrian reading (Mt. 20 : 22, etc.).° Con- 
traction in —aw, —ew, —ow verbs, of course, takes place only in the 
present, imperfect and present participle. 

. VII. The Tenses (x pévot). 

(a) THE TeRM TrENsE. It is from the French word temps, 
‘time,’ and is a misnomer and a hindrance to the understanding 
of this aspect of the verb-form. ‘Time does come finally to enter 
relatively into the indicative and in a limited way affects the op- 
tative, infinitive and participle. But it is not the original nor the 
general idea of what we call tense.!! Indeed it cannot be shown of 


Gre or Not. Gk p. 48. Cf. K.-Bl., Bd-IT, :p. 587. 

ae PTO Dos: 8 Notes on Orth., p. 171 f. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 54. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 167. 

5 Hort, ib., p. 166. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. 

7 Notes on Orth., p.166. 

8 Prol., p. 538. Cf. Nestle (Am. Jour. of Theol., July, 1909, p. 448) for 


pactuyyorv in Coptic. 9 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 349; Raderm., p. 74. 
10 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 170. 

. UW Cf. Delbriick, Grundl. d. griech. Synt., Bd. IV, p. 80; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 

469 f.; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 481 f. See Swete, O. T. in Gk., p. 305, 

for remarks about tenses in the LXX. ; 


344 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


any verb-form that it had originally any reference to time. We 
must therefore dismiss time from our minds in the study of the 
forms of the tenses as well as in the matter of syntax. It is too 
late to get a new name, however. 

(b) Conrusion IN NamgEs. The greatest confusion prevails in 
the names given to the various tenses. The time idea appears in 
the names present, past perfect and future. The state of the ac- 
tion rules in the names aorist, imperfect and perfect. Thus it is 
clear that the time idea did not prevail with all the names that 
the grammarians used. In the indicative, indeed, in the past three 
tenses appear, in the present two, in the future one (sometimes 
two). In the other modes as a rule only three tenses are found; 
in truth, in the subjunctive, optative and imperative practically 
only two are in common usage, the aorist and the present. 

As a matter of fact there are nine possible tenses for each 
voice in the indicative: the aorist present, the imperfect pres- 
ent, the perfect present, the aorist past, the imperfect past, the 
perfect past; the aorist future, the imperfect future, the perfect 
future. These ideas do occur. In the past the distinction is 
clear cut. In the present no sharp line is drawn between the 
aorist and durative (unfinished or imperfect) save when the peri- 
phrastic conjugation is used or when Aktionsart comes in to 
help out the word itself. In the future, as a rule, no distinction 
at all is made between the three ideas. But here again the peri- 
phrastic conjugation can be employed. As a rule the future is 
aoristic anyhow. For further discussion see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. 
Gr., p. 180; Farrar, Greek Syntax, p. 120, and the references there 
to Harris’ Hermes, Harper’s Powers of the Greek Tenses, and 
H. Schmidt’s Doctrina Temporum Verbi Graecit et Latini. The 
modern Greek preserves as distinct forms the aorist, present, im- 
perfect; the future, the perfect and past perfect using periphrastic 
forms. Mr. Dan Crawford reports 32 tenses for Bantu. 

(c) THE VerB-Roort. There were originally two types of verb- 
roots, the punctiliar and the durative. The tense called aorist 
(ddpioros, ‘undefined action’) is due to the use of the punctiliar 
verbs (the idea of a point on a line). The present tense comes 
out of the durative verb-root. But it is worth repeating that 
tenses are a later development in the use of the verb.1 

Hence it was natural that some verbs never developed a pres- 
ent tense, like eféov, and some made no aorist, like épa4w. The de- 
fective verbs thus throw much light on the history of the tenses. 

1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 482 f. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘pHMA) 345 


Out of these two ideas grew all the tenses. Each language had its 
own development. Some aorists in Sanskrit had no presents, like 
the Greek eivov. Hach tense in the Greek pursued its own way. 
It is a complex development as will be seen. The idea of com- 
paring the aorist to a point and the present to a line is due to 
Curtius, but it has since been worked out at length. Instead of 
saying “irregular” verbs, Delbriick (Vergl. Syntax, Tl. II, p. 256) 
speaks of “several roots united to one verb.” 

This Aktionsart or kind of action belongs more specifically to 
syntax.” But it is not possible to make a modern study of the 
tense formations without having clearly in mind this important 
matter. It will come out at every turn. Along with the various 
tense-suffixes which came to be used to express the tense-distine- 
tions as they were developed there remains also the meaning of 
the verb-root itself. This is never to be left out of sight. Prepo- 
sitions also enter into the problem and give a touch much like a 
suffix (perfective). So Ovncxev is ‘to be dying’ while azofavety is ‘to 
die’ and amoreObynxevar is ‘to be dead.’ Cf. eye, and aréye, ébaryov 
and xarédayov. But more of this in Syntax. The point here is 
simply to get the matter in mind. 

(d) Tue Aorist TENSE (aopiotos ypoevos). It is not true that 
this tense was always the oldest or the original form of the verb. 
As seen above, sometimes a durative root never made an aorist 
or punctiliar stem. But the punctiliar idea is the simplest idea 
of the verb-root, with many verbs was the original form, and logic- 
ally precedes the others. Hence it can best be treated first. This 
is clearer if we dismiss for the moment the so-called first aorists and 
think only of the second aorists of the —u form, the oldest aorists. 
It is here that we see the rise of the aorist. Henry?* has put this 
matter tersely: ““The ordinary grammars have been very unfortu- 
nate in their nomenclature; the so-called second perfects are much 
more simple and primitive than those called first perfects; the same 
is the case with the second aorists passive as contrasted with the 
first aorists,”’ etc. The same remark applies to second aorists active 
and middle. The non-thematic second aorists represent, of course, 


1 Cf. Mutzbauer, Grundl. der Tempuslehre (1893); Delbriick, Grund. d. 
griech. Synt., I], pp. 13 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 470 ff.; Giles, Man. of Comp. 
Philol:, p. 480 f.; Moulton, Prol., pp. 108 ff. 

2 Thumb (Handb., p. 123) likewise feels the necessity of a word about 
Aktionsart under Morphology. 

3 Comp. Gr. of the Gk. and Lat., Elliott’s transl., 1890, p. 105 f. note. Cf. 
Leo Meyer, Griech. Aoriste, 1879, p. 5 f. 


346 A GRAMMAR OF ‘THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the most primitive form. The survivals of these forms in the 
N.T. have been discussed under —y Verbs. The difference between 
the strong aorist (both thematic and non-thematic) and similar 
presents is syntactical and not formal. The point is that the 
strong aorists and the corresponding presents represent the simple 
‘stem of the verb. Brugmann? indeed treats them together. It 
is not possible to make an etymological distinction between the 
imperfects édnv, éypadov and the aorists éornv, ébvyov. The im- 
perfect, of course, differs from the present only in the augment 
and secondary endings.? The kinship between the aorist and 
present stems is further shown in reduplication. Reduplication 
in the aorist, as #yayov, is supposed to be originally causative.‘ 
Cf. the use of it with inceptive presents like y.(y)ypwoxw. The 
aorist was quite common in the older Sanskrit, but is rare in the 
later language. Cf. the blending of the aorist and the present 
perfect forms in Latin. The strong aorist (both non-thematic 
and thematic) is far more common in Homer than in the later 
Greek.§ Indeed in the modern Greek the strong aorist has well- 
nigh vanished before the weak aorist.’ 

As often, the grammars have it backwards. The so-called sec- 
ond is the old aorist, and the so-called first is the late form of the 
verb. This weak form of the aorist has a distinct tense-sign, o, 
the sigmatic aorist. The o (-ca) was not always used, as with 
liquid verbs,’ like écreXa. This sigmatic aorist appears also 
in the Sanskrit. The distinction was not always observed be- 
tween the two forms, and mixed aorists of both kinds occur in 
Homer, like 4£0v70, jvecxa.!° No wonder therefore that uniformity 
gradually prevailed at the expense of the strong aorist in two 
ways, the disuse of the strong aorist (so 7£a) and the putting of 
first aorist endings to the second aorist stems, as efza, éoxa. 

The « aorists in the indicative (é6wxa, €nxa, xa) continued to 
hold their own and to be used usually in the plural also. An ex- 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 268. 
2 Ib. Cf. also Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., pp. 396, 410, 414. So K.-BL., IT, 


p. 92f. 3 Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 453 f. 
4 So Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 308. Cf. Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 371. Cf. K.-BI., 
II; p. 30 f., for list: 5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 298. 


6 See interesting lists in Sterrett’s Il, N. 38 ff. 

7 V. and D., Handb. etc., p. 79 f. 

8 K.-BI., I, p. 102f. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 313; Delbriick, Grundl., 
etc., IV, pp. 75 ff. Hartmann (De aoristo secundo, 1881, p. 21) makes too 
much distinction between the second and first aorists. 

9 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 313. 10 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 42. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 347 


tension of this usage (after the analogy of the perfect) is seen in 
the Byzantine and modern Greek! form éd\v6nxa for édvOnv. 

There is one more aorist form, the aorist passive. As already 
shown, the so-called second aorist passive (—v), like édavnv, éxapnr, 
is merely the second aorist active. The so-called first aorist 
passive in —Onv is a Greek creation after the analogy of the old 
Indo-Germanic.? Homer makes little use of either of these pas- 
sive aorists, but the second is the more frequent with him and the 
form in —Ony is very rare.‘ 

If this emphasis upon the aorist forms seem unusual to modern 
students, they may be reminded that in English we have only 
two tenses (apart from the periphrastic conjugation) and that they 
are usually punctiliar, as “I sing,” ‘I sang.’’ One is a present 
aorist, the other a past aorist.2 We do not here enter into the 
Aktionsart of the aorist (whether ingressive, constative or effec- 
tive). That belongs to syntax. 

The inscriptions agree with the development shown above in 
the aorist and support the N. T. phenomena.’ Mayser® gives a 
careful discussion of the papyri development. In brief it is in 
harmony with what has already been observed. The non-the- 
matic strong aorist is confined to a few verbs like Bjjva, yrevar, 
dodvar, Sdvat, Oeivar, mpiacba, orqvac. The x aorists are used ex- 
clusively in both singular and plural. The thematic strong aorist 
is disappearing before the weak sigmatic aorist. 

In the N. T. the x aorists t6wxa, Inka, adqxa occur always ex- 
cept that Luke (1:2 in the literary introduction) has zapédocap. 
Elsewhere ééaxate (Mt. 25:35), eOnxav (Mk. 6: 29), adnate (Mt. 
23:23), etc., and quite frequently.2 The LXX also nearly 
always has x with these aorists in the plural. 

The non-thematic aorists in the N. T. are not numerous. The 
list is found in the discussion of —ue verbs and includes avéBnp, 
éyvav, tornv, ebnv, ovdunv, and all the forms of dodva, eivac and 
detvar save the indicative active. 


1 V. and D. Handb., etc., p. 81, but in particular Thumb, Handb., p. 144. 
2 Cf..K.-BI., I, p. 93 f. 3 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 399 f. 
4 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 42 f. 
6 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 126. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 45. 
6 Munro, ib., p. 47. 
7 Cf. Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., pp. 180 ff.; Nachm., Magn. Inschr., pp. 
162 ff.; Meisterh., Att. Inschr., pp. 181, 185, 187. 
~ 8 Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 358-370. 9 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 119. 
10 See Helbing, Gr. d.Sept., p. 94 f., for similar exx. in the LXX, and Thack., 


Gr., p. 255. 


848 A&A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The thematic strong aorist in the N. T. shows the two develop- 
ments noted above. The use of —a instead of —ov with the strong 
aorist-stem is very common. See this chapter, v1, (A), for N. T. list 
like €8adav, etc. The MSS. vary much in the matter.1. The other 
change is the increased use of the sigmatic aorist. Here again 
Blass? has a careful presentation of the facts. ’EBiwoa (1 Pet. 
4:2) is a case in point instead of the old Attic éBiwy. So is éB8da- 
otnoa (Mt. 13:26; Heb. 9:4; Jas. 5:18) rather than é8dacrTor. 
Both éyaunoa (Mt. 5 : 32) and éynua (Mt. 22 : 25) occur. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 93f., and Thackeray, Gr., pp. 233 ff., for 
LXX illustrations. 

"Ha occurs a few times instead of the common jyayor, as éxaktas 
(2 Pet. 2:5), émeovvaéar (Lu. 13:34). Blass justifies it as appear- 
ing at least in dialects, LX X and late writers.* It is part of the 
tendency towards the sigmatic aorist. Likewise auaprnow is slip- 
ping in beside ayaprw (Mt. 18:15; Ro. 5:14, 16, cf. verse 12). 
Blass finds it in Emped., LX X, Lob., Phryn., 732. W.H. accept 
éovoev (Mk. 1: 32 on the authority of BD (NA, etc., é6v). Luke in 
Ac. 24:21 has the reduplicated aorist éxexpatéa like the LX X, but 
usually the N. T. has the late form épaéa as in Mt. 8 : 29 (éxpatav), 
though once the Attic avéxpayov appears (Lu. 23 : 18). Once Luke 
(Ac. 6:2) has xaradXetWavras, a form that Blass* finds in Herm., 
Vis. VIII, 3. 5, and Mayser® observes avrevAjwar in the papyri. 

"Ovnobe (Lu. 13 : 28) finds a parallel in an old Homeric aorist 
avaunv (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 109). In Rev. 18:14 the Text. Rec. 
(without any known authority) has an aorist form edpyoa. So in 
Jas. 4:13 some MSS. have éuzopevowueba. Indeed some verbs have 
dropped the strong aorist form entirely like Bow, Bracravw, &yelpo- 
pat, kretvw. See careful discussion of Winer-Schmiedel, p. 109 f. 
MSS. frequently read dwon, dwowper, etc., as if from an aorist géwoa, 
as Jo. 17:2; Rev. 4:9. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 120. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 90 f., for LX_-X examples that further parallel 
these illustrations. 

Conversely is to be noted a new strong aorist davéfadov (Ph. 4: 
10) which Blass® takes in a causative sense (avebadere 7d brép Euod 
ppovety). 

Verbs in —(w make the aorist both in o and ~ Most of these 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 45 f. * Ibs pete: 

3 Ib. Mayser (Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 369) finds it in the pap. as well as 
ayayjoa. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. Cf. xaradrely Mk. 12:19 ». 

5 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 370. 6 Gr. of NUT Ghee 45. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 349 


verbs have dental stems in Attic, but some have guttural. Hence 
the o forms prevail till to-day. The LXX agrees with the N. T. 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 222f.). So eboratay (Mt. 25:5), euratta 
(Mt. 20:19), éreornpréay (Ac. 15:32); but on the other hand 
éotnpicev (Lu. 9:51), Apwacev (Ac. 8:39), jppoodunv (2 Cor. 11:2), 
cadrions (Mt. 6:2).! The tendency in the papyri and the in- 
scriptions on the whole is towards the use of o and not & with 
the verbs in -fw.? Cf. Barrifw, \oyifoua, voice, ete. 

Like xaXéw and red\ew* we have e in édopécayev (1 Cor. 15:49) and 
éppeOn (Mt. 5: 21), but ebddopnoa (Lu. 12 : 16), pnOev (Mt. 1 : 22) and 
éreroOnoa (1 Pet. 2:2). Cf. also #veca, jpxece, Euéoa. Cf. éreivaca 
(Mt. 4: 2), but dulyow, though D has —a—in Jo. 6: 35 and N in Rev. 

The liquid verbs in —aivw and —aipw generally retain a even when 
not preceded by ¢ orcas in Attic. So €Bacxava (Gal. 3:1); once kep- 
dav (1 Cor. 9: 21), elsewhere —ynoa; é£exaapa (1 Cor. 5:7); édebxavay 
(Rev. 7:14); éonuava (Rev. 1:1); émupavar (Lu. 1:79). In Rev. 8:12 
and 18:23 note ¢avyn, not dav7. The xown begins to use —ava and 
—apa with all verbs, and it is well-nigh universal in modern Greek. 
The LXX agrees with the N. T. (Thackeray, Gr., p. 223). A few 
—nva forms survive in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 140 f.). 

The second aorist passive has a few late developments of its 
own. This substitution of the second aorist passive for the first 
is a favorite idiom in the N. T.4 The xow7 shows likewise fond- 
ness for the —nv formations.’ This is true of the inscriptions® and 
the papyri.’ This development is directly the opposite of that in 
the case of the second and first aorist active and middle. It has 
already been observed that in Homer the passive aorist is very 
rare. Perhaps the increase in the use of —yv forms is partly due 
to the general encroachment of aorist passive forms on the middle, 
and this is the simplest one. The Attic, of course, had many such 
forms also. Here are the chief N. T. examples: ayyedny (a7-, 
av-, du-, kat-, Lu. 8 : 20, ete.) is in the LXX and the papyri; 
qvotynv (Mk. 7:35, etc.), but AvolxOncav also (Rev. 20:12); Ap- 
naynv (2 Cor. 12:2, 4), but the Attic jprac6n (Rev. 12:5); d10- 
pvyjvat is read by some MSS. in Mt. 24:48; dveraynv (Gal. 3 : 19), 
ireraynv (Ro. 8 : 20, etc.), but the Attic duataxdevra (Lu. 17:9 f.); 

1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 105. 

2 Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 360 ff., for careful discussion and 
references for further research. 

3 So rovéw and dopéw(e) in the LXX. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 105. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 48. 5 Cf. Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 594 f. 


6 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 171; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 190 f. 
7 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 381 f. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec., p. 76 f. 


350 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW. TESTAMENT 


katexanv (Rev. 8:7; 1 Cor. 3:15), but Attic é#exatOijoav (Ro. 1: 
27); xatevoynv (Ac. 2:37); exptBnv (Jo. 8:59). So also epvny in- 
stead of épuv follows the analogy of éopiny (Heb. 2:1) and éxapnv 
(Lu. 22:5). Thus we have ékg@u7 (Mk. 13 : 28)! and cupdvetoa 
(Lu. 8:6-8). Forms like érAnynv (Rev. 8:12) and édarny (Mt. 
1:20) are Attic. On the other hand the poetical édi6nv (Mt. 
14 : 19 dvaxXcOqvar) has displaced the Attic éxAivnv. ’ AmexravOnv oc- 
casionally appears (as in Mk. 8: 31 and Rev. six times) where the 
Attic would have azé$avoy, and érexOnv (Lu. 2 : 11) when the Attic 
would usually have éyevounv. Both éyernOnv (Mt. 6:10 and often 
in 1 Th.) and éyevounv (Mt. 7: 28) are common, as 7dvynOnv (Mt. 
17 : 16) and jévvacbnv (Mk. 7: 24). The many aorist passives in 
the deponent sense have already been noticed under VI, (e). 

(ec) THe PresEeNT TENSE (0 éveot@s ypdvos). The present 
indicative, from the nature of the case, is the most frequent in 
actual use and hence shows the greatest diversity of develop- 
ment. Brugmann? finds thirty-two distinct ways of forming the 
present tense in the Indo-Germanic tongues and thirty of them 
in the Greek. But some of these represent very few verbs 
and for practical purposes a much simpler classification is suf- 
ficient. Unfortunately the grammars by no means agree on the 
simplification. As samples see Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 
425f.; Hadley and Allen, p. 122f.; Monro, Homeric Grammar, 
p. 9; Riemann and Goelzer, Phonétique, pp. 394 ff.; Kiihner-Blass, 
II, pp. 88 ff. In simple truth the facts are so varied that they 
lend themselves to many combinations more or less artificial. 
One of the most satisfactory is that of Monro, who has the his- 
torical instinct at least in his arrangement. 

1. The Root Class. This is the simple non-thematic present 
like @nut. This is the logical one to put first, as with the aorist 
like €-Bn-v. This class is disappearing in the N. T. though diva- 
pat, eiul, etue in Composition (eic—, E&—-), KaO-n-wat, Ket-wat, Kpewa-war 
appear. 

2. The Non-Thematic Reduplicated Present. So 6i-dw-m, t-y- 
ful, t-orn-me, Kl-Xpy-ML, Ovivn-mL, Wiu-wAn-mL, Ti-On-uw. It was never a 
very large class, but holds on in the N. T. And -w forms are 
common with these verbs. 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 110, for exx. in Jos. and LXX. Cf. also Helbing, Gr. d. 
Sept., p. 95f. MSS. simply read —¢u7. 

2 Grundr., II, pp. 886-1330. In Hom. the same root will form a present in 
several ways, as éxw, toxw, ioxavw. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 40. 

8 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 423. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 351 


3. The Non-Thematic Present with -va— and -w-. So in the 
N. T. dude-€-vyv-ut, aa-dd-Av-t, Selk-vu-me, Cebry-vu-ue, Cev-vu-pL, KaT- 
QY-VU-ML, KEPA-VVU-ML, KOPE-VVU-ML, KPE-MA-VVU-ML, MLY-VU-ML, OM-VU-ML, THY- 
yu-elL, pny-vu-m, oBe-vvv-uL, oTpw-vyv-m, but these all have more 
commonly the —w forms.! | 

4. The Simple Thematic Present. So \eyw, bw. This was a 
constantly increasing class at the expense of the —w verbs. It 
had several branches also including root-verbs like éyw, ypadu, 
a strengthened vowel like zeiO-w (70), Nei-w (Au), deby-w (dvy), 
onTW, THK, TPWYW, ONIBW, rviyw, etc., Hadley and Allen’s “strong 
vowel class,’”’? and the many contract denominative verbs like 
TiMa-w, pir€-w, d&d-w. But see the c Class for these contract verbs. 
New verbs were added to this list from nouns and some also from 
verb-stems, ypenyopé-w from the old perfect éyphyopa (this tense 
never in the N. T.),? o7nx-w (Mk. 11:25) from éornxa (modern 
Greek orexw).4 In Lu. 1:24 zepiexpvBev is probably imperfect, 
not aorist, from xpiBw (kpittw). Cf. éxptBnv.2 The LXX shows 
these new presents from perfect stems (Thackeray, Gr., p. 224 f.). 

5. The Reduplicated Thematic Present. So yiwoua (yiyv-o-pat, 
*vi-yev-ouat), Timt-w (* mi-meT-w), TiKT-w (*TL-TEK-w), ~yV—-, —1T—, —KT-, 
being weak forms of —yev—, -er—, —7rex-. The N. T. has also 
isxt-w from icxw (*at-céx-w). 

6. The Thematic Present with a Suffix. There are five (-, -», 
—ox, -T, -0). Each of these divisions furnishes a number of verbs. 

(a) The «class. It is very large. This suffix is used to make 
verbs from roots and substantives. It is probable® that originally 
the suffix was—y. It is thought that contract verbs in —aw, —ew, 
—ow, etc., originally had this « as 7 or y which was dropped.’ It 
is thus the chief way of forming denominative verbs and is pre- 
eminently a secondary suffix. Some of these verbs are causative, 
some intensive, some desiderative.? The special Greek desidera- 
tive in —ceiw does not appear in the N. T., but forms like kxomidw 
are found. In particular, forms in —if@ become so common that 
they no longer have an intensive, iterative or causative force," 


pais lasss(aPaOloN 1. Gik., D..45... 02) Gr.,. p.-122. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 40. 

4 Ib., p. 41. The LXX MSS. show both ypnyopéw and orjxw. Cf. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 82. 

Ur biases, Gr. OLN. PoGk p41, 

6 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 34; Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 380. 

7 Hirt, ib., p. 383 f. 8 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 440. 

9 Ib., pp. 445 ff. On the whole subject of contract verbs see Jann., Hist. 
Gk. Gr., pp. 207 ff. 10 Jann., ib., p. 222. 


352 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


but are used side by side with the older, form, as Barrw, Barrifw; 
paivw, pavrifw, ete. In all the -tw forms the c has united with a 
palatal (guttural) or lingual (dental), a matter determined by the 
aorist or future. So duvdAac-ow is from dvAdk-Jw, Ppatw from Ppad- 
jo. Other familiar combinations are « and d, as Bad-jw=Barrw, ¢ 
with vy by transposition, as ¢av-7w=d¢aivw, c with p likewise, as 
&p-jw=aipw. In xaiw and kdaiw the v has dropped between a and t. 
In the N. T. verbs in —alvw, —aipw have —ava, —apa in the first aorist 
active as already shown under the aorist tense (d). ’Audiafw (Lu. 
12:28) is an example of a new present for advevyym. Cf. also 
amoxtevvovrwy (Mt. 10:28) in some MSS. for the older azoxreive, 
—vvw, —vjw. See Blass! for the variations in the MSS. at many 
places in the N. T. with this word. So éxxtvyvw (Mt. 26 : 28, etc.) 
in the best MSS. for éxéw. Only in Mt. 9:17 we have éxxetrar 
from éyéw and in Rev. 16:1 éxxéare? in some MSS. ° 

(8) The v class is also well represented in the N. T. with the- 
matic stems. It takes various forms. There is the v alone, as 
KaU-Vw, —av AS auapT-avw, —ve AS ad-tk-veo-uat. Sometimes the vp is 
repeated in the root, as AauBarvw (AaB), wavOavw (ual), TUyxXavw (TUX). 
In the xown (so LXX and N. T.) this inserted v (u) is retained 
in the aorist and future of AauBarw (EAnudOnv, AnuPouar) contrary 
to literary Attic. So the papyri. 

(y) The ox class. It is commonly called inceptive,? but Del- 
briick! considers these verbs originally terminative in idea, while 
Monro? calls attention to the iterative idea common in Homer 
with the suffix —oxe, —cxo. The verbs with ox may be either with- 
out reduplication, as Bd-cxw, Ovn-oxw, iha-cKoua, da-cxw, or with 
reduplication as yu(y)yw-oKxw, d1-da-cxw (for 61-dax-cKw), pl-uvn-oKw, 
ma-oxw (for ma6-cxw). Cf. apé-oKw, Yyau-ioxw, ynpa-cKw, evp-ioKw, 
ueOi-oxw. Reduplication is thus a feature with root-verbs (non- 
thematic) like 6t-dw-ue and thematic like yi(y)vo-wac as well as 
the ox class. For reduplication in the aorist and the perfect 
see (h). The iterative idea of some of these ox verbs suits well the 
reduplication. 

(6) The + class. It is not a very numerous one (about 18 
verbs), though some of the verbs are common. The verb has 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 41. The LXX has these new presents. Thack., p. 225. 

2 Blass, ib. The LXX MSS. illustrate most of these peculiarities of verbs 
in the present tense. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 82-84. 

3 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 436. 

4 Grundr., IV, p. 59. Cf. Brug., Grundr., II, § 669. 

5 Hom. Gr., p. 34. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 353 


always a labial stem like &r-rw, Bar-rw, tim-rw. The root may end 
in B as in kaN’r-7Tw, T AS IN TIT-Tw, Or d AS in Bar-Tw. It is even 
possible that +z may represent an original zy (cf. iota class). 

(e) The @ class. Cf. adj-0, éo-Ow, Kv7-Aw, vj-Ow in the present. 
The modern Greek has developed many new presents on the 
basis of the aorist or the perfect (Thumb, Handb., p. 143). 

(f) THe Future TENSE (0 “éAXA@Y ypovos). The origin of this 
tense has given rise to much discussion and some confusion. 
Vincent and. Dickson! even say that the first aorist is derived 
from the o future! Like the other tenses there has been a de- 
velopment along several lines. No general remark can be made 
that will cover all the facts. As already remarked, the future 
tense is fundamentally aoristic or punctiliar in idea and not dura- 
tive or linear. The linear idea can be accented by the periphrastic 
form, as éoecOe Aadodyres (1 Cor. 14:9). Cf. also Mt. 24:9; Lu. 
1:20; 5:10; Mk. 18:25. But as a rule no such distinction is 
drawn. The truth is that the future tense is a late development 
in language. In the Sanskrit it is practically confined to the in- 
dicative and the participle, as in the Greek to the indicative, in- 
finitive and participle (optative only in indirect discourse, and 
rarely then, not at all in N. T.). And in the Rigveda the sya 
form occurs only some seventeen times.? The Teutonic tongues 
have no future form at all apart from the periphrastic, which ex- 
isted in the Sanskrit also.* In the modern Greek again the future 
as a distinct form has practically vanished and instead there 
occurs 0a and the subjunctive or #é\w and the remnant of the in- 
finitive, like our English “shall” or “will.”’* Giles® thinks it un- 
certain how far the old Indo-Germanic peoples had developed a 
future. 

Probably the earliest use of the future was one that still sur- 
vives in most languages. It is just the present in a vivid, lively 
sense projected into the future. So we say ‘I go a-fishing”’ as 
Simon Peter did, trayw adebe (Jo. 21:3). The other disciples 
respond épxdueba kal jets ody cot. This usage belongs to the realm 
of syntax and yet it throws light on the origin of the future tense. 
So Jesus used (Jo. 14:3) the present and future side by side (épxo- 


1 Handb. of Mod. Gk., p. 82. 

2 Hirt, Handb. etce., p. 401. 

3 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 446; Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 333 f. 

4 Thumb, Handb., pp. 161 f., 173. 

5 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 446. On the whole subject of “Indo-European 
Futures’ see Hadley, Ess. Phil. and Crit., pp. 184 ff, 


354 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


par Kal wapadnuyoua). We have seen already that a number of 
-aorists and presents like ¢y-yi had identically the same root and 
with no original distinction. That is, the durative idea was not 
distinguished from the aoristic or punctiliar. It is not strange, 
therefore, to see a number of these roots with primary endings (cf. 
subj. and opt. aorists) used as futures without any tense-suffix at 
all. Some were originally either present or future in sense (cf. 
épxouat above), others came to be used only as future. ‘These 
verbs appear in Homer naturally, as Biowar, édouar, efur, riowar, etc. 
Cf. N. T. dayoun. It is possible that those with variable vowel 
like é50uac may really be the same form as the Homeric subjunc- 
tive (like touey as opposed to twev).2 Tiowac is common in Attic 
(N. T.) and is from aorist root (é-ov). The form dayoua (LXX 
and N. T.) is analogous (aorist, édayov). The Attic used xéw as” 
future also, but LXX and N. T. have xed (Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk., p. 42). Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 88, for LXX illustra- 
tions to the same effect. The LXX has the classic éouar; not in 
the N. T. (Thackeray, p. 231). 

It used to be said that the o future was merely a variation of 
the Sanskrit sya, the y or 7 sound disappearing in the Greek. 
This gave a simple explanation of the o futures. But a rival the- 
ory has been advanced which derives the o future from the o 
aorist.? The frequency of the aorist subjunctive in Homer with 
xé (Gv) in principal clauses much like the future indicative in Attic, 
and the absence of a future passive, not to say future optative, in 
Homer give some colour to this contention.* Thus det» and the 
Latin dixo would be identical in form and meaning.® But Brug- 
mann® has perhaps solved the problem by the suggestion that 
both explanations are true. Thus ypayw he derives from the 
aorist subjunctive ypayw, a mixed tense with a double origin. 
The use of —cvo/e in the Doric lends weight to the derivation of 
these verbs at least from the sya (Sanskrit) type.’ Hirt® re- 
gards geo/e (Doric) as a combination of the o future and the e 
future (liquid verbs, for instance) and considers it a new Greek 
formation. This Doric future therefore may be as old as any, 


1 Sterrett, Hom. II., N. 38. 

2 Giles, Man., p. 447. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 184; Riem. and Goelzer, 
Phonét., p. 438. 

3 Ib., p. 446. Cf. also Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 401 f. 

4 Sterrett, Hom. II., N. 27. 5 Giles, Man., p. 446. 

6 Griech. Gr., p. 320. This position is accepted by K.-BL., II, p. 105. 

71 Dp. LOS 1 : 8 Handb. etc., p. 403 f. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 305 


if not the oldest suffix, in fact the really distinctively future 
sufix. In the N. T. this Doric form survives in zecotua! (Mt. 
10:29). ‘Péw has febow (Jo. 7:38), kraiw has xrabow (Lu. 6 : 25), 
while detyw has devfouar (Jo. 10:5). The other forms common 
in Attic have no future in the N. T. This mixed? origin of the 
future (partly aorist subj., partly Indo-Germ. sio) shows itself 
in the Aktzvonsart of the tense. So Moulton notes zpodéw (Mk. 
14:28) as durative, but dé (1 Th. 4:14) as aoristic. Cf. 
Thumb, Handb., p. 123. 

Thus we may gain further light? on the Ionic-Attic future of 
verbs in -ifw. It is like the Doric —ceo/e. So we have -1cé, drop- 
ping o we get —véw=-1.d. These verbs in -ifw are very common in 
the later Greek. In the N. T. the usage varies between this form 
of the future and the aoristic form in —co/e. The LXX, like the 
Ptolemaic papyri (Thackeray, p. 228), has usually -.4 in first sin- 
gular and so perourd (Ac. 7:48) and rapopy:d (Ro. 10: 19), both 
quotations. Elsewhere W. H.‘ prefer the forms in —icw, and Blass® 
thinks that in the original passages of the N. T. the -icw forms 
are genuine. So the forms in —ice (like Barrice) are uniform in 
the N. T. (Lu. 3:16) save xaOapret (Heb. 9:14) and dcaxabapre? 
(Mt. 3:12).6 MSS. vary between adopred and —ica, dwret and 
—ice, xpovet and —ice. Cf. Blass.’ So in Eph. 6:8; Col. 3: 25, 
the MSS. vary between xouwetrac and kopicerar. Some MSS. read 
Kouvovuevor in 2 Pet. 2:13.8 All editors’ accept xowetobe in 1 Pet. 
5:4. The active plural W. H." print as —vto always (as paka- 
piovow, Lu. 1:48) save in yrwpicovow (Col. 4:9). 

The syncopated futures! from the dropping of o do not survive 
in the N. T. in xadéow, reAéow Which always retain the o.” So even 
amodéow (Mt. 21: 41), though azo\@ is common in the LXX and 


1 And this recodpuar is possibly not from zer-cobdua, but a change of 7 to oc. 
Cf. K.-Bl., II, p. 107; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 322; Hirt. Handb., p. 404. 
Henry (Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., p. 116) considers the Doric future to be the 
affix of the future twice over, as ceo, ceo. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 149. 3 Cf. K.-BI., II, p. 106 f. 

4 Notes on Orth., p. 163. Cf. Mayser, Gr., p. 356. 

petat, OLN kn rks, p.42: 

6 Ib. But Blass (ib.) prefers éyyet (Jas. 4:8). 

7 Ib. See Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 84 f., 87 f., for the LXX exx. of verbs 


-in-tw. 
§ Ib. 10 Tb. 
® Notes on Orth., p. 163. 11 Giles, Man., p. 446 f. 


2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 41 f. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 321) considers this 
a new formation after the aor. subj. suffix. The LXX keeps o. Cf. Helbing, 
Gr. d. Sept., p. 86; Thack., Gr., p. 230. 


356 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is quoted once in the N. T. (1 Cor. 1:19). However, the middle 
amoNodua is the N. T. form (Lu. 5 : 37) like azofavodua. ’EXatvw 
has no future in the N. T. The N. T., like the LXX, has a future 
form aded@ (Rev. 22 : 19) from the aorist eidov of aipéw. 

The liquid verbs in X, v, p present few problems. They belong 
to the aorist subjunctive type of formation.! Here again we have 
syncopation of the o. Verbs like Badd\w (Bard), wevw (werd), atpw 
(4p) form the future with the variable. vowel o/e added to the 
stem without o in the N. T. as in the earlier Greek. 

Blass? has shown that in the N. T. the future active has largely 
displaced the future middle with verbs that were defective in the 
active voice. These futures are as follows: auaptnow (Mt. 18 : 21), 
aravrnow (Mk. 14:13), apracw (Jo. 10 : 28), Brew (Ac. 28 : 26), 
yeraow (Lu. 6:21), duwvéw (Mt. 23 : 34), kratow (Lu. 6 : 25), xpagw 
(Lu. 19:40 NBL), raté» (Mk. 10: 34), petow (Jo. 7 : 38), crovdacw 
(2 Pet. 1:15), cvvayvtnow (Lu. 22:10). We see this tendency al- 
ready. in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 231f.). On the other 
hand the future middle alone occurs with azofavodua (Jo. 8 : 24), 
yroooua (1 Cor. 4:19), Anupoua (Mt. 10:41), dYouar (Mt. 24: 30), 
mecoduat (Doric, Mt. 10 : 29), riowar (Mk. 10 : 39), dayoua (Lu. 14 : 
15), debéouar (Jo. 10:5). Xapyoowa (Lu. 1:14) Blass* regards as ~ 
Attic future from the aorist (€xapnv) as compared with the future 
xatpnow from the present. Both dxotow (Jo. 5:25) and dxovcouat 
(Ac. 21: 22, chiefly in the Acts) are found, and ¢jow (Jo. 5 : 25) 
and ¢nooua (Jo. 11 : 25). 

The so-called second future passive as seen in the case of xapnao- 
pac above is really just the middle ending with o put to the aorist 
active stem. There is no difference in form or sense between 
Bn-co-war and otad-7y-co-war save the —y—- which was really a part 
of the active stem of these verbs.*- The point is that fundamentally 
these so-called second future passives are really future middles 
corresponding to active aorists like the future middles and pres- 
ents above (Anuoua, for instance). This point is made clearer 
by the fact that the Doric® used only active endings like avaypa- 
gdnoet (not —erat). Homer, besides, only has one second future pas- 
Sive (uynoouat, really middle) and none in -$y0—.6 Instead he uses 
_ the middle future as later Greek continued to do with verbs like 
Tiuunoouar. Cf. yernooua from é-yerv-ounv. Some verbs indeed used 
both this second future passive like ¢avjcoua (Mt. 24 : 30) which 

1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 321. 4 Giles, Man., pp. 410, 427. 


2 Griof N. PaGkiepra2i 5 Tb., p. 447. 
3 Ib., p. 43. K-Bitiiapeil i 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘pHMA) 357 


is punctiliar and ¢avodua (1 Pet. 4:18) which may be durative 
like the Attic as Moulton! argues. So zatcovrar (1 Cor. 13: 8) 
and éravaranoerat (Lu. 10:6). Cf. also dvovrypoouae (Mt. 7: 7), 
apraynoouat (1 Th. 4:17), davpcoua (Mt. 24:30), brorayhcoua 
(1 Cor. 15:28), Yuynooun (Mt. 24 : 12), xaphooua (Lu. 1:14, see 
above). 

The first future passive so-called is built upon the distinctively? 
Greek aorist in -I7-. It is unknown to Homer, as stated above, 
and, like the second aorist passive, is aorist in origin and idea. 
Here again the Doric used the active endings? like cvvaxOncobvre. 
This later form in -Qnc— grew continually in usage over the merely 
middle form like riujcoua. But the passive future did not always 
have the passive sense, as has been shown in the case of dvaxd0A- 
cowat (Mt. 8:11), aroxpiOncoua (Mt. 25 : 37), etc.4 AvoryPpooua 
also appears in Lu. 11:9 f.in some MSS. As an example of the 
usual forms in the N. T. take yrwo@qncoua (1 Cor. 14:7). Only 
pvnoOjcopuar (Not peuvynooua) and orabjcouar (not éornéw) appear in 
the NE = 

For a periphrastic future passive expressing continuance see 
éoecbe prcovuevor (Mt. 10 : 22). This is naturally not a very com- 
mon idiom for this tense, though the active periphrastic future 
is less infrequent as already shown. 

(g) THe Perrect TENsEs (téAeLol ypovol). 

1. The Name. It does fairly well if we do not think of time in 
connection with the tense, a mistake that Clyde makes.’ The 
completed state does not of itself have reference to present 
time. That comes later and by usage in the indicative alone in con- 
trast to past and future. Originally the perfect was merely an in- 
tensive or iterative tense like the repetition of the aoristic present.® 

2. The Original Perfect. The Greek perfect is an inheritance 
from the Indo-Germanic original and in its oldest form had no 
reduplication, but merely a vowel-change in the singular.’ Indeed 
ot6a (Sanskrit véda, Latin vidi, English wot) has never had _ re- 
duplication.’° It illustrates also the ablaut from .é— to od— in the 
singular, seen in Sanskrit and Gothic also.!! Cf. Latin capvzo, 
cépi (a to é). Note also xet-wac in the sense of ré-Oe-war. 


TeErOl. p.1 00; Gk: oyntey pe (le 

2 Giles, Man., pp. 420, 447. 8 Giles, Man., p. 449. 

3 Tb., p. 447. 9 Hirt, Handb. etc., pp. 406, 410. 
4 See v1, (e), in this chapter. 10 Giles, Man., p. 449. 

S) Blass; Gr. of NT? Gk., p:. 36: 11 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 410. 

6 


Ib., p. 204. 


358 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


But the vowel-change characteristic of the original perfects is 
seen in other verbs which did use reduplication. Reduplication 
will receive separate treatment a little later, as it pertains to the 
present and aorist tenses also. It may be here remarked that the 
reduplicated form of some iterative presents doubtless had some 
influence in fastening reduplication upon the perfect tense. Note 
the English ‘‘mur-mur”’ (Greek yoy-yifw, ap-ap-icxw), where the 
syllable is doubled in the repetition. It was a natural process. 
A number of these reduplicated forms with the mere change in the 
vowel appear in the N. T. This so-called second perfect, like the 
second aorist, is a misnomer and is the oldest form.!| In Homer 
indeed it is the usual form of the perfect.?, These old root-perfects, 
old inherited perfect forms according to Brugmann,’ persist in 
the xown and are reasonably common in the papyri,* the inscrip- 
tions> and the N. T. They are of two classes: (1) real me per- 
fects without any perfect suffix, like éordva: (Ac. 12:14); (2) 
second perfects in —a, like yeyova, NeXorra. As N. T. examples 
may be mentioned aknxoa (Ac. 6: 11), yeyova (1 Cor. 13: 1)), etw6a 
(Lu. 4:16), yéypada (Jo. 19:22), ofa (Jo. 10:4), Sdwdra (az-, 
Mt. 10:6), etc. These forms are found in the LXX. Cf. Hel- 
bing, Gr. d. Sept., p. 103; Thackeray, Gr., p. 252f. But the xown 
gave up the shorter (without -a) forms of the plural indicative 
active perfect of tornum (éoraper, éorate, éEotaowv). See this chapter, 
Iv, (d), 3, for details. 

3. The x Perfect. This is a new type created by the Greek lan- 
guage of which no adequate explanation has yet been offered. The 
Attic inscriptions already had the x form (Meisterhans, p. 189 f.). 
It is apparently at first in the singular, as in éornxa (pl. éorapyer), etc.® 
One might think that just as 7xw has a perfect sense like ketuar and 
finally had a few perfect forms? (like jxaow), so by analogy some 
x verbs became the type and analogy did the rest. But Giles® ob- 
serves that the stems of the twelve or fourteen «x perfects in Homer 
all end in a vowel, a liquid or a nasal, not one in x. And then the 


1 Riem. and Goelzer, Phonét., p. 445. 

2 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 43. So yeyova, elwOa, NéAoura, wérrovba, etc. 

2 Gk. Gr., p. 323. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 372 ff. 

5 Nachm., Magn. Inschr., p. 159 f. 

6 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 412 f. 

7 In the LXX jKapev, jxare, HKaow occur. The pap. add xaénxvias, HKOTWY, 
nxeva. Wackern., Theol. Literaturzeit., 1908, p. 38. Cf. Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., 
p. 103 f.; Thack., Gr., p. 269. The pap. show the perfect forms in the plural. 
Mayser, p. 372. 8 Man., p. 450. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 309 


three x aorists (é6wxa, @€nxa, xa) call for explanation. But per 
contra there are some perfects in Homer which have x stems like 6é- 
dopka, €ouxa, TeTnKa, etc. So that after all analogy may be the true 
explanation of the « perfects which came, after Homer’s time, to 
be the dominant type in Greek. But the -xa perfects are rare in 
Homer. The examples are so common (éédwxa, etc.), in the xo? 
as in the classic Greek, as to need no list. Note éornxa intransi- 
tive and éoraxa transitive. 

4. The Aspirated Perfects. They are made from labials and 
palatals (¢, x) and are absent from Homer. Even in the early 
classical period they are confined to zrérouda and rérpoda.! Ho- 
mer did use this aspirate in the peculiar middle form like rerpa- 
gata.” He has indeed rérpoda from rpégw* and probably just here, 
we may see the explanation by analogy of rérpoda from rpérw 
and so of all the aspirated forms.4- An important factor was the 
fact that «x, y, x were not distinguished in the middle perfect 
forms. Asa N.T. example of this later aspirated perfect take 
mpocevnvoxa (Heb. 11:17). Cf. also eiAnda, réerpaxa, réraya. 

5. Middle and Passwe Forms. It is only in the active that 


- the perfect used the « or the aspirated form (¢, x). We have 


seen already that in the xowy some active perfect forms drop the 
distinctive endings and we find forms like éwpaxay and édpaxes. 
Helbing (Gr. d. Sept., pp. 101-103) gives LX X examples of root- 
perfects like éppwya, x perfects like réfexa, éornxa and transitive 
éoraxa, aspirated perfects like éppnya. The middle and passive 
perfects did use the reduplication, but the endings were added 
directly to this reduplicated stem as in \é-Av-war. On the history 
of the ending —xa see Pfordten, Zur Geschichte des griechischen 
Perfectums, 1882, p. 29. ) 

6. The Decay of the Perfect Forms. In the Sanskrit the per- 
fect appears in half the roots of the language, but in the later 
Sanskrit it tends more and more to be confused with the mere 
past tenses of the indicative (aorist and imperf.) and grows less 
common also.’ In the Latin, as is well known, the perfect and 
the aorist tenses blended. In vidi and dedi we see preserved® 
the old perfect and in dizi we see the old aorist. The Greek 
of the Byzantine period shows a great confusion between the per- 
fect and the aorist, partly due to the Latin influence.’ Finally 


1 Giles, Man., p. 451. | 5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 279, 295 f. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 325. 6 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 451. 
3 Sterrett, Hom. Il, N. 43. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 142. 

4 


Giles, Man., p. 451. 


360 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


. in the modern Greek vernacular the perfect form is lost save in 
the perfect passive participle like xexAnuevos. The perfect active 
is now made with éww and the passive participle (éxw deuévo) 
or with éyw and a root similar to the third singular aorist sub- 
junctive (yw déoer or déon). Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 161. The 
only «x perfect in modern Greek is e¥enxa, ‘the only certain rem- 
nant of the ancient perfect’? (2b., p. 148). Cf. éve we rapntnpevor 
(Lu. 14:18). Cf. also rerwpwpeévnv exere THv Kapdiay budv (Mk. 
8:17). This is much like the English perfect in reality, not like 
the Greek éyw and aorist participle (like éyw axotcas). Cf. Sonnen- 
schein, Greek Grammar, Syntax, 1894, p. 284. The perfect pas- 
sive in modern Greek vernacular is formed like éyw AvO4 (—ec) or 
AeAvpEevos euar.! But we are in no position to throw stones at the 
Greeks, for we in English have never had a perfect save the peri- 
phrastic form. How far the perfect and the aorist may have be- 
come confused in the N. T. in sense is a matter of syntax to be 
discussed later.? 

7. The Perfect in the Subjunctive, Optative, Imperative. Hence 
the perfect is practically® confined to the indicative. No example 
of the perfect optative occurs even in the periphrastic form. The 
subjunctive perfect, except the form «6 (eléj7e, 1 Jo. 5: 18), ap- 
pears only in the periphrastic conjugation, of which a few examples 
remain. So the active, as 7 merounxws (Jas. 5:15), remoWores Quer 
(2 Cor. 1:9), and the passive, as Gow rereNewwuevor (JO. 17 : 23), 7 
kexAnuevos (Lu. 14 : 8), 7 werAnpwuevn (Jo. 16:24). So also Jo. 17: 
19, 1 Cor. 1:10, etc. The imperative makes a little worse show- 
ing. We still have tore (Jas. 1:19; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12:17 all pos- 
sible indicatives), rediuwoo (Mk. 4:39) and éppwode (Ac. 15 : 29). 
The periphrastic imperative perfect is also found as écrwoav 
mepreCwouevae (Lu. 12: 35). In simple truth, as previously re- 
marked (see proof in Prof. Harry’s articles), the perfect sub- 
junctive, optative and imperative never had any considerable 
vogue in Greek, not as much as in Sanskrit. In Homer the per- 
fect subjunctive active is more common than in later Greek, but 
it is rare in Homer.* 

8. The Perfect Indicative. It is to the indicative that we turn 


1 Thumb., Handb., p. 165. Certainly the aorists in —xa are very common in 
the mod. Gk. (Thumb, Handb., pp. 140, 146 ff.). 

2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 143 f. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200 f. Cf. discussion between Prof. Harry and 
Prof. Sonnenschein in Cl. Rev., 1906, and La Roche, Beitr. z. griech. Gr., 1893. 

4 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 43. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 361 


for the real development of the perfect. Here the perfect was for _ 
long very frequent indeed, and the time element comes in also. 
The ancients did not agree in the names for the three tenses of per- 
fect action in the indicative. The Stoics! called the present perfect 
ouvtTedkos (or TéeAELos) Xpdvos éverTtws, the past perfect cuvTedtKds (TE 
Aevos) xpovos Tapwxnuevos, the future perfect cuvredcKds (réAELOS) xpdvos 
pwe\Awv. Sometimes the present perfect was called merely 6 zapa- 
Keiwevos xpovos, the past perfect 6 barepouvTedckds xpovos, and the future 
perfect 6 yer’ ddtyov weAdwY xpovos (futurum exactum). The name 
plu-perfect is not a good one. The tense occurs in the N. T. 
with 22 verbs and 15 have the augment (H. Scott). Thus redeue- 
Niwro (Mt. 7 : 25) and édAndvder (Jo. 6 : 17), but EBEBrAnTo (Lu. 16: 20) 
and zepuedédero (Jo. 11:44). Cf. efyov aroxeuevny (Lu. 19: 20) in the 
light of modern Greek. In the N. T. the past perfect is not very 
frequent, nor was it ever as abundant as in the Latin.? It goes 
down as a distinct form with the present perfect in modern Greek. 
Hirt? calls attention to the fact that Homer knows the past per- 
fect only in the dual and the plural, not the singular, and that the 
singular ending —7 is a new formation, a contraction of —ea into 
-yn. In the N. T., however, only —ev is used. It is not certain 
whether the past perfect is an original Indo-Germanic form. The 
future perfect was always a very rare tense with only two ac- 
tive forms of any frequency, éorném and revné. The middle and 
passive could make a better showing. In Heb. 8:11 eléncovew is 
probably future active (from LXX),* and in Lu. 19:40 some 
MSS., but not NBL (rejected by W.H.), give kexpagovra (cf. LXX). 
In Heb. 2:13 (another quotation from the LXX) we have the 
periphrastic form écouar terolOws. The future perfect passive occurs 
in the N. T. only in the periphrastic form in such examples as 
éorar dedeuevov (Mt. 16:19), éorar AedAvpéeva (Mt. 18:18), eoovra 
dtapeuepropevor (Lu. 12:52). Cf. €o xarlalreBeulélvo(s) B.G.U. 596 
(A.D. 84). In the nature of the case the future perfect would not 
often be needed. This periphrastic future perfect is found as 
early as Homer. The papyri likewise show some examples.® 


LKB Alin pr2 £. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. Brug. calls the past perf. a “neue Bildung.” 

3 Handb. etc., p. 415 f. 

4 So Hirt follows Wackern. in seeing a new stem here eién—. Cf. ib., p. 416. 
B in Deut. 8:3 has ednoav like the aorist eiénoa from Arist. onwards. Cf. 
Mayser, Gr., p. 370; Thack., Gr., p. 278. 

5 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 27. 

6 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 377. In the Bootian inscr. the past perf. 
and the fut. perf. are both absent. . 


362 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The present perfect and the past perfect also have the periphrastic 
conjugation. So we find with comparative indifference! éorw 
veypaupeva (Jo. 20 : 30) and in the next verse yeyparra. So also 
nv yeypaupevov (Jo..19:19) and éreyéyparro (Ac. 17: 23). Cf. also 
Lu. 2:26. The active has some examples also, though not so 
many, as éorws eiuc (Ac. 25:10), and joav mpoewpaxores (Ac. 21: 29). 

9. > in Perfect Middle and Passwe and Aorist Passwe. It may 
be due to a variety of causes. Some of these verbs had an original 
o in the present stem, like rede(a)w, axot(c)w. Hence rerédecuar, 
iKovopwar (nKovcOnv), etc.2 Others are dental stems like zei6-w, 7é- 
mecopat. Others again are v stems which in Attic (apparently 
analogical) changed to o, as daivw, rébacua, but in the N. T. this 
y assimilates to the w as in éfnpaupevos (Mk. 11:20) from énpaiva, 
pewrappevos (Tit. 1:15) from waivw. Then again some verbs take 
the o by analogy merely, as in the case of éyrwoua, eyrwobny 
(1 Cor. 13:12), xexXeccuae (Lu. 11:7), NeNovopar (Heb. 10: 22). 

(h) REDUPLICATION (Ou7rAaclacues or avadimAwots). 

1. Primitive. Now this primitive repetition of the root belongs 
to many languages and has a much wider range than merely the 
perfect tense. Hence it calls for separate treatment. It is older, 
this repetition or intensifying of a word, than either the inflection 
of nouns or the conjugation of verbs. Root reduplication ex- 
isted in the parent language.* 

2. Both Nouns and Verbs. Among nouns note ay-wyés, Bap- 
Bapos, Bé-Bndros, etc. But it was among verbs that reduplication 
found its chief development.® 

3. In Three Tenses in Verbs. It is in the aorist, the present 
and the perfect. This is precisely the case with the Sanskrit, 
where very many aorists, some presents and nearly all perfects 
have reduplication.6 In Homer’ the reduplication of the second 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 202 f. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 330 f.) points 
out how in prehistoric times the periphrastic form alone existed in the subj. 
and opt. middle and passive, as indeed was practically true always for all 
the voices. 

2 Ib., p. 326. ‘Cf. Helbing, Gr.'d.Sept., p. 100 f.; Thack:, pp. 219-ff., for 
LXX illustr. of both o and p (yu). 

3 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), vol. IV, p. 10. See note there for books on 
Reduplication. Add Lautensach, Gr. Stud. (1899). 

4 Ibi poll 3 Ch K-Bielien.cs: 

5 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 176. Fritzsche (Ques. de redupl. graeca; Curtius, 
Stud. zu griech. and lat. Gr., pp. 279 ff.) considers the doubling of the syl- 
lable (iteration) the origin of all reduplication like dp-ap-icxw, Bi-Ba-tw. 

6 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 222. 7 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 32. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 363 


aorist is much more frequent than in later Greek, but forms like 
inryayov, iveyxov, elroy, persist in N. T. Greek and the xow? gener- 
ally. Cf. éxékpafa in Ac. 24:21. The Greek present shows 
reduplication in three classes of presents, viz. the root class 
(like 6t-6wut, t-n-y, t-ornm, etc.), the thematic presents (like 
yi-yvo-wat, mi-r7w, etc.), inceptive verbs (like yi-yvw-cKw, etc.). 
The most common reduplication in Greek is, of course, that in 
the perfect tense, where it is not like augment, mode-sign or per- 
sonal endings. It is an integral part of the tense in all modes, 
voices and persons, until we see its disappearance (p. 365) in the 
later Greek. In the vernacular the extinction is nearly complete. 
Even presents? like yrwoxw occur in modern Greek. Dieterich? 
gives numerous examples of dropped reduplication in inscriptions 
and papyri. It is absent in the modern Greek vernacular, even 
in the participle.‘ 

4. Three Methods in Reduplication. Perhaps the oldest is the 
doubling of the whole syllable, chiefly in presents and aorists, like 
yoy-yltw, ap-apioxw, jy-ay-ov, etc. This is the oldest form of re- 
duplication® and is more common in Greek than in Latin. The 
later grammarians called it Attic reduplication because it was less 
common in their day,’ though, as a matter of fact, Homer used it 
much more than did the Attic writers. But perfects have this 
form also, as axnxoa, édnAvOa, etc. But the reduplication by c is 
confined to presents like 6i-dwyu, yi-yvowat, yi-yvwoxw, etc. And 
most perfects form the reduplication with e and the repetition of 
the first letter of the verb as \e-AvKa. But Homer had zemov and 
other such aorists. Evzov is really an example of such an aorist. 

5. Reduplication in the Perfect. The history is probably as 
follows in the main. Originally there were some perfects without 
reduplication,® a remnant of which we see in oféa. The doubling 
of the whole syllable was the next step like ax-jKoa, éypn-yop-a, 
é\-nrvOa, amdAwAda, etc., like the present and aorist usage.!? Then 
comes the e with repetition of the initial letter of a consonant- 


1 See Jann., Hist. Gr., p. 190 f., for exx. like éraxro even in Polyb., and later 


ypaupévos, etc. 
2 Ib. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 148 f. 


*-Unters. etc., p. 215. 6 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 409. 
4 Thumb, Handb., p. 148 f. 7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 190. 
* Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 369. 8 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 32. 


9 Cf. Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), IV, p. 384. Cf. also Hirt, Handb. ete. 
p. 407; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 259. 

10 Ib., Helbing, Gr. d. Sept., pp. 70-82, treats together augment and redu- 
plication, not a very satisfactory method. 


364 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


stem like \é-Ao.ra. But here some further modifications crept in. 
The aspirates did not repeat, but we have ré-Gexa. Those with o 
did not repeat it, but instead used the rough breathing as éornxa 
or the smooth like é-cxnxa. This was all for euphony. But forms 
like €oxnxa, é-oracuat fall under another line also, for, if the verb 
begins with a double consonant, the consonant need not be used. 
So &yvwxa, but Be-BrAnxa, yée-ypada. The Cretan dialect has in- 
deed éypartar=yé-yparra.t So far-the N. T. phenomena are in 
harmony with the general Greek history, as indeed is the case with 
the papyri? and the inscriptions. In Lu. 1 : 27 and 2: 5, we have 
é-uvnorevuevn, not peur. (cf. weuvynuar). Just as o verbs did not repeat, 
so with 6 verbs sometimes. So épimpevor (Mt. 9: 86), Eopwobe (Ac. 
15: 29), ete. But in Rev. 19:13 W. H. read pfepavricpevov, though 
Hort‘ advocates pepaupevov. D has pepimpéevor in Mt. 9 : 36 above. 
This reduplication of initial 6 is contrary to Attic rule. For the 
LXX see Thackeray, Gr., p. 204f. This use of « begins to spread 
in the xown and is seen in LXX MSS., as in A éxéyparro (Deut. 
9:10). For similar forms in Ionic and late writers see Winer- 
Schmiedel.6 Once more several verbs that begin with a liquid 
have e. as the reduplication in the Attic and Ionic, though not in 
all dialects. Perhaps euphony and analogy entered to some ex- 
tent in the case of ¢i-Anda (AauBarvw), elpnxa (cf. éppnbynv). Note 
also eiAnxa and eidoxa. With verbs beginning with a vowel there 
was sometimes the doubling of the syllable as axynxoa, or the mere 
lengthening of the vowel as jjxovopar, or the addition of e alone 
with contraction as ei#cpeévos, or uncontracted as éoxa (from etkw). 
Cf. edwha. In Jo. 3:21 (so 1 Pet. 4:3) we have eipyacua as in 
Attic and ef\xwuevos in Lu. 16:20. In 6paw we have édpaxa in 
Paul’s Epistles (1 Cor. 9:1) and sometimes a sort of double 
reduplication (like eiwla) as éwpaxa (Jo. 1:18). So Attic. See 
Additional Note. In Col. 2:1 the form édpaxay calls for notice 
both for its reduplication and its ending (cf. é&paxav Lu. 9: 36). 
So also avéewyev (1 Cor. 16:9; & jvewyas, Jo. 1: 51) and dvewypévns 
(2 Cor. 2:12). Indeed in this last verb the preposition may re- 
ceive additional reduplication (treble therefore), as in jAvewyuevn 
(Rev. five times). See also nudvecuevov (Mt. 11: 8= Lu. 7:25) from 
audtevvume. But as a rule with compound verbs in the N. T. re- 


1 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 408. 

2 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 338 ff. 

3 Nachm., p. 150 f.; Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 171. 

4 Notes on Orth., p. 170. 

6 Pp. 103. Cf, also K,-Bl., I, p. 23, and Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 38. 


® 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 365 


duplication comes only between the prepositions and the verb. 
Sometimes the reduplication is not used, as in ebapeornxévar (Heb., 
11:5), but. NDEP have eimp-. We have @xoddunro (Lu. 4 : 29), 
but ofxodoujoba (Lu. 6:48).1 Cf. oikodounOn (Jo. 2:20) for ab- 
sence of augment. Reduplication in the perfect has disappeared 
from the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 119) and is showing 
signs of decay in the xowy. For suppression of reduplication in 
papyri see Mayser, p. 341. ~ 

(1) AUGMENT (avénots). 

1. The Origin of Augment. It has never been explained. It is 
generally conceded to be an independent word, an adverb, added 
to the verb, which is an enclitic after the augment like \ure.2 We 
have mere conjectures for the origin of the adverb, possibly a 
locative of the pronoun-stem. In Sanskrit it is a. 

2. Where Found. It is found in Sanskrit, Iranian, Armenian 
and Greek, and only in the past tenses of the indicative. But in 
Mt. 12:20 we actually have xaredée (fut. ind. of xarayvum), and 
in Jo. 19:31 kareayéow (aor. pass. subj.), probably to distinguish 
these forms from xatayw. So Winer-Schmiedel, p. 98. This 
“false augment’ is very common in later Greek (Hatzidakis, Einl., 
p. 64). Augment persists in modern Greek (Thumb, p. 117). 

3. The Purpose of Augment. It denotes past time. The sec- 
ondary endings do that also and with sufficient clearness at first. 
More than half of the past tenses of the Sanskrit do not have the 
augment.? In Homer some verbs like 6paw never had augment, 
and often for metrical reasons the augment is not found in Ho- 
mer. He used much freedom in the matter.4| Jannaris® is prob- 
ably right in the opinion that this freedom is due to the original 
fulness of the verb-endings. Augment won a firm foothold in 
prose before it did in poetry,® but never was everywhere essential. 
It varied greatly in its history as will be shown. 3 

4. The Syllabic Augment (avénots cvAd\aBuxy). Its use with the 
past tenses of the indicative was not exactly uniform, being less 
constant with the past perfect than with the aorist and imperfect. 
The syllabic augment occurs also with some initial vowel verbs 
due to original digamma Ff, o in the anlaut. So eiacev (Ac. 28 : 4), 


1 Moulton (Cl. Rev., Feb., 1901, p. 36) cites drarfjcOat, éroiudxauer from the 
pap. 

2 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), IV, p. 25. Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 185) thinks 
it is an archaic form of the imperf. of eiyi (ce, e). 

§ Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 221. ® Hist. Gk, Gr., p: 185. 

4 Sterrett, Hom. Il.,.N. 30f. 6 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), IV, p. 32. 


366 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


eldouev (Mt. 2:2), efrev (Mt. 2:8), etkavro (2 Th. 2:18), ete. 
Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 200f. In the N. T. it is absent from the 
past perfect more frequently than it is present, as is true of the 
papyri! and late Greek generally.2. So, for instance, rePewediwro 
(Mt. 7: 25), merouncecay (Mk. 15:7), tapadedwxercoay (Mk. 15 : 10), 
édndOer (Jo. 6:17), etc. On the other hand the augment does 
appear in such examples as ézemoife. (Lu. 11:22), eGé8rnro (Lu. 
16 : 20), éyeyover (Jo. 6:17), cuverewro (Jo. 9 : 22), mepredédero (Jo. 
11:44), etc. It was only in the past perfect that both augment 
and reduplication appeared. The xown strove to destroy the dis- 
tinction between reduplication and augment so that ultimately 
reduplication vanished (Thumb, Hellentsmus, p. 170). But first 
the augment vanished in the past perfect. The Attic sometimes 
had éornxev (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 100). Hort (Notes on Orthog- 
raphy, p. 162) contends for tornxey uniformly in the N. T. as 
more than mere itacism for efornxev, for even B has c five times 
in spite of its fondness for e«. So W. H. uniformly, as Rev. 7: 11° 
and even in Jo. 1:35 and Lu. 23:49. Cf. similar itacism between 
efoov and idov in the MSS. (Hort, Notes on Orthography, p. 162). 
On augment in the LXX see Conybeare and Stock, Sel. from 
LXX;, pp. 36ff:; Swete, ‘Inir. to°O.7., p. 305; Thackeray, Gr 
pp. 195 ff. Syllabic augment was much more tenacious with 
the aorist and imperfect than the temporal. 

5. The Temporal Augment (avénors xpovuxn). The simplicity of 
the syllabic and the resulting confusion of the temporal had un- 
doubtedly something to do with the non-use of the temporal aug- 
ment in many cases. The xow shows this tendency.* Even the 
Attic was not uniform in the use of the temporal augment. At 
bottom there is no real distinction between the temporal and syl- 
labic augment. Both express time and both make use of the syl- 
labic «. The difference is more one of the eye and ear than of 
fact. What we call the temporal augment is the result of the con- 
traction of this e with the initial vowel of the verb.’ As remarked 
above, this very confusion of result, difficult to keep clear as the 
vowel-sounds tended to blend more and more, led to the disuse 
of this e« and contraction with initial vowel verbs, especially with 
diphthongs. Hence in the N. T. we meet such examples as the 


1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 333. 2 W.-Sch., p. 99. 

3 See good discussion in Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 186. 

4 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 336. 6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 185. 

§ Ib., p. 186. Hence in mod. Gk. temporal augment is nearly gone. Al- 
ready in the LXX the movement toward the loss of the temporal augment is 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 367 


following: of at, éracxtvOn (2 Tim. 1:16); of ev, ebddynoe (Mt. 
14:19), evddxnoa (Mt. 17:5), ebvotxicav (Mt. 19:12), edxatpovr 
(Mk. 6:31), evdpaivovro (Ac. 7:41), evropetro (Ac. 11: 29), et6v- 
dpounoauey (Ac. 16:11), ebyapiornoey (Ac. 27:35). But on the 
other hand we have nipicxov (Mk. 14 : 55), rpoonbéavro (Ac. 8 : 15), 
nixounv (Ro. 9:3), nbddxnoay (Ro. 15:26); of ot, oixodounby (Jo. 
2:20), etc., but @xodduncey (Lu. 7:5), ete.; of a, e’Eauer (Gal. 2: 
5) just like Attic; of €, dcepunvucey (Lu. 24 : 27), dueyeipero (Jo. 6: 
18), aveby (Ac. 16 : 26), adeOnoay (Ro. 4:7, Ps. 32:1); of 0, rpo- 
opwunv (Ac. 2:25; Ps. 16:8), and some MSS. in Lu. 138 : 13 (dvop- 
600n) and Ro. 9: 29 (dpuowOnuer); of t, toxvoev (Lu. 8 : 48), ikavwoer 
(2 Cor. 3:6) and ia@ro (Lu. 9:11); of @, avéouac has no augment, 
avnoato (Ac. 7:16), and the same thing is true of afew, as amw- 
cato (Ac. 7:27), é&Goev (Ac. 7:45). ’Epyatoua has yn, not e, as 
its augment according to W. H. So apyafovro (Ac. 18:3), but 
always exov. . 

6. Compound Verbs (rapacivOera). The language varied in the 
way it regarded compound verbs, though usually a verb derived 
from a compound is treated as a unit. So éypoudayyoa, édL00- 
Bornoav, Euocxoroincay (Ac. 7:41), evavaynoa, érpodnrevoey (Mk. 7: 
6), érappno.acato (Ac. 9: 27), éovxodavrnoa, but ebnyyedicaro (Ac. 
8 : 35) in late Greek and mpoevnyyerioato (Gal. 3:8). If the com- 
pound embraces a preposition, the augment as in Attic usually 
follows the preposition like arjvrncay (Lu. 17:12). Some verbs 
derived from nouns already compounded are augmented like verbs 
compounded with a preposition, as dunxovee (Mt. 8 : 15) unlike At- 
tic. As further examples note amednunoev (Mt. 21: 33), erebbunoay 
(Mt. 13:17), xarnydpou (Mk. 15:3), érexeipnoay (Lu. 1:1), ame- 
Noyetro (Ac. 26:1), ovrnpyea (Jas. 2:22). Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, 
p. 102. But in Mt. 7:22 and 11:18 the Syrian class of MSS. 
have rpoedynretoapyev and —cav. Sometimes the preposition itself is 
treated as a part of the verb when put directly to the verb, as 
jou (Mk. 1:34), Avot (Rev. 6:1), duqvorvyer (Lu. 24 : 32), exa- 
Gevdov (Mt. 25: 5), &dOnro (Mt. 13:1), exabicey (Jo. 19:13), exa- 
Gévero (Jo. 4:6). In Mt. 13:15 éxdypvoay (from Is. 6:10) is 
assimilation of xavautw. Verbs beginning with e’— vary in aug- 
mented tenses between ei— and ni-, but when followed by a vowel, 
the verb is treated as a compound like e’yyyedicaro above. 

7. Double Augment. It is fairly common in the N. T. In the 


seen (Thack., Gr., pp. 196, 199f.). The pap. often have —epénv for —npéOnv 
(Mayser, pp. 127, 335). . 
1 See W.-Sch., p. 100f. Cf. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 162 f. 


368 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


case of #yayov and eirov the augment is added to the aoristic re- 
duplication. But in éwpwr (Jo. 6:2 in Tischendorf’s text, W. H. 
éMewpovv) there is a clear case of double augment like the double 
reduplication in éwpaxa. So also the N. T. regularly 7édurnbnv (Mt. 
17 : 16) and even 7édvvacbn (Mk. 7:24). Both édtvaro (Mk. 6 : 5) 
and 7divaro (Mk. 14:5) appear and the MSS. vary much. This 
n (analogy to 7eXov) first arises in the Attic in 300 B.c.t. With 
MEANW, HueddAov iS the usual form (Jo. 4:47), though éwedAdAov occurs 
also (Jo. 7:39). Botvdoua in the N. T. never has 7, though the 
Text. Rec. has it in 2 Jo. 12. On the other hand 6é\w always has n 
(Gal. 4:20, 7#0eXov) even after the initial e was dropped. ’Azoxa- 
Oiornut has always a double augment, one with each preposition. 
So azexatéorn (Mk. 8 : 25) and dzexareorabn (Mk. 3: 5).2 So LXX 
and later Greek. But in Heb. 12:4 dvrixaréornre is the true 
text.4 ’Avoiyw has a peculiar history. It now has single augment 
on the preposition, as jvorgev (Rev. 6:3), now double augment of 
the verb, as avéewtev (Jo. 9:14), now a triple augment on verb and 
preposition, as AvewxOnoavy (Mt. 9:30). ’Avexoua, on the other 
hand, has only one augment, as aveoxounv (Ac. 18:14) and dvetxyecbe 
(2 Cor. 11:1). For double augment in the LXX see Thackeray, 
Gr., pp. 202 ff. 

VIII. The Infinitive (1) dtapéudatos éykXtors). The most 
striking development of the infinitive in the xow) belongs to 
syntax, and not accidence.® Hence a brief discussion will here 
suffice. Blass, for instance, in his Grammar of N. T. Greek, has 
no discussion of the infinitive under ‘‘Accidence,”’ nor has 
Moulton in his Prolegomena. But the infinitive has a very in- 
teresting history on its morphological side. 

1. No Terminology at First. Originally it was a mere noun of 
action (nomen actionis). Not all nouns of action developed into 
infinitives. Brugmann® quotes from Plato riv 70d be0d déow duty 
where a noun of action (ddc1s) is used with the dative. This is, of 
course, not an infinitive. The older Sanskrit shows quite a variety 
of nouns of action used in a “quasi-infinitive sense,’ governing 
cases like the verb, but having no tense nor voice. 

2. Fixed Case-Forms. The first stage in the development was 
reached when these nouns of action were regarded as fixed case- 


1 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 169. 4 Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 163. 
So inscr. Letronne, Ree. II, p. 463. * Dieterich, Unters., p. 209. 
3 W.-Sch., p. 103. 6 Comp. Gr. (transl.), II, p. 471. 


7 Whitney, Sans. Gr.; p. 203. On these infs. in posse see Brug., Comp. Gr., 
IV, p. 599. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 369 


forms. That stage was obtained in the Sanskrit. At first the da- 
tive was the most common case so used along with the accusative, 
genitive, ablative and sometimes the locative. In the later San- 
skrit the accusative supplanted the rest (tum or itum). Cf. the 
Latin supine. But the Sanskrit infinitive, while governing cases, 
never developed tense nor voice, and so remained essentially a 
substantive. 

3. With Voice and Tense. But the second stage appears in the 
Greek and Latin where it had its most characteristic develop- 
ment.? The infinitive becomes a real verbal substantive. Here 
voice and tense are firmly established. But while, by analogy, the 
Greek infinitive comes to be formed on the various tense and 
voice stems, that is an after-thought and not an inherent part of 
the infinitive. There was originally no voice, so that it is even 
a debatable question if tiuf-co, for instance, and haberi are not 
formed exactly alike. The active and the passive ideas are both 
capable of development from dvvaros Oavudaoa, ‘capable for won- 
dering.’* The passive infinitive had only sporadic development 
in single languages.> The middle is explained in the same way as 
active and passive. The tense-development is more complete in 
Greek than in Latin, the future infinitive being peculiar to Greek. 
The Latin missed also the distinctive aorist infinitive. But here 
also analogy has played a large part and we are not to think of 
doa, for instance, as having at bottom more kinship with é\vca 
than with Ndos.® Indeed the perfect and future infinitives are 
both very rare in the N. T. as in the xow# generally.’ This weak- 
ening of the future infinitive is general® in the xow7, even with 
pédAw as well as in indirect discourse. In Jo. 21: 25 late MSS. 
have xwpjow instead of xwphoew. Indeed the papyri in the later 
xowh show a hybrid infinitive form, a sort of mixture of aorist and 

1 Whitney, ib., p. 347. Cf. ger. of Lat. For special treatises on the inf. see 
Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), IV, pp. 595 ff.; Griech. Gr., p. 359. Cf. also Griine- 
wald, Der freie formelhafte Inf. der Limitation im Griech. (1888); Birklein, 
Entwickelungsgesch. des substant. Inf. (1888); Votaw, The Use of the Inf. in 
Bibl. Gk. (1896); Allen, The Inf. in Polyb. compared with Bibl. Gk. (1907). 
Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 480 ff., 568 ff.) has a very good sketch of the history 
of the inf. in Gk. On p. 572 f. he discusses John’s use of the inf. with verbs 
(129 exx.). Cf. Jolly, Gesch. des Inf. im Indog. (1873); Gildersleeve, Contrib. 
to the Hist. of the Articular Inf. (Transl. Am. Phil. Ass., 1878, A. J. P., vol. II, 
pp. 193 ff.; vol. VIII, pp. 329 ff.; vol. XX VII, p. 105 f.). 

2 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), II, p. 471. 

8 Hirt, Handb. etc., p. 433. ® Moulton, Prol., p. 204. 


4 Moulton, Prol., p. 203. 7 Votaw, Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 59. 
5 Hirt, Handb., p. 481. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 204. 


370 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


future like éze\eboacbar (even in early papyri).! In the LXX we 
find revéacOa (2 Macc. 15:7) and éxdebéacbac in 2 Mace. 9: 22. 
In other cases the two are used side by side. It is only in the 
state of the action that the infinitive has any true tense-action 
developed save in indirect discourse where the infinitive tense 
represents the time of the direct discourse. The infinitive thus 
is like a verb in that it expresses action, governs cases, has voice 
and tense.” 

4. No Personal Endings. The infinitive never developed per- 
sonal endings and remained undefined, unlimited. The infinitive 
and the participle are thus both infinitives in this sense, that they 
are the unlimited verb so far as personal endings are concerned. 
They are both participles in that they participate in both noun 
and verb. ‘The terms have no inherent distinction, but serve 
merely as a convenience.® In the nature of the case neither can 
have a subject in any literal sense. But it is to be admitted even 
here that the line between the finite and the infinite verb is not 
absolute. Cf. the forms ¢épe and dépe, for instance. But the 
cases used with the infinitive will be discussed in Syntax. 

5. Dative and Locate in Form. The infinitive continued a 
substantive after the voice and tense-development. At first the 
case-idea of the form was observed, but gradually that disap- 
peared, though the form remained. The Greek infinitives are 
always either datives or locatives, “‘dead datives or locatives”’ 
usually.> All infinitives in —-a are datives. Thus all those in —va., 
—cat, —évar, —uevac (Homer), —c8ar (Oar). Those in —c@a alone give 
any trouble. It is probably a compound (oc, Oa), but its precise 
origin is not clear. The locative is seen in —ev, and Homeric —yer, 
but the origin of —ev is again doubtful.7 But no distinction re- 
mains between the two cases in actual usage.* In Homer? the 
dative sense as well as form remain extremely common, as in- 
deed is true of all Greek where the infinitive remains. The very 
common infinitive of purpose, like 7\Mov ayopacat, is a true dative. 
(Cf. Mt. 2:2.) But the very essence of the infinitive as a com- 
plete development is that this dative or locative form could be 


1 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 385. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., Feb., 1901, 
p. 36 f. “Cf. Hatz., Hinl., p. 190. 

2 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), IV, p.7. 4 Brug., Comp. Gr. (transl.), p.7. 

2K -Blssllepua. 5 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 90. 

6 Cf. Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 469 f.; Brug., Grundr., II, § 1093. 8. 

7 Hirt, Handb., p. 432; Giles, Man., p. 470. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p. 202. ® Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 371 


used in any case like any other substantive without inflection, an 
indeclinable substantive in a fixed case-form. 

6. The Presence of the Article. After Homer’s day it was com- 
mon and chiefly in the Attic,! but this is a matter to be treated fur- 
ther in Syntax. The point to observe here is that the article did 
not make a substantive of the infinitive. It was that before voice 
and tense were used with it. But it is true that even in Homer 
the verbal aspect is more prominent than the substantival. In 
the vernacular the article was never much used with the infini- 
tive; perhaps for convenience it was not so employed. 

7. The Disappearance of the Infinitwe. The old forms in —ew 
and -vac remain longest (Thackeray, Gr., pp. 210, 257). The 
causes for the disappearance of the infinitive in later Greek till in 
the modern Greek vernacular it is (outside of the Pontic dialect) 
dead and gone, lie largely in the region of syntax. The infinitive 
as a whole disappears before 67: and iva (modern Greek va). Far- 
rar? calls attention to the absence of the infinitive in Arabic. It 
was always a matter of discretion with a Greek writer whether in 
certain clauses he would use the infinitive or an object-clause 
(drt, drws, tva).2 Cf. Latin. The English infinitive has an inter- 
esting history also as the mutilated form of the dative of a ge- 
rund. 

8. Some N. T. Forms. Not many N. T. forms call for special 
remark and those have been explained already, such as —oty (Mt. 
13 :32; Heb. 7:5), wetvy and even iv for mtv (Jo. 4:9). In Lu. 
1: 79 émidavar instead of the Attic éridjvar is noticeable. In Ph. 
4:12 we have revav, not —7v. The Coptic has the infinitive ya- 
orvyyor (cf. W. H. xatacknvoty, Mt. 13 :32=Mk. 4:32, and azode- 
xatotv in Heb. 7:5). In 1 Cor. 11:6 we find both xeipacda and 
éupacba. In Mk. 14:71 dpviva is the regular —u. form. In Heb. 
11:5 evapeorynxévac is without reduplication in AKL. In Lu. 9: 
18 (11: 1) a periphrastic infinitive appears, & 76 efvau alrov mpo- 
cevxouevov. The augment occurs with dvemxOqvae in Lu. 3: 21. Cf. 
écouar dvdovac in Tob. 5:15 B. 

IX. The Participle (1) petoxy). + 

1. The Name. This does not really distinguish this verbal ad- 
jective from the verbal substantive, the infinitive. Both are par- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 213 f. 

2 Gk. Synt., p. 164. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 221. Thumb (Handb. of Mod. Gk.) has no 
discussion of the infinitive. 

4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 603. 


372 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ticiples and both are infinitives. Voss! calls the participles 
“mules” because they partake of both noun and verb, but the 
infinitives are hybrid in exactly the same sense. Like the infini- 
tive, the Greek participle has voice, tense, and governs cases, and 
may use the article. Unlike the infinitive the participle has reg- 
ular inflection like other adjectives. Clyde? would include parti- 
ciples in the infinitive. So Kithner-Blass.2 Dionysius Thrax* 
puts the participle right: Meroxyn éo7e AEs eTEXOVTA THs TV p7- 
patwv Kal THS TOV dvouaTwv ldLoTNTOS. 

2. Verbal Adjectives. As a matter of fact no absolutely clear 
line can be drawn between verbal adjectives and other adjec- 
tives. An adjective may not only be used with a case like xkevés 
with the ablative, but may even take on a verbal nature in cer- 
tain connections. Some, like xAurés, were always purely adjec- 
tival.’? Most of the forms in —7os in Greek are adjectival, but 
many of them have a verbal idea developed also, either that of 
completion, as ayarnrés (‘beloved,’ Mt. 3:17), or of possibility or 
capability, as wan7os (‘liable to suffering,’ Ac. 26 : 23). In Greek 
these verbals in —ros never became a part of the verb as in Latin 
perfect passive participle. Moulton® shows how amatus est and 
‘““‘he is loved” represent different tenses, but scriptum est and 
“it is written” agree. But there was no reason why the —ros 
should not have had a further verbal development in Greek. For 
the structure of this verbal adjective see the chapter on Forma- 
tion of Words, where a list of the chief examples is given. Moul- 
ton! points out the wavering between the active and passive idea 
when the true verbal exists in the N. T., by the example of 4év- 
varov in Ro. 8:3. Is it ‘incapable’ as in Ro. 15:1 or ‘impos- 
sible’ as is usual? Blass" indeed denies the verbal character of the 
—ros form in the N. T. to any examples except ra@nros (Ac. 26: 23). 
But this is too extreme, as Moulton” clearly proves. ’Actveros is 
active in Ro. 1:31 while dotvOeros is middle (cvvrideua). With 
the forms in —7os therefore two points have to be watched: first, if 
they are verbal at all, and then, if they are active, middle or pas- 
sive. There is no doubt as to the verbal character of the form in 
—réos, which expresses the idea of necessity. This is in fact a ge- 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. 7 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 474. 
2 Gk. Synt., p. 94. 8 Tb. 

ibe. ?Prol., pagel. 

4 § 19. 10°Tb. 

5 Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 605. iL Gre of Nee Gk pra 


8 Ib., I, p. 456, 2 Prokop. 222. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) 373 


rundive and is closely allied to the -ros form. It has both a per- 
sonal construction and the impersonal, and governs cases like the 
verb. It is not in Homer? (though —7os is common), and the first 
example in Greek is in Hesiod.* The N. T. shows only one ex- 
ample, BAyréov (Lu. 5 : 38), impersonal and governing the accusa- 
tive. It appears in a few MSS. in the parallel passage in Mk. 2: 
22. One further remark is to be made about the verbals, which 
is that some participles lose their verbal force and drop back to 
the purely adjectival function. So éxwv, weAdwy in the sense of 
‘future.’ Cf. eloguens and sapiens in Latin.* In general, just 
as the infinitive and the gerund were surrounded by many other 
verbal substantives, so the participle and the gerundive come out 
of many other verbal adjectives. In the Sanskrit, as one would 
expect, the division-line between the participle and ordinary ad- 
jectives is less sharply drawn.° 

3. True Participles. These have tense and also voice. Brug- 
mann® indeed shows that the Greek participle endings go back 
to the proethnic participle. Already in the Sanskrit the present, 
perfect and future tenses (and in the Veda the aorist) have parti- 
ciples in two voices (active and middle),’ thus showing an earlier 
development than the infinitive. The endings of the Greek parti- 
ciples are practically the same as those of the Sanskrit. The 
Latin, unlike the Sanskrit and the Greek, had no aorist and no 
perfect active participle, and the future participle like acturus 
may have come from the infinitive. The Greek has, however, two 
endings for the active, —»7 for all tenses save the perfect, just like 
the Sanskrit. The perfect ending (—wes, —wos, —us, Greek —ws, —o7, 
—v.) is difficult of explanation, but is likewise parallel with the San- 
skrit.2 The perfect participle is more common in Homer than any 
other form of the perfect (Sterrett, Homer’s Iliad, N. 44). The 
middle ending —yevo is uniform and is like the Sanskrit. The Greek 
aorist passive participle ending (evr) is peculiar to the Greek and 
is made by analogy from the old active form like ¢av-évr-s (gav-eis), 


1 Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 605. 2 Sterrett, Hom. Il., N. 28. 

3 Hirt, Handb., p. 438. Moulton (Cl. Rev., Mar., 1904, p. 112) finds one 
ex. of —réos in the pap. and “the —ros participle is common in neg. forms.”’ 
Note that he calls it a participle. 

4 Brug., Comp. Gr., II, p. 457. 

5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 347. 

6 Indog. Forsch., V, pp. 89 ff. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 221. 

7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. 

8 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 474. 

9 Hirt, Handb., p. 436 f. 


304 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


like Latin, manens.1. The participles survive in modern Greek, 
though the active, like the third declension, takes on the form 
ypadovtas (ypadwy) ” 

The modern Greek uses chiefly the present active, the past 
passive participle (Dieterich, Unters., p. 206), and some middle 
or passive participles in —otuevos or —ayevos (Thumb, Handb., p. 
167). The use of the aorist and perfect active participles gave 
Greek a great superiority over the Latin, which had such a usage 
only in deponent verbs like sequor, secutus. But Greek used the 
other participles far more than the Latin. English alone is a rival 
for the Greek in the use of the participle. One of the grammarians 
calls the Greeks ¢AouéToxo. because they were a participle-loving 
people.’ The use of the tenses of the participle belongs to syntax. 
One may merely remark here that the future participle is very 
rare in the N.T. as in the papyri and xo. generally (ef. Infinitive). 
The LXX has it seldom (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). It is found 
chiefly in Luke in the N. T., as Lu. 22:49; Ac. 8:27; 20:22; 
22:5; 24:11,17.4. The N. T. itself presents no special peculiari- 
ties as to the forms of the participle. In Rev. 19:13 pepaupevor 
has been cited under the question of reduplication. ‘Eoras is 
more frequent than éornxws. Other perfects like dzod\wdas call 
for no comment. 

4. In Periphrastic Use. The participle is common in the N. T. 
in the periphrastic tenses. These have been given in detail under 
the various tenses, but a summary at this point is desirable. 
This use of the participle with various forms of the verb ‘‘to be” 
is so common in all languages, ancient and modern, as hardly to 
require justification. Modern English uses it largely in its verb- 
inflection, as does modern Greek. The use of the participle as the 
predicate is found all through the Indo-Germanic languages.’ It 
is very frequent in the Sanskrit, especially in the later language.® 
Its oldest usage seems to be in the perfect tense, which exists as 
far back as we can go.’ In the N. T. the perfect optative does 


1 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 473. Cf. the Sans. passive part. in -¢é or —nd, 
Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 340. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 206. Cf. Hatz., Einl., p. 143. 

3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 37. He cites elsewhere Mt. 27: 49, 
cdcwv, Jo. 6:64, 1 Cor. 15:37; Heb. 3:5; 13:17; 1 Pet. 3:13. Then there 
are the doubtful forms xavootpeva (2 Pet. 3:10, 12) and xouobuevor (2 Pet. 
2913): 

5 Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 444. 

6 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 394. 7 Brug., Comp. Gr., IV, p. 446. 


CONJUGATION OF THE VERB (‘PHMA) S10 


not appear, though once a good chance for the periphrastic perfect 
optative arises as in Ac. 21:33, éruvOavero Tis ein kal Ti Eorw TreToLn- 
kas. The perfect sub]. save ei6 is seen in the N. T. only in the 
periphrastic form both in the active, as 7 remounkws (Jas. 5:15), and 
the passive, as 7 merAnpwpuevn (Jo. 16: 24)... So 2 Cor. 9:3. The 
periphrastic perfect imperative is illustrated by écrwoav zrepte- 
fwopevar (Lu. 12:35). No example of the periphrastic perfect in- 
finitive appears in the N. T., so far as I have noticed, except 
Kateotahuevous brapxev (Ac. 19:36). A periphrastic perfect par- 
ticiple also is observed in évras amryddorpuwpeévous (Col. 1 : 21). 
Colloquial Attic has it (Arist. Ran. 721) and the inscriptions 
(Syll. 928°? 11/B.c.) amoxexpiwevyns otons (Moulton, Prol., p. 227). In 
the indicative the periphrastic form is the common one for the 
future perfect, both active, as écouar merolws (Heb. 2:13), and 
passive, as éorar AeAvueva (Mt. 18:18). Cf. Lu. 12:52. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 227) finds three papyri with aorist participles in future 
perfect sense. With yivouwa note yeyovate Exovtes (Heb. 5 : 12). 
Cf. Rev. 16:10, éyévero éoxoricpéevn. Cf. 2 Cor. 6:14; Col. 1: 18; 
Rev. 3:2. The past perfect is very common in the passive, as 
nv yeypapmevov (Jo. 19: 19), but less frequent in the active, as joav 
mpoewpaxores (Ac. 21:29). In Ac. 8:16 we not only have jy ém- 
mretTwxws, but even BeBarricuevor brfpxov (cf. also 19 : 36). Cf. also 
nv Kelwevos as equal to Av reBecwevos (Lu. 23 : 53); qv éorws (Lu. 5: 1); 
elxov aroxewevnv (Lu. 19 : 20), like éxe tapyrnuevov (Lu. 14 : 18), since 
Ketuat is perfect in sense. The present perfect is more common 
in the periphrastic form than in the active, as éorws elu (Ac. 25:10), 
and especially in the passive, as yeypaupévov éeoriy (Jo. 6:31). 

The periphrastic aorist appears only in jv BAneis (Lu. 23:19) 
and only in the indicative.2 But note éyévero orihBovra (Mk. 9:3). 

The periphrastic future indicative is found several times in the 
active, as éoovra mimrovtes (Mk. 13: 25), and the passive, as écecde 
pucovpevor (Lu. 21:17). 

The present tense is written periphrastically in the imperative, 
as ict ebvodv (Mt. 5:25; cf. Lu. 19:17), and even with yivoua, 
as py vyivecbe érepotvyotvres (2 Cor. 6:14). Cf. Rev. 3:2. In 
Col. 1:18 we find an aorist subjunctive with a present parti- 
ciple, tva yévnrar rpwrebwv. The present infinitive occurs in év To 
elvar aitov mpocevxouevov (Lu. 9:18; 11:1). As an example of the 
present indicative active take @ éoriw exovra (Col. 2 : 23), and of 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 331. Kexr&muar and xexrquny had no following in Gk. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 204. I am chiefly indebted to Blass for the 
facts in this summary. ° 


376 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the passive take 6 éorw peepunvevduevov (Jo. 1 : 42), though this 
last is not strictly an instance in point. Cf. also éorly mpocava- 
tAnpodoa (2 Cor. 9: 12). 

The periphrastic imperfect is the most common of all. It is 
not unknown to the old Greek, and is abundant in the papyri and 
the xown generally, but it is even more frequent in the LXX 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 195) and in the Aramaic. As Blass! shows, 
not all the examples in the N. T. are strictly periphrastic, like 
noav ... aypavdodytes (Lu. 2:8). But they are abundant enough, 
as one can see on almost any page of the Gospels. Take joav ava- 
Baivovres kal nv rpoaywv (Mk. 10:32). So Ac. 2:2, joav xabjpyevor, 
and Gal. 1 : 22, juny ayvoobpevos. 

For list of important verbs in the N. T. see Additional Notes 
and my Short Grammar of the Greek N. T. (third ed.), pp. 48-56, 
241-244. For such verbs in the LXX see Thackeray, Gr., pp. 
258-920 (Table of Verbs); Helbing, Gr. d. LXX, pp. 128-135. 
For list in the papyri see Mayser, Gr., pp. 387-415. 


1 Gr, of N. T. Gk., p. 203. 


PART III 
SYNTAX 


he ade oh 


peat f 





CHAPTER IX 
THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (ZTNTAZIZ) 


I. Backwardness in the Study of Syntax. What the Germans 
call Laut- und Formenlehre has received far more scientific treat- 
ment than has syntax. In 1874 Jolly! lamented that so little 
work on syntax of a really valuable nature had been done. 
To a certain extent it was necessary that the study of the forms 
should precede that of syntax.? The full survey of the words and 
their inflections was essential to adequate syntactical investiga- 
tion. And yet one can but feel that syntax has lagged too far 
behind. It has been the favourite field for grammatical charlatans 
to operate in, men who from a few examples drew large induc- 
tions and filled their grammars with ‘exceptions’ to their own 
hastily made rules. Appeal was made to logic rather than to the 
actual facts in the history of language. Thus we had grammar 
made to order for the consumption of the poor students. 

Others perhaps became disgusted with the situation and hastily 
concluded that scientific syntax was impracticable, at least for 
the present, and so confined their researches either to etymology 
or to the forms. In 1891 Miiller* sees no hope of doing anything 
soon for modern Greek syntax except in the literary high style 
on which he adds a few remarks about prepositions. ‘Thumb+ 
likewise has added a chapter on syntax to his Handbuch. If you 
turn to Whitney’s Sanskrit Grammar, you will find no separate 
syntax, but merely some additional remarks on the “‘uses”’ of the 
aorist, the present, the subjunctive, ete. Monro in his Homeric 
Grammar follows somewhat the same plan, but with much more 
attention to the ‘‘uses” of cases and modes. Brugmann® in his 
Griechische Grammatik devotes far more space to Formenlehre, 


1 Schulgr. und Sprachw., p. 71. 
2 Riem. and Goelzer, Gr. Comparée du Grec et du Lat., Synt., p. 7. 
3 Hist. Gr. der hell. Spr., p. 172. 
4 Handb. der neugr. Volksspr., 1895; Handb. of Mod. Gk. Vernac., pp. 
179-206. BaP Vile 
379 


380 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


even in the third edition, which chiefly differs from the second in 
the increased attention to syntax. Giles in his Manual of Com- 
parative Philology, even in the second! edition (1900), kept his 
discussion of the uses of the noun and verb apart and did not 
group them as syntax. When he wrote his first? edition (1895) 
nothing worthy of the name had been done on the comparative 
syntax of the moods and tenses, though Delbriick had written 
his great treatise on the syntax of the noun. When Brugmann 
planned his first volume of Kurze vergleichende Grammatik (1880), 
he had no hope of going on with the syntax either with the 
“Grundrif”’ or the “ Kurze,” for at that time comparative gram- 
mar of the Indo-Germanic tongues was confined to Lawt- und 
Formenlehre.2 But in the revision of Kiihner the Syntax by B. 
Gerth has two volumes, as exhaustive a treatment as Blass’ two 
volumes on the Accidence. In the Riemann and Goelzer volumes 
the one on Syntax is the larger. Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of Philol., 
1908, p. 115) speaks of his convictions on “Greek syntax and all 
that Greek syntax implies.”’ No man’s views in this sphere are 
entitled to weightier consideration. May he soon complete his 
Syntax of Classical Greek. 

As to the dialectical inscriptions the situation is still worse. 
Dr. Claflin* as late as 1905 complains that the German mono- 
graphs on the inscriptions confine themselves to Lawt- und For- 
menlehre almost entirely. Meisterhans in Schwyzer’s revision 
(1900) is nearly the sole exception.> Thieme® has a few syntactical 
remarks, but Nachmanson,’ Schweizer® and Valaori® have noth- 
ing about syntax, nor has Dieterich.!° The same thing is true of 
Thumb’s Hellenismus, though this, of course, is not a formal 
grammar. A few additional essays have touched on the syntax 
of the Attic inscriptions" and Schanz in his Beitrdge has several 
writers’? who have noticed the subject. The inscriptions do in- 
deed have limitations as to syntax, since much of the language is 
official and formal, but there is much to learn from them.. Thack- 
eray has not yet published his Syntax of the LXX. nor has Hel- 
bing. : 

SeP 7x1; 2aP viii 3 Kurze vergl. Gr., 3. Lief., 1904, p. iii f. 

4 Synt. of the Boeot. Dial. Inscr., p. 9. 

5 Gr. der att. Inschr. But even he has very much more about the forms. 

6 Die Inschr. von Magn. etc., 1906. 

7 Laute und Formen der magn. Inschr., 1903. 

8 Gr. d. perg. Inschr., Beitr. zur Laut- und Formenl. etc., 1898. 


9 Der delph. Dial.,1901. ™ Claflin, Synt. of the Boeot. Dial. Inser., p. 10. 
10’Unters. etc., 1898. 22 Dyroff, Weber, Keck. 


THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (STNTAZIZ) 381 


We are somewhat better off as to the papyri as a result chiefly 
of the work of Dr. James Hope Moulton, who has published his re- 
searches in that field as applied to the New Testament.! Croénert 
in his Mem. Graeca Hercul. has a good many syntactical remarks 
especially on the cases,? but no formal treatment of the subject. 
Volker? has not finished his good beginning. No syntax has come 
from Mayser yet, who stopped with Laut- und Formenlehre, 
though he is at work on one. Moulton does not profess‘ to 
cover all the syntactical points in the papyri, but only those 
that throw light on some special points in the N. T. usage. 

II. New Testament Limitations. It is evident therefore that 
the N. T. grammarian is in a poorer plight when he approaches 
syntax. And yet, strange to say, the N. T. grammars have largely 
confined themselves to syntax. Winer-Moulton, out of 799 pages, 
has only 128 not syntax. Buttmann, out of 403 pages (Thayer’s 
translation), has only 74 not syntax. In Winer-Schmiedel syntax 
is reached on p. 145. Blass begins syntax on p. 72, out of 305 
pages. Moulton in his Prolegomena starts syntax on p. 57 (232 
in all). The present book has given the discussion of the forms 
more space at any rate. It is at least interesting to note that 
N. T. grammarians have reversed the example of the comparative 
philologists. Is it a case of rushing in where angels fear to tread? 

One may plead in defence that the demands of exegesis are 
great and urgent, not to say more congenial. The distinctive 
character of the N. T. teaching is more closely allied to lexicog- 
raphy and syntax than to mere forms. That is very true, but 
many a theologian’s syntax has run away with him and far from 
the sense of the writer, because he was weak on the mere forms. 
Knowledge of the forms is the first great step toward syntax. 
Deissmann even complains of Blass for assuming too much in his 
Syntax and not making enough comments “‘to rouse up energet- 
ically this easy-going deference of the youthful reader” (Expost- 
tor, Jan., 1908, p. 65). 

Blass® urges, besides, that it is just in the sphere of syntax that 


1 See Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, pp. 436 ff.; Apr., 1904, p. 150; Exp., 1904, series 
on Charact. of N. T. Gk.; Prol., 1906. 

2 Pp. 159 ff. 3 Synt. der griech. Pap., I, Der Art., 1903. 

4 Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 436. Debrunner (p. xi of his 4. Aufl. of Blass’ 
Gramm. d. N. Griech., 1913, which he has kindly sent me as I reach this 
point in the galley proof) laments: ‘‘Fir die Studien der hellenistischen (und 
der mittel- und neugriechischen) Syntax gilt leider noch das Wort zoXdvs uty 6 
Oeptopds, of 5& épyarar ddLyou.”’ 


peGreote Nal. Gk, p..42. 


382 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the N. T. variations from the ancient Greek can be best observed, 
in this and the change in the meaning of words. This is true, but 
just as much so of the xow7 in general. This is just the opposite 
of Winer’s view,! who held that the N. T. peculiarities of syntax 
were very few. The explanation of the difference lies partly in 
the undeveloped state of syntax when Winer wrote, though he 
wrote voluminously enough himself, and partly in the wider con- 
ception of syntax that Blass? holds as being ‘‘the method of em- 
ploying and combining the several word-forms and ‘form-words’ 
current in the language.” 

On the other hand attention must be called to the fact that the 
study of the forms is just the element, along with vocabulary, 
mainly relied on by Deissmann in his Bible Studies to show the 
practical identity of the vernacular xow7y in the papyri and in the 
N. T. Greek. Burton’ puts it rightly when he says of the N. T. 
writers: ‘‘The divergence of their language from that of classical 
writers in respect to syntax is greater than in reference to forms 
of words, and less than in respect to the meaning of words, both 
the Jewish and the Christian influence affecting more deeply the 
meanings of words than either their form or their syntactical 
employment.’’ Deissmann?* readily admits that Christianity has 
a set of ideas peculiar to itself, as has every system of teaching 
which leads to a characteristic terminology. 

But one is not to think of the N. T. as jargon or a dialect of the 
xown in syntax.® It is not less systematic and orderly than the 
rest of the vernacular xo.w7n, and the xow7 is as much a real language 
with its own laws as the Greek of Athens. As remarked above, 
the xown showed more development in syntax than in forms, but 
it was not a lawless development. It was the growth of life and 
use, not the artificial imitation of the old language of Athens by 
the Atticists. Blass’ properly insists on the antithesis here be- 
tween the artificial Atticist and “the plain narrator of facts or 
the letter-writer’? such as we meet in the N. T. Deissmann (H2z- 
positor, Jan., 1908, p. 75) holds that Christianity in its classical 
epoch “has very little connection with official culture.” ‘It re- 
jects — this is the second result of our inquiry — it rejects, in this 


1 W.-M., p. 27. 
2 Gr, of Nui. Gk es poseteciep ao also, 
3 Notes on N. T. Gr., 1904, p. 22. 4. Bad aD... 00. 


5 Thumb, Die sprachgeschichtl. Stell. des bibl. Griech., Theol. Ru., 1902, 
D9 
6 Blass, Gr of N= baGie naa: Tab. De (25 


THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (STNTAZIZ) 383 


epoch, all the outward devices of rhetoric. In grammar, vocabu- 
lary, syntax and style it occupies a place in the midst of the peo- 
ple and draws from the inexhaustible soil of the popular element 
to which it was native a good share of its youthful strength.” 
This is largely true. Men of passion charged with a great message 
do strike forth the best kind of rhetoric and style with simplicity, 
power, beauty. It is blind not to see charm in Luke, in John, in 
Paul, James and the writer of Hebrews, a charm that is the de- 
spair of mere “devices of rhetoric” or artificial rules of style and 
syntax. 

It is not surprising to find variations in culture in the N. T. 
writers, men who had different antecedents (Jew or Greek), dif- 
ferent environment (Palestine, Asia Minor and possibly Egypt), 
different natural gifts and educational advantages, as seen in 
Peter and Paul. These individual peculiarities show themselves 
easily and naturally in syntax and style. See chapter IV, The 
Place of the N. T. in the Kowy, for a larger discussion of this 
matter of the peculiarities of the N. T. writers. But even in 2 
Peter and the Apocalypse one has no difficulty in understand- 
ing this simple vernacular xow7, however far short these books 
come of the standard of Isocrates or Demosthenes. The study of 
N. T. syntax is a worthy subject and one entirely within the range 
of scientific historical treatment so far as that subject has ad- 
vanced. 

III. Recent Advance by Delbriick. Just as Brugmann is the 
great name in the accidence of comparative grammar, so Del- 
briick is the great name in syntax. Brugmann gladly recognises 
his own indebtedness to Delbriick. He has sought to follow Del- 
briick in the syntax of his Griechische Grammatik! and in the 
Kurze vergleichende Grammatik.2 It is not necessary here to re- 
count the story of how Delbriick was finally associated with 
Brugmann in the Grundri&, and the Syntax by Delbriick brought 
to completion in 1900. Brugmann tells the story well in Aurze 
vergl. Gr. (pp. v ff.) and Delbriick in the Grundrif itself. It is a 
great achievement and much led up to it. Delbriick has recounted 
the progress of comparative grammar in his Introduction to the 
Study of Language (1882). In 1872 he had published Die Re- 
sultate der vergleichenden Syntax. In 1879 he brought out Die 
Grundlagen der griechischen Syntax (“Syntaktische Forschungen,” 

1 Pf, vii. 

2 P. ix. He feels “als Schiiler unseres Begriinders und Meisters der ver- 
gleichenden Syntax.” 


384 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Bd. IV). That marked him as the man to do for syntax what 
Brugmann would do for forms. Delbriick does not claim all the 
credit. Bernhardy in 1829 had published Wvissenschaftliche Syn- 
tax der griechischen Sprache, but Bopp, Schleicher and the rest 
had done much besides. The very progress in the knowledge of 
forms called for advance in syntax. In 1883 Hiibner wrote Grund- 
rib zu Vorlesungen tiber die griechische Syntax. It is not a treat- 
ment of syntax, but a systematized bibliography of the great 
works up to date on Greek syntax. It is still valuable for that 
purpose. One can follow Brugmann! and Delbriick, Vergl. Syn- 
tax, Dritter Teil, pp. xvi-xx, for later bibliography. As the foun- 
ders of syntax Hiibner? points back to Dionysius Thrax and 
Apollonius Dyscolus in the Alexandrian epoch. The older Greeks 
themselves felt little concern about syntax. They spoke cor- 
rectly, but were not grammatical anatomists. ‘They used the 
language instead of inspecting and dissecting it. 

Delbriick (Vergleichende Syntax, Erster Teil, pp. 2-72) gives a 
lucid review of the history of syntactical study all the way from 
Dionysius Thrax to Paul’s Principles of the History of Language. 
He makes many luminous remarks by the way also on the general 
subject of syntax. I cannot accent too strongly my own debt to 
Delbriick. 

Syntax, especially that of the verb, has peculiar difficulties.’ 
Not all the problems have been solved yet.4 Indeed Schanz so 
fully appreciates the situation that he is publishing a series of ex- 
cellent Bevtrdge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache. 
He is gathering fresh material. Many of the American and Euro- 
pean universities issue monographs by the new doctors of philos- 
ophy on various points of syntax, especially points in individual 
writers. Thus we learn more about the facts. But meanwhile 
we are grateful to Delbriick for his monumental work and for all 
the rest. | 

IV. The Province of Syntax. 

(a) THE Worp Syntax (ovrtaéis). It is from ovvtdcow and 
means ‘arrangement’ (constructio).’ It is the picture of the orderly 
marshalling of words to express ideas, not a mere medley of words. 
The word syntax is indeed too vague and general to express 
clearly all the uses in modern grammatical discussion, but it is 


1 Griech. Gr., p. 363. ’ Giles, Comp. Philol., pp. 404 f., 475. 

2 Grundr. zu Vorles., p. 3. 4 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 7. 

> Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 54) quotes Suetonius as saying that the first Gk. gr. 
brought to Rome was by Crates Mallotes after the Second Punic War. 


| THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (STNTAZIZ) 385 


too late to make a change now.' Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of 
Philol., 1908, p. 269) says that some syntacticians treat “syntax 
as a rag-bag for holding odds and ends of linguistic observations.” 

(b) Scope or Syntax. But the difficulty is not all with the 
term, for the thing itself is not an absolutely distinct province. 
What the Germans call Lautlehre (‘teaching about sounds’) is 
indeed quite to itself. But when we come to define the exact line 
of demarcation between syntax or the relation of words on the 
one hand and single words on the other the task is not always so 
easy. Ries? indeed in his very able monograph makes the contrast 
between syntax (or construction) and single words. His scheme 
is this: Under Wortlehre (‘science of words’) he puts Formenlehre 
(‘theory of forms’) and Bedeutungslehre (‘meaning of words’).® 
He also subdivides syntax in the same way. Syntax thus treats 
of the binding of words together in all relations. Brugmann? fol- 
lows Delbriick® in rejecting the special use of syntax by Ries. 
Brugmann® considers the breaking-up of the sentence by Ries 
into single words to be wilful and only conventional. It is in. 
deed true that single words have a teaching both as to the word 
itself (form-word, as prepositions) and the form (inflection).’ 
That is to say, two things call for consideration in the case of 
single words: the facts as to the words and the inflection on the 
one hand and the meaning of these facts on the other. Now 
Ries refuses to give the term syntax to the meaning of these 
facts (words, inflections, etc.), but confines syntax to the other 
field of word-relations. One is bound to go against Ries here and 
side with Delbriick and Brugmann. 

(c) CONSTRUCTION OF WorRDS AND CLAUSES. We use syntax, 
therefore, both for construction of the single word and for clauses. 
But one must admit the difficulty of the whole question and not 
conceive that the ancients ran a sharp line between the form and 
the meaning of the form. But, all in all, it is more scientific to 
gather the facts of usage first and then interpret these facts. This 
interpretation is scientific syntax, while the facts cf usage are 
themselves syntax. Thus considered one may properly think 
of syntax in relation to the words themselves, the forms of the 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 364. 2 Was ist Syntax? 1894, p. 142. 

3 Ib., p. 142f. Ries calls it a “naive misuse of the word syntax” not to 
take it in this sense. But he is not himself wholly consistent. 

4 Griech. Gr., p. 363 f.; Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. vu. 

5 Grundr., V, pp: 1 ff. 

6 Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. vii. 7 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 363, 


386 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


words, the clauses and sentences, the general style. Clyde makes 
two divisions in his Greek Syntax, viz. Words (p. 126) and Sen- 
tences (p. 193). But this formal division is artificial. Here, as 
usual, Delbriick has perceived that syntax deals not only with 
words (both Wortarten and Wortformen), but also with the 
sentence as a whole and all its parts (Vergl. Syntax, Erster Teil, 
p. 83). How hard it is to keep syntactical remarks out of acci- 
dence may be seen in Thackeray’s vol. I and in ‘‘Morphology”’ 
in Thumb’s Handbook as well as in Accidence of this book. 

(d) Hisrorican Syntax. But this is not to fall into the old 
pitfall of the Stoic grammarians and apply logic to the phenomena 
of grammar, using the phenomena of various grammatical cate- 
gories previously laid down. Plato indeed first applied logic to 
grammar.! The method of historical grammar and comparative 
grammar has had a long and a hard fight against the logical and 
philosophical method of syntax. But it has at last triumphed. 
“They sought among the facts of language for the illustration 
of theories,’’ as Dr. Wheeler? so well puts it. We still need logic 
and philosophy in syntax, but we call these two agents into ser- 
vice after we have gathered the facts, not before, and after the 
historical and comparative methods have both been applied to 
these facts. Thus alone is it possible to have a really scientific 
syntax, one ‘‘definitely oriented” ‘‘as a social science” dealing 
with the total life of man.’ 

(e) IRREGULARITIES. We shall not therefore be surprised to 
find many so-called “irregularities” in the use of syntactical prin- 
ciples in various Greek writers. This is a point of the utmost im- 
portance in any rational study of syntax. The personal equation 
of the writer must always be taken into consideration. A certain 
amount of elasticity and play must be given to each writer if one 
is to understand human speech, for speech is merely a reflection 
of the mind’s activities. If a tense brings one to a turn, perhaps 
it was meant to do so. This is not to say that there are no bar- 
barisms or solecisms. Far from it. But it is unnatural to expect 
all speakers or writers in Greek to conform slavishly to our mod- - 
ern grammatical rules, of most of which, besides, they were in 
blissful ignorance. The fact is that language is life and responds 
to the peculiarities of the individual temper, and it is to be re- 
membered that the mind itself is not a perfect instrument. The 

1 Sandys, Hist. of Cl. Scholarship, vol. I, p. 90. 


2 The Whence and Whither of the Mod. Sci. of Lang., p. 97. 
Bel bene 


THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (ZYNTAZIZ) 387 


mind is not always clear nor logical. The ellipses, anacolutha, 
etc., of language represent! partially the imperfections of the 
mind. “It often depends on the writer which of the two tenses 
he will use,” Winer? remarks about the aorist and the past per- 
fect. It always depends on the writer which tense and which 
everything else he will use. Pray, on whom else can it depend? 
The writer happens to be doing the writing. He decides whether 
he will conform to the usual construction or will give added pi- 
quancy by a variation. This assumes, of course, that he is an 
educated writer. If he is not, he will often have the piquancy 
just the same without knowing it. “Syntactical irregularities are 
numerous in Greek,’’ Clyde* observes, and, he might have added, 
in all other living languages. Greek is not, like “ Esperanto,’ 
made to order by any one man. In point of fact what we call 
idioms are the very peculiarities ((é.wyuara) which mark it off from 
other languages or at least characterize it. Some of these idioms 
spring out of the common intelligence of men and belong to many 
tongues, others mark the variations of certain minds which gain 
a following. Compare the rapid spread of ‘‘slang”’ to-day, if it 
happens to be a “taking phrase.” Hence rules of syntax ought 
not to be arbitrary, though many of them are. Those that really 
express the life of language are in harmony with the facts. In 
general I would say that the fewer rules one gives the better for 
the student and for the facts. 

V. The Method of this Grammar. 

(a) PRINCIPLES, NoT RuutEs. As far as possible principles and 
not rules will be sought. The Greek grammarian is an interpreter 
of the facts, not a regulator of the facts. This point calls for 
special emphasis in syntax where the subjective element comes in 
so largely. 

(6b) THe ORIGINAL SIGNIFICANCE. The starting-point there- 
fore in the explanation of any given idiom is to find the original 
significance. This is not always possible, but it generally is. His- 
torical and comparative grammar lend strong help in this en- 
deavour. Always the best place to begin is the beginning if you 
can find it. 

(c) Form AND Function. I would not insist that form and 
function always correspond. One does not know that the two 
did so correspond in the beginning in all instances. It is hard to 
prove a universal proposition. But certainly one is justified in 
beginning with one function for one form wherever he finds it to 

1 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 4f. 2 W.-Th., p. 276. 8 Synt., p. 5. 


388 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


be true. Burton! says: “It is by no means the case that each 
form has but one function, and that each function can be dis- 
charged by but one form.”’ Certainly the same function can come 
to be discharged by various forms, as is the case with the loca- 
tive and dative infinitive forms (AaBety, dxodca). But that is not 
to say that originally the locative and dative verbal substantive 
were identical in idea. The Sanskrit completely disproves it. It 
may very well be true that each form had one function originally, 
whereas later the same function came to be expressed by various 
forms. As a starting-point, therefore, one may assume, till he 
learns otherwise, that form and function correspond. ‘The neces- 
sity of getting at the ground-idea of an idiom is rightly emphasized 
by Delbriick (Grundlagen, p. 1). It may indeed come to pass as 
in the English “but,” that the one form may be used for most 
of the parts of speech (Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 237 f.).. On 
the whole subject of the agreement of form and idea see Kiihner- 
Gerth, I, pp. 64-77. 

(d) DEVELOPMENT. But the beginning is not the end. The ac- 
tual development of a given idiom in the Greek language up to the 
N. T. time must be observed. Each idiom has a history. Now it 
cannot be expected that the space can be given to the actual work- 
ing-out of each idiom in history as Jannaris has done in his His- 
torical Grammar, or minute comparison at every point by means 
of comparative grammar. What is essential is that the gram- 
marian shall have both these points in mind as he seeks to explain 
the development from the etymological basis. This is the only 
secure path to tread, if it can be found. Burton? indeed distin- 
guishes sharply between historical and exegetical grammar and 
conceives his task to be that of the exegetical grammarian. For 
myself I regard exegetical grammar as the last stage in the pro- 
cess and not to be dissociated from the historical. Indeed how 
a Greek idiom is to be represented in English is a matter of little 
concern to the Greek grammarian till the work of translation is 
reached. The Greek point of view is to be observed all through 
the process till translation comes. It is Greek syntax, not English. 

(e) ContExt. There is one more stage in the interpretation 
~ of the Greek idiom. That is the actual context in any given in- 
stance. The variation in the total result is often due to the dif- 
ference in the local colour of the context. The same idiom with 
a given etymology may not have varied greatly in the long course 
of history save as it responds to the context. In a word, etymol- 

1 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 1. 2510, ahisess 


THE MEANING OF SYNTAX (STNTAZIS) 389 


ogy, history, context are the factors that mark the processes in 
the evolution of a Greek idiom in a given case. These are the 
things to keep constantly in mind as we approach the idioms of 
Greek syntax. We may not always succeed in finding the solu- 
tion of every idiom, but most of them will yield to this process. 
The result is to put syntax on a firmer scientific basis and take it 
out of the realm of the speculative subjective sciences. 

(f) TRANSLATION. This is the translation of the total result, 
not of the exact Greek idiom. Translation crisply reproduces the 
result of all the processes in harmony with the language into 
which the translation is made, often into an utterly different 
idiom. It is folly to reason backwards from the translation to the 
Greek idiom, for the English or German idiom is often foreign to 
the Greek and usually varies greatly from the original Greek. 
English is English and Greek is Greek. Syntax is not transla- 
tion, though it is the only safe way to reach a correct transla- 
tion. Exegesis is not syntax, but syntax comes before real 
exegesis. The importance of syntax is rightly appreciated by 
Gildersleeve.! 

(g) Limits or Syntax. After all is done, instances remain where 
syntax cannot say the last word, where theological bias will in- 
evitably determine how one interprets the Greek idiom. Take téare 
in Ac. 1:5, for instance. In itself the word can be either locative or 
instrumental with Barritw. So in Ac. 2:38 els does not of itself 
express design (see Mt. 10:41), but it may be so used. When the 
grammarian has finished, the theologian steps in, and sometimes 
before the grammarian is through. 


1 Synt. of Class. Gk., p.iv. C.andS., Sel. fr. the LXX, p. 22, observe that the 
life of a language lies in the syntax and that it is impossible to translate syntax 
completely. The more literal a translation is, like the LX-X, the more it fails 
in syntax. 


CHAPTER X 
THE SENTENCE 


I. The Sentence and Syntax. In point of fact syntax deals 
with the sentence in its parts and as a whole. And yet it is not 
tautology to have a chapter on the sentence, a thing few gram- 
mars do. It is important to get a clear conception of the sentence 
as well as of syntax before one proceeds to the work of detailed 
criticism. The sentence is the thing in all its parts that syntax 
treats, but the two things are not synonymous. At bottom gram- 
mar is teaching about the sentence.! 

II. The Sentence Defined. 

(a) CoMPLEX CONCEPTION. A sentence is the expression of 
the idea or ideas in the speaker’s mind. It is an opinion (senten- 
tia) expressed (a’roredyjs Adyos). This idea is in itself complex. 
It is this combination of ‘the small coin of language” into an 
intelligible whole that we call a sentence.2. Just a mere word 
accidentally expressed is not a sentence. “The sentence is the 
symbol whereby the speaker denotes that two or more ideas have 
combined in his mind.’’? 

(b) Two EssentTrAL Parts. Only two parts are essential to 
this complex intelligible whole to form a sentence. These two 
parts are subject and predicate. A statement is made about 
something and thus an idea is expressed. These two parts are 
called substantive and verb, though the line of distinction be- 
tween substantive and verb was originally very dim, as is now 
often seen in the English (“laugh,”’ ‘“‘touch,”’ “work,” etc.). 
Many modern linguists hold that the verb is nominal in origin, 


1 K.-G.,I, p.1. Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. 623; Delbriick, Vergl. 
Synt.,.1. Tl, pp. 73-85: 

2 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 235. Opposed to this idea of a sentence 
as due to synthesis is the modern psychological definition of Wundt who 
defines a sentence as ‘‘die Gliederung einer Gesamtvorstellung.”’ 

3 Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, Intr. to the Study of the Hist. of Lang., 
1891, p. 93. Cf. Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. iii; Sayce, Prin. of Comp. 
Philol., p. 136. 

390 


THE SENTENCE 391 


since some primitive languages know only nominal sentences. 
We do not know which is the oldest, subject or predicate... In 
the Greek verb indeed subject and predicate are united in the 
one form, the original sentence.? 

(c) ONE-MEMBERED SENTENCE. ‘The sentence in form may be 
very brief, even one word in truth. Indeed the long sentence may 
not express as much as the short one. In moments of passion an 
exclamation may be charged with more meaning than a long ram- 
bling sentence.? We have plenty of examples of one-word sentences 
in the N. T., like awéyer (Mk. 14:41), rpodnrevoov (Mk. 14 : 65), 
mpoexoucda (Ro. 3:9), de\w (Mt. 8: 3), odxi (Lu. 1:60). Com- 
pare also zopev@nrt, épxov, moincov (Mt. 8 : 9). 

(d) EvuieticAL SENTENCE. Indeed, as seen in the case of ovdyi 
(Lu. 1 : 60) the sentence does not absolutely require the expression 
of either subject or predicate, though both are implied by the 
word used. This shortening or condensation of speech is com- 
mon to all the Indo-Germanic languages.4 Other examples of 
such condensation are the vocative, as xipre (Mt. 8: 2), with which 
compare tmaye, Latava (Mt. 4: 10), the interjections like aye (Jas. 
5:1), éa (Lu. 4 : 34), idol (Rev. 14: 14), ide (Jo. 1 : 29), obai (Rev. 
8:13). These interjections may be used alone, as éa (Lu. 4 : 34), 
or with other words, as otai and te above. Cf. Martha’s Nai, 
Kipre (Jo. 11 : 27), two sentences. Jo. 11 : 35 (é5axpvoev 6 ’Incots) 
is the shortest verse, but not the shortest sentence in the N. T. 

(e) Onty PrepicaTE. The subject may be absent and the 
predicate will still constitute a sentence, i.e. express the complex 
idea intended. This follows naturally from the preceding para- 
graph. The predicate may imply the subject. The subject in 
Greek is involved in the verbal personal ending and often the 
context makes it clear what the subject really is. Indeed the 
Greek only expressed the personal subject as a rule where clear- 
ness, emphasis or contrast demanded it. The N. T., like the 
kown in general, uses the pronominal subject more frequently than 
the older Greek (cf. English). Often a glance at the context is 


1 Thompson, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. xv. Delbriick (Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., p. 77) 
quotes Schleicher as saying that nouns either have or had case-forms, verbs 
either have or had pers. endings, and that all words were originally either nouns 
or verbs. But it is not quite so easy as that unless pronouns be included in 
nouns. 20 KGa lipeZs 

$ Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 236. On sentence-building see Brug., 
Kurze vergl. Gr., III, pp. 623-774. 

4 Tb., p. 624f. The mod. Gk. shows it (Thumb, Handb., p. 179). Sir W. 
R. Nicoll in Br. W. instances the Scotch ‘‘aweel.” 


392 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


all that is needed, as with kal wapeyivovro xai éBarrifovro (Jo. 3: 
23), éoxovrar (Mk. 2:3), etc. Sometimes indeed close attention is 
required to notice a change of subject which is not indicated. 
So kal éhayov ravres Kal ExopTacbycav, Kal npav TO TeEptocevov TaV 
kvacwatrwv (Mt. 14:20). For this change of subject with no indi- 
cation see Lu. 8:29; Jo. 19:31; 2 Cor. 3:16; 1 Jo. 5:16. Some- 
times the subject is drawn out of the verb itself, as in cadrioe (1 
Cor. 15:52), ‘the trumpet shall trumpet.’ So in otre yayotouw 
obre yautCovrac (Mt. 22:30) men have to be supplied with the first 
and women with the second verb. God is considered by some 
the unexpressed, but well-known subject, as with Bpexe. (Mt. 5: 
45), elpney (Ac. 13 : 34), Neyer (Eph. 4:8), dyoiv (Heb. 8 : 5). 
Often what is said is a matter of common remark or usage and 
the subject is designedly concealed, indefinite subject. So when 
Paul uses ¢yciv (2 Cor. 10:10) of his opponent unless we follow 
B and read ¢aci. The plural is very common in this sense as érav 
dvedicowow tuas (Mt. 5:11), unre ovdAdeyovow; (Mt. 7: 16), as de- 
youow (Rey. 2:24) like German man sagt, French on dit. Cf. 
also, not to pile up examples, Mt. 8:16; Mk. 10:13; Lu. 17: 
23; Jo. 15:6; 20:2; Ac. 3:2; Rev. 12:6. ‘This general or rhe- 
torical plural appears in rpocdépovow and divavra (Heb. 10:1) if 
the text is genuine. Moulton (Prol., p. 58) cites «démrovtes 
(Eurip. I. T., 13859). Sometimes the plural purposely conceals 
the identity of the person referred to, as when reOvjxacw (Mt. 
2:20) is used of Herod the Great. The same principle applies to 
airodow (Lu. 12:20). Then again the verb may imply the sub- 
ject, as with eGpeéev (Jas. 5:17), améver (Mk. 14:41), Gye (Lu. 
24:21), od pédrer cor (Mt. 22:16), ef rbxor (1 Cor. 14:10). Cf. dpe 
eyevero (Mk. 11:19). So the modern Greek still (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 179). Usually, then, such a verb in the N. T. is in the passive 
voice, so that the subject is involved in the action of the verb. 
Thus perpnOncerar (Mk. 4:24), dofjoerar (Mk. 4:25), amioreberac 
and duodoyetra (Ro. 10: 10), ozeiperar and éyeiperar (1 Cor. 15: 42), 
etc. Sometimes indeed a verb appears to be without a sub- 
ject, when really it is not. So ésrw 6€ (2 Cor. 12:16) has the 
previous sentence as the subject. In 1 Pet. 2:6 the subject of 
mepiexer iS the following quotation. In Ac. 21:35 cvvéBn has as 
its subject the infinitive BacrafecOa. So in general whenever the 
infinitive is used as subject, the verb is not without a subject, 
as aveBn emioxepacba (Ac. 7:23). The examples are numer- 
ous, as ékeorw movetv (Mt. 12:2), Sote ypdyar (Lu. 1:3), Se 
1 See Viteau, Et. sur le Grec du N. T., Sujet, Compl. et Attr., p. 55 f. 


THE SENTENCE 393 


drépxerbar (Jo. 4:4), mpérov early tAnpdoa (Mt. 3:15), xadfxev CAv 
(Ac. 22 : 22), evdéxerar arodeobar (Lu. 13 : 33), and even davévoexrép 
éorw Tod wn édetv (Lu. 17: 1) and éyévero rod eicedOetv (Ac. 10 : 25) 
where the genitive infinitive form has become fixed. ’Eyévero does 
indeed present a problem by itself. It may have the simple in- 
finitive as subject, as dvamopevecOar (Lu. 6: 1) and eicedOety (Lu. 6: 
6). Cf. Mk. 2:15. But often kai éyévero or éyévero 6€ is used with 
a finite verb as a practical, though not the technical, subject. 
So Kal éyévero, €dddouv (Lu. 2:15), eyevero 5€, cuvivrncey (Lu. 9: 
37). So also kal éora, exxeS (Ac. 2:17). One is strongly re- 
minded of the similar usage in the LXX, not to say the Hebrew 
“771. Moulton! prefers to think that that was a development from 
the xow7y (papyri) usage of the infinitive with yivoua as above, but 
I see no adequate reason for denying a Semitic influence on this 
point, especially as the LXX also parallels the other idiom, kal 
évyeveto kal jv didacxwv (Lu. 5:17, ef. 5:1, 12, etc.), a construction 
so un-Greek and so like the Hebrew vav. Here xai almost equals 
67. and makes the second xai clause practically the subject of 
eyevero. The use of a 67: or tva clause as subject is common 
either alone or in apposition with a pronoun. Cf. Mt. 10:25 
(iva); 1 Jo. 5:9 (67); Jo. 15:12 (a). Im a case like dpxet (Jo. 
14 : 8), avijxey (Col. 3:18), EXoyicbn (Ro. 4:3) the subject comes - 
easily out of the context. So also the subject is really implied 
when the partitive genitive is used without the expression of ruves 
Or ToAAol as auvpAOov 6é€ Kai T&v pabyrdv (Ac. 21:16) and efray ovvy 
éx Tov pabyrav (Jo. 16:17), a clear case of the ablative with &. 
The conclusion of the whole matter is that the subject is either 
expressed or implied by various linguistic devices. The strictly 
impersonal verbs in the old Greek arose from the conception of 
6eds as doing the thing.’ 

(f) OnLy SuBsEctT. Likewise the predicate may be absent 
and only implied in the subject. Yet naturally the examples of 
this nature are far fewer than those when the predicate implies 
the subject. Sometimes indeed the predicate merely has to be 
mentally supplied from the preceding clause, as with @dBdueba 
(2 Cor. 1:6), dyarnoe (Lu. 7: 42), exe (Lu. 20:24), AauBaver 
(Heb. 5:4). Cf. Eph. 5:22. It may be that the verb would be 


MN Veerel bn yep, 1M 

2 On the whole matter of subjectless sentences see Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 
3. Tl., pp. 23-37. Cf. Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 35-41, for classical illustra- 
tions of the absence of the subject. Cf. also Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436, 
for exx. in the pap. of the absence of the subject in standing formulas. 


394 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


slightly changed in form, if expressed, as cxavdadtcOnooua (Mk. 
14 : 29), btrotaccécOwoav (Eph. 5:24), rideuev (2 Cor. 3:13), ete. 
Sometimes again the affirmative is to be inferred from a negative 
as in 1 Cor. 7:19; 10:24. In Mk. 12:5 the principal verb has 
to be drawn from the idea of the two participles d€povres and dazok- 
revvovtes. In particular with ef 6€ wp (or un ye) the verb is always 
absent (as Mt. 6:1), so that the idiom becomes a set phrase (Lu. 
10:6; 18:9). In Ro. 5:3 with od povoy 6é, cavxwpeba is to be 
supplied, and in 5:11 cafycdpeba. In Ro. 9:10 the verb has to 
come from verse 9 or 12. In Ro. 4:9 probably Xeyerar (cf. verse 
6) is to be supplied. Often e?7rev is not expressed, as in Ac. 25 : 22. 
In Ro. 5:18 Winer! supplies a7é8y in the first clause and azofy- 
cerat in the second. In 2 Cor. 9:7 he likewise is right in suggest- 
ing 607» from the context, as in Gal. 2:9 after va we must 
mentally insert ebayyedcfapeba, ebayyedlfwrrat. In epistolary salu- 
tations it is not difficult to supply Aeye or Aeyer xalpe as in 
Jas. 1:1; Ph. 1:1; Rev. 1:4. These are all examples of very 
simple ellipsis, as in 2 Pet. 2 : 22 in the proverb. Cf. also 1 Cor. 
As 21 2: CormbeslowGalee neo: 

(g) VERB NOT THE ONLY PREDICATE. But the predicate is not 
quite so simple a matter as the subject.. The verb indeed is the 
usual way of expressing it, but not the only way. The verb «iui, 
especially éo7i and eiciv, may be merely a “‘form-word” like a 
preposition and not be the predicate. Sometimes it does express 
existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in éya eiui (Jo. 
8:58) and 7 @adacoa ovx éotw err (Rev. 21:1). Cf. Mt. 23 : 30. 
But more commonly the real predicate is another word and eiyi 
merely serves as a connective or copula. Thus the predicate may 
be complex. With this use of eiui as copula (‘form-word’’) the 
predicate may be another substantive, as 6 aypés éorw 6 Kdcpos 
(Mt. 13:38); an adjective, as 76 ¢péap éorl Badd (Jo. 4:11); a 
prepositional phrase, as éyyts cou 76 pjua éorwv (Ro. 10:8); and 
especially the participle, as jv didacoxav (Mt. 7:29). Other verbs, 
besides eiui, may be used as a mere copula, as yivoua (Jo. 1: 14), 
kabiorayar (Ro. 5:19), éornxa (Jas. 5:9), and in particular ¢ai- 
vouat (2 Cor. 18:7), trapxw (Ac. 16:3).2 Predicative amplifica- 


1 W.-Th., p. 587. Cf. also Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 41-44, for class. exx. 
of the omission of the pred. The ellipsis of the pred. is common in the Attic 
inscr. Cf. Meisterh., p. 196. 

2 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 3. Tl., p. 12, for the origin of the copula, and 
pp. 15-22 for the adj., adv., subst. (oblique cases as well as nom. as pred.). 
Cf. also Gildersleeve,.Gk. Synt., pp. 30-35. 


THE SENTENCE 395 


tions belong to apposition and will be so treated as an expansion 
of the predicate. The subject also has amplifications. 

(h) CopuLa NoT Necessary. Naturally this copula is not al- 
ways considered necessary. It can be readily dispensed with when 
both subject and the real predicate are present. This indeed is the 
most frequent ellipsis of -all in all stages of the language, especially 
the form écrit. But strictly speaking, the absence of the copula is 
not ellipsis, but a remnant of a primitive idiom, since some primi- 
tive tongues could do without the copula. Still, as Blass! observes, 
the ellipsis never became a fixed usage save in a few phrases like 
djdov Sre (1 Cor. 15:27) or ore. . . dpdov (Gal. 3:11). In tya ci 
(Mt. 9:4), yerynrac has dropped out.’ There are many idiomatic uses 
of ri without the copula. So ri juty cat cot (Mk. 1 : 24), ri apos oé 
(Jo. 21 : 22), obros dé ri (Jo. 21:21), ri dpedos (Jas. 2:14), 7h ov 
and ris 7 apédera (Ro. 3:1), 7i yap (Ro. 3:3), ete. Exclamations, 
as well as questions, show the absence of the copula. Thus os 
wpato. (Ro. 10:15), as avetepatynra (Ro. 11 : 33), weyadn 4} "Apreus 
"E¢eciov (Ac. 19:28). As a matter of fact the copula may be 
absent from any kind of sentence which is free from ambiguity, 
as paxaptor of kabapoi (Mt. 5:8), Inoods Xpuorés . . . 6 adrds (Heb. 
13:8), d&£vos 6 épyarns (Mt. 10:10), Ere puxpdv (Jo. 14 : 19); ere yap 
puxpov dcov bcov (Heb. 10 : 37), mas . . . d&aerpos NOyou dixacocbyns (Heb. 
5:13), ws of broxpitait (Mt.6:16). Cf. Ro. 11:15 f. for several 
further examples, which could be easily multiplied not only for 
éori and eici, but for other forms as well, though the examples for 
the absence of evi and ef are not very numerous. Forms of the 
imp., fut., imper., subj., opt., inf. and part. (often) are absent 
also. For eipi see 2. Cor. 11:6. For e see Jo. 17:21; Gal. 4:7 
bes. Observe doyifouae and idirys in 2 Cor. 11:5 f., but the 
participle a\\’ & ravi davepwoartes & Taow eis buds goes over to 
the literary plural, about which see further in this chapter. Com- 
pare also 2 Cor. 8:23. In Mk. 12 : 26 eiui is absent, though éyw 
is used. For further examples of the absence of éoyvev see Ro. 
5:17; Ph. 3:15. For e see Rev. 15:4 (drt pévos éctos). In Jo. 
14:11 both eiui and éoriy are absent, dru eyo & 7TH TaTpi Kal 
maTnp ev éuot. The imperfect jv may also be absent as with 
dvoua (Lu. 2: 25), dvoua aire (Jo. 3:1), kat 76 dvoya ad’ris (Lu. 1: 
5). In 1 Pet. 4:17 we find wanting éoriv and éorm. Cf. also 
1 Cor. 15:21 for jv and éora. The other moods, besides indica- 
tive, show occasional lapses of this copula. Thus the subjunctive 
f after émws (2 Cor. 8:11) and after iva (2 Cor. 8:13). The op- 

Grol Ne. Gk., p. 73. Cf. Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 41-48, 


e 
O 
@ 


396 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tative ein more frequently drops out in wishes, as xapis byty Kat 
eionvn (Ro. 1:7), 6 6€ Beds elpnyns wera TavTwy budv (Ro. 15 : 33), 
irews cor (Mt. 16:22). As Blass! observes, in the doxologies like 
evAoyntos 6 Geos (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3) one may supply either 
éotiy or ely or even éorw, though Winer? strongly insists that ein 
is necessary because of the LX X examples. But Blass very prop- 
erly points to Ro. 1:25, 6s éorw ebdAoynros eis Tos aidvas. Cf. also 
1 Pet. 4:11, where A drops éoriv. The imperative shows a few 
examples of the dropping of éore as with the participles in Ro. 
12:9, though, of course, only the context can decide between the 
indicative and imperative. Winer? is right against Meyer in re- 
fusing to supply éo7eé after the second & @ (simply resumptive) in 
Eph. 1:18. But some clear instances of the absence of éorw 
appear, as in Col. 4:6 6 NOyos tuey mavtore & xapiTt, Mt. 27:19 
unoev cot, 2 Cor. 8:16 xapis 7G Oe, Heb. 13:4 rimos 6 yapos. 
The infinitive efvac is present in Ph. 3:8, but absent in Ph. 
3:7. The participle shows a similar ellipsis as in Jo. 1 : 50 etéov 
oe UroKaTw THs ouxjs, Lu. 4:1 "Inaots 6€ tAnpns. The other verbs 
used as copula may also be absent if not needed, as with yivouac 
(Mii G20; sAculOR toy 

The absence of the copula with idob is indeed like the construc- 
tion after the Heb. 535 as Blass* points out, but it is also in 
harmony with the xow7 as Moulton® shows. But it is especially 
frequent in the parts of the N. T. most allied to the O. T. Like 
other interjections ido) does not need a verbal predicate, though 
it may have one. As examples see Mt. 17:5; Lu. 5:18; Rev. 
4:1. In the last example both eféov and iédod occur and the con- 
struction follows, now one now the other, as is seen in verse 4. 

(2) THe Two RaptiatTina Foct OF THE SENTENCE. Thus, as 
we have seen, the subject and predicate are the two foci of the 
sentence regarded as an ellipse. Around these two foci all the 
other parts of the sentence radiate, if there are any other parts. 
The sentence may go all the way from one abrupt word to a period 
a couple of pages long, as in Demosthenes or Isocrates. School- 
boys will recall a sentence in Thucydides so long that he forgot to 


finish it. Giles® speaks of the sentence as a kingdom with many 


provinces or a house with many stories. That is true potentially. 

But the sentence is elastic and may have only the two foci (sub- 

ject and predicate) and indeed one of them may exist only by im- 
1 Greol NL keane cae 4 Gr. of N. T. Gk, ip. 74. 


2 W.-Th., p. 586, ST Proline 
3 Ib, 6 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 236. 


THE SENTENCE 397 


plication. The context can generally be relied on to supply the 
other focus in the mind of the speaker or writer. Thus by the 
context, by look and by gesture, words can be filled to the full 
and even run over with meanings that of themselves they would 
not carry. Emotion can make itself understood with few words. 
The matters here outlined about the Greek sentence apply to 
Greek as a whole and so to the N. T. Greek. 

(j) VARIETIES OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. It is immaterial 
whether the simple sentence, which is the oldest sentence, be de- 
clarative, interrogative or imperative. That affects in no way the 
essential idea. All three varieties occur in great abundance in 
the N. T. and need not be illustrated. So likewise the simple sen- 
tence may be affirmative or negative. That is beside the mark 
in getting at the foundation of the sentence. All these matters 
(and also abstract and concrete) are mere accidents that give 
colour and form, but do not alter the organic structure. For an 
extensive discussion of the various kinds of independent sen- 
tences in the N. T. (declarative, interrogative, hortatory, wish, 
command) see Viteau, Syntaxe des Propositions, pp. 17-40. The 
matter will be discussed at length in the chapter on Modes. 

II. The Expansion of the Subject. | 

(a) IpbeA-WorpDs AND Form-Worps. There are indeed, as al- 
ready seen, two sorts of words in general in the sentence, idea- 
words and form-words, as the comparative grammars teach us.! 
The idea-words (called by Aristotle ¢@wvat onuartixat) have an inner 
content in themselves (word-stuff), while the form-words (dwvai 
donuar) express rather relations? between words. Substantive, 
verb, adjective, adverb are idea-words, and pronouns, prepositions, 
some adverbs (place, time, etc.), the copula are form-words. In 
reality the form-words may have been originally idea-words (cf. 
eiui, for instance, and the prepositions). The distinction is a real 
one, but more logical than practical. The form-words, when 
prepositions, really help out the meanings of the cases. 

(b) ConcorRD AND GOVERNMENT. Clyde? offers another distinc- 
tion, that between concord and government, which has something 
in it if it is not pushed too far. ‘‘In concord, the substantive 
is, as it were, a syntactical chief, and all his followers wear 
the same badge as himself; in government, the substantive ap- 
pears, as it were, in various conditions of service, and is dressed 
each time according to the particular function he discharges.” 


1 Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. 631. 
Jae Are 3 Gk. Synt., p. 126. 


398 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


He uses concord where the substantive is king and government 
where the verb rules. There is something in this distinction be- 
tween the two parts of the sentence, only at bottom the verb has 
concord too as well as the substantive, as can be shown, and as 
Clyde really admits by the term congruity for the case-relations 
with the verb. This distinction is not one between subject and 
predicate, but between substantive and verb. 

(c) THE GROUP AROUND THE SuBJECT. This may be formed 
in various ways, as, for instance, by another substantive, by an 
adjective, by the article, by a pronoun, by an adverb, by a prep- 
ositional phrase (adjunct), by subordinate clause.1. Each of these 
calls for illustration and discussion. ‘They may be explained in 
inverse order for practical reasons. 

1. For Subordinate Clause take Lu. 1:48. 

2. With the Article. In Ro. 7:10 we have 7 évroX\y} % eis Cwnv. 
Here the article shows that this prepositional phrase or adjunct 
is under the wing of the substantive évro\yn. In the chapter on 
the Article this matter will call for more elaborate discussion. For 
the article and pronoun take otros 6 ’Inaods (Ac. 1:11). 

3. The Adverb. As examples of adverbs with substantives take 
TH viv ’lepovoadny (Gal. 4 : 25) and 7 6€ avw “Iepovcadny (verse 26). 

4. The Adjective. The origin of the adjective and its close 
relation to the substantive was discussed under Declensions 
(chapter VII) and will be further shown in the chapter on Adjec- 
tives in Syntax. Take as an example 6 rowuny 6 kados (Jo. 10: 11). 

5. The Substantwe. The earliest and always a common way 
of expanding the subject was by the addition of another substan- 
tive. It was done in either of two ways. 

(a) By an oblique case, usually the genitive. Even the dative 
may occur. The ablative is seen in £évor ray dcaOyxav (Eph. 2 : 12). 
But the genitive, the case of genus or kind, is the case usually 
employed to express this subordinate relation of one word to 
another. ‘This whole matter will be discussed under the genitive 
case and here only one example will be mentioned, 6 rarnp ris 
doéns (Eph. 1:17), as illustrating the point. 

(8) Apposition. This was the earliest method. Apposition is 
common to both subject and predicate. Sometimes indeed the 


1 As a matter of fact any substantive, whatever its place in the sentence, 
may be the nucleus of a similar grouping. But this is a further subdivision to 
be noticed later. On the grouping of words around the subst. see Delbriick, 
Vergl. Synt., 3. Tl., pp. 200-221. For various ways of grouping words around 
the subj. in a Gk. sentence see K.-G., I, p. 52. 


THE SENTENCE 399 


genitive is used where really the substantive is in apposition, as 
mepl Tov vaod Tov cwuaTos aitod (Jo. 2:21), a predicate example 
where “temple” and “body” are meant to be identical. So with 
 olkia Tov oxyvous (2 Cor. 5:1) and many other examples. But in 
general the two substantives are in the same case, and with the 
subject, of course, in the nominative. As a matter of fact apposi- 
tion can be employed with any case. The use of dvqp, avOpwros, 
yuvn with words in apposition seems superfluous, though it is 
perfectly intelligible. The word in apposition conveys the main 
idea, as avnp mpodqrns (Lu. 24:19), avOpwiros oixodeorérns (Mt. 
21:33). Cf. dvdpes adedpoi (Ac. 1: 16) and avdpa dovea (Ac. 3 : 14). 
So also dvépes Iopandeirar (Ac. 2 : 22), avipes ’A@nvaiae (Ac. 17: 22), 
an idiom common in the Attic orators. Such apposition, of 
course, is not confined to the subject, but is used in any case in 
every sort of phrase. So mpos yuvatka xnpay (Lu. 4 : 26), avOpamrw 
oixodeoroTn (Mt. 13:52, but note also 21:33), Liuwvros Bupoéws 
(Ac. 10:32). Sometimes the word in apposition precedes the 
other, though not usually. Thus 6 kédcyos ris déixias, 7 yAGoou 
(Jas. 3:6); kal yap ro macxa hudy értOn, Xpiords (1 Cor. 5:7). 
But this is largely a matter of definition. The pronoun, of 
course, may be the subject, as éyw “Incots (Rev. 22: 16). So 
éya Ilat\os (Gal. 5:2). Cf. vdv byuets of Paproator (Lu. 11:39). 
The word in apposition may vary greatly in the precise result 
of the apposition, a matter determined wholly by the word 
itself and the context. Thus in ’ABpadu 6 tarpiapxns (Heb. 7:4) 
a descriptive title is given. Cf. also ei éya évfa tyav rods rddas, 
6 kbpwos kal 6 dddoxados (Jo. 13:14). Partitive or distributive ap- 
position is common, when the words in apposition do not cor- 
respond to the whole, as of 6€ duednoayres amHdOov, Os pev eis TOV 
tduov aypov, bs 6€ éxl rhv éuroplay atrod (Mt. 22:5). Often the 
word in apposition is merely epexegetic, as 7 éopT) Ta&v “lovdaiwy 
 oknvornyia (Jo. 7:2). Av’rés is sometimes used in emphatic 
apposition, as 6 Xpioros Kepady THs exkAyolas, altos owrnp Tod cwpa- 
tos (Eph. 5:23). The phrase ror’ éorv is used in epexegetical 
apposition with the subject, as ddlyou, robr’ €or dra poxal (1 Pet. 
3:20). But the phrase is a mere expletive and has no effect on 
number (as seen above) or case. It can be used indifferently with 
any case as the locative (Ro. 7 : 18), the instrumental (Mk. 7 : 2), 
the accusative (Ac. 19:4; Heb. 13:15; Phil. 12), the genitive 
(Heb. 9:11; 11:16). Any number of words or phrases may be 
in apposition, as in €8A7On 6 draxwv 6 peyas, 6 ddis, 6 Apxatos, O Kadov- 
yevos ArgBoros kal 6 Daravas, 6 rAavav Thy oixovpernv Brnv (Rev. 12:9). 


400 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


An infinitive may be in apposition with the subject, as ob yap 6.4 
vouov » erayyedia, TS “ABpady 7 7TH oTreppate avtod, TO KAnpovomoy avTov 
efvar koopou (Ro. 4:13). Cf. 1 Th. 4:3; 1 Pet. 2:15. Once more, 
a clause with 7c or iva may be in apposition with the subject (or 
predicate either), as airn éoriv » waprupia, 67t SwHnv aimvov edwxev 6 
deds Huty (1 Jo. 5:11) and arn yap éorw H ayarn Tod Beod iva ras 
évro\as av’tod typ@yuev (1 Jo. 5:3). Cf. Jo. 6:29, 39, 40. For many 
more or less interesting details of apposition in the N. T. and the 
LXX see Viteau, Sujet, Complément et Altribut (1896), pp. 220- 
236. On apposition in John see Abbott, Johannine Grammar, pp. 
36 ff. On the general subject of apposition see Delbriick, Vergl. 
Syntax, Dritter Teil, pp. 195-199; Kiihner-Gerth, I, pp. 281-290. 

IV. The Expansion of the Predicate. 

(a) PREDICATE IN WIDER SENSE. Here predicate must be 
taken in its full sense and not merely the verb, but also the other 
ways of making a predicate with the copula. One cannot do better 
here than follow Brugmann,! though he makes the verb, not the 
predicate, the centre of this group. It is simpler just to take the 
predicate as the other focus answering to the subject. The predi- 
cate can be expanded by other verbs, by substantives, by pro- 
nouns, by adjectives, by adverbs, by prepositions, by particles, by — 
subordinate clauses. 

(b) THE INFINITIVE AND THE PARTICIPLE. These are the 
common ways of supplementing a verb by another verb directly. 
They will both call for special treatment later and can only be 
mentioned here. Cf. 70eXev mapeNOety (Mk. 6 : 48) and \afov ries 
tevicavtes (Heb. 13:2). But sometimes two verbs are used to- 
gether directly without any connective, as zod Oéders érouwaowpev 
(Mt. 26:17). See discussion of asyndeton in this chapter (xu, 
Connection in Sentences). 

(c) THe RELATION BETWEEN THE PREDICATE AND SUBSTAN- 
tives. This matter receives full treatment under the head of 
Cases, and a word of illustration suffices here. It is not the accusa- 
tive case alone that occurs, but any oblique case of the substan- 
tive or pronoun may be used to express this relation, as mpocéxere 
éauvrots (Lu. 21:34). In the case of a copula this case will be the 
nominative and forms the predicate, as airy eorly » éerayyenia (1 
‘JO. #2020) , 

(d) THe Pronoun. It is sometimes the expanded object, as 
ToovTous ¢ynTEl TO’s TpooKkuvodyTas avTov (Jo. 4: 23). 


1 Kurze vergl. Gr., III, p. 634 f. Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 77-82; Delbriick, Vergl. 
Synt., pp. 154-181. 


THE SENTENCE 401 


(ec) Apsectrivis. They are common with predicates and as 
predicates. So dmexareoran byins (Mt. 12:13). Cf. HME rpdros 
(Jo. 20:4), amrapaBarov exe. tHv lepwobvnv (Heb. 7:24). The article 
and the participle often form the predicate, as Mt. 10 : 20. 

(f) Tue ApversB. The use of the adverb with the predicate 
is so normal as to call for no remark. So duoroyoupévws péya éorly 
TO THS evoeBelas pvornpioy (1 Tim. 3:16). Cf. otrws yap mrovaclus 
émcxopnynonoerac (2 Pet. 1:11). 

(g) Prepositions. Let one example serve for prepositions: 
iva tAnpwOjTe els TAY TO TANPWLA TOD Deod (Kjph. 3: 19). 

(h) NEGATIVE PARTICLES ov AND py. These are not con- 
fined to the predicate, but there find their commonest. illus- 
trations. Cf. ob yap rokuGuev (2 Cor. 10:12) and pi yévorro (Gal. 
6: 14). 

(1) SUBORDINATE CLAUSES. Most commonly, though by no 
means always, they are expansions of the predicate. The adverbial 
clauses are mainly so, as éypaya buty iva eidfre (1 Jo. 5:13), and 
most object (substantival) clauses, as the 6re Cw exere aidmoy in 
the same sentence. But adjective clauses likewise often link 
themselves on to a word in the predicate, as év Xpiord "Inood dv 
mpoeeto (Ro. 3 : 24). 

(7) APPOSITION WITH THE PREDICATE AND LooSER AMPLIFICA- 
TIONS. It is common also, but calls for little additional remark. 
_Predicative amplifications, as Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 527) calls 
them, are common. So els 6 éyw éréOnv knpvé (1 Tim. 2:7), dv 
mpoeéeto 6 beds thacrnpiov (Ro. 3:25). The participle with as is 
frequent, as uds ws Kata oapka mepiratovytas (2 Cor. 10:2). CF. 
1 Pet. 2:5. Note also els as eis vidv (Ac. 7:21), a Greek idiom 
parallel to the Hebrew and very abundant in the LXX. A com- 
mon construction is to have a clause in apposition with rodro in 
an oblique case. So we see the accusative as in rodrTo yiwwokere 
ote Hyyixey H Baoirela rod beod (Lu. 10:11), ablative as in peifova 
TaUTns ayarnvy ovdels Exer iva Tis THY PUXHY abrod OF Urép TaV hirwy a’Tod 
(Jo. 15:13), locative & robrw ywawokouev 6tt & a’TS pevower (1 Jo. 
4:13). Cf. Nyw rodro bre ekacTos tuGv eye (1 Cor. 1:12). Like- 
wise the infinitive may be in apposition with roto, as éxpiva éuavT@ 
TovTO, TO mt) Tadw & by mpods twas EMetv (2 Cor. 2:1). Cf. also 
Lu. 22 :37 where 76° xal peta dvouwv édoyicby is in apposition with 
TO yeypappevoy bet TrerecOjAvac év Evol. For an extended predicate 
with numerous classes see Rev. 13:16, move? wavras, to’s puxpovs 
kal Tovs weyadous, Kal Tovs wAovgious Kal Tos TTWXOUS, Kal ToUs EEvOE- 


pous kal Tovs dovdous. 


402 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


V. Subordinate Centres in the Sentence. Each of the words 
or phrases that the subject or predicate groups around itself 
may form a fresh nucleus for new combinations. Thus the long 
sentences with many subordinate clauses resemble the cell mul- 
tiplication in life. The N. T. indeed does not show so many 
complications in the sentence as the more rhetorical writers of 
Athens. In Mt. 7:19 the subject d6evépov has the participle zrovody, 
which in turn has its own clause with un as negative and xapzdv 
Kadov as object. In Jo. 5:36 the predicate éyw has paprupiay as 
object, which has the predicate adjective weifw, which in turn is 
followed by the ablative rod ’Iwavov. This is all too simple to need 
further illustration. Even adverbs may have expansive apposi- 
tives as in de & TH marpide cov (Lu. 4: 23). Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. 
Syntax, pp. 222-227, for discussion of the adjective and its con- 
nection, and p. 228 for the adverb. 

VI. Concord in Person. The concord between subject and 
predicate as to person is so uniform as to call for little remark. 
In Greek the person was originally expressed in the ending. In 
the later Greek the pronoun was increasingly used in addition 
(see chapter on Pronouns). But only ignorance would allow one 
to mix his persons in the use of the verb. The only problem oc- 
curs when the subject comprises two or even all three persons. 
Then, of course, the first prevails over both the second and the 
third. So éya kal 6 rarip & éovev (Jo. 10:30). Cf. Mt. 9:14; 
Lu. 2:48; 1 Cor. 9:6. But in Gal. 1:8 (€av jyets 4 ayyedos ef 
ovpavod evayyeNlonra) the reverse is true either because Paul fol- 
lows the nearest in both person and number or (Winer-Thayer, 
p. 518) because he acknowledges thus the superior exaltation of 
the angel. Then again in cases like Ac. 11: 14 (cw6non od kal ras 
6 oikos cov) the speaker merely uses the person and number of 
the first and most important member of the group. Cf. Ac. 16: 
31. The subject of person thus easily runs into that of number, 
for the same ending expresses both. Sometimes indeed the first 
and second persons are used without any direct reference to the 
speaker or the person addressed. Paul in particular is fond of 
arguing with an imaginary antagonist. In Ro. 2:1 he calls him 
® avOpwre Tas 6 kpivwv. So also 2:3. In Ro. 9:20 Paul is very 
earnest, pevotvye cd ris ef; cf. also 11:17; 14:4. In 1 Cor. 10: 
30 the first person may be used in this representative way. The 
same may be true of Gal. 2:18, but not of 2:19. Ro. 7: 7-25 
is not so clear. The vehemence of passion argues for Paul’s 
own experience, but note ce in 8:2. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 


THE SENTENCE 403 


p. 317. On the whole subject of agreement in person see Del- 
briick, Vergl. Synt., p. 229 f.; Kithner-Gerth, I, p. 82. For change 
in person see 2 Jo. 8; 1 Cor. 10 : 7-10. 

VII. Concord in Number. Here we have a double concord, 
that between subject and predicate (both verb and adjective if 
copula is used) and that between substantive and adjective in 
general. It is simpler, however, to follow another division. 

(a) SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. 

1. Two Conflicting Principles. One follows the grammatical 
number, the other the sense (kava otveow). The formal gram- 
matical rule is, of course, usually observed, a singular subject hav- 
ing a singular verb, a plural subject having a plural verb. This 
is the obvious principle in all languages of the Indo-Germanic 
group. It was once true of the dual also, though never to the 
same extent. Moulton! aptly says: “Many Greek dialects, Ionic 
conspicuously, had discarded this hoary luxury long before the 
common Greek was born.” The Attic gave it a temporary lease 
of life, “but it never invaded Hellenistic, not even when a Hebrew 
dual might have been exactly rendered by its aid.’”’ I doubt, how- 
ever, as previously shown (ch. VII, 1, 3), Moulton’s explanation 
that the dual probably arose in prehistoric days when men could 
count only two. That was indeed a prehistoric time! Probably 
the dual was rather the effort to accent the fact that only two 
were meant, not more, as in pairs, etc. Hence the dual verb even 
in Attic was not always used, and it was an extra burden to carry 
a special inflection for just this idea. No wonder that it vanished 
utterly in the xow7. 

2. Neuter Plural and Singular Verb. But the xown fails to re- 
spond to the Attic rule that a neuter plural inanimate subject takes 
a singular verb. Homer indeed was not so insistent and the “mod- 
ern Greek has gone back completely and exclusively to the use of 
the plural verb in this instance as in others.” The N. T., like the 
xown in general, has broken away from the Attic rule and responds 
more to the sense, and also more often regards a neuter plural as 
really plural. It never was a binding rule, though more so in Attic 
than in Homer. In the vernacular «ow the people treated the 
neuter plural like other plurals. (Radermacher, N. 7’. Gr., p. 96.) 
Usually a neuter plural in the N. T. that has a personal or collective 
meaning has a plural verb.? So éravacrhcovra rexva (Mt. 10 : 21), 

PEL TOUMUeOT 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 78. 


3 Ib. On the whole subject of concord in number see K.-G., I, pp. 82-88; 
Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 3. T]., pp. 230-239; Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., pp. 52-55. 


404. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ta Satpovia miotevovow (Jas. 2:19), vn émienrotow (Mt. 6:32), 7a 
mvebpata mpooérirtov (Mk. 3:11). But the only rule on the matter 
that is true for N. T. Greek is the rule of liberty. The papyri 
show the same variety of usage.! So does the LXX. In the ex- 
amples given above the MSS. often vary sharply and examples 
of the singular verb occur with all of them, éa:uov.a more frequently 
with the singular verb, as elo#ev darmovia moda (Lu. 8:30), but 
mapexadovv in next verse. So in Lu. 4:41 we have dapoma e&jp- 
xero and a little further on 67 féecav. In Jo. 10:4 we see a 
similar change in the same sentence, 7a mpdBata avT@ axodovbet drt 
oldacw. The same indifference to the Attic rule appears about 
things as about persons. Thus iva davepwf Ta Epya Tod Heod (Jo. 
9:3) and éfavynoay ta pnuata (Lu. 24:11). In Rev. 1: 19 we find 
& eloly kal & pédAdNe yevéoOar. The predicate adjective will, of 
course, be plural, even if the verb is singular, as ¢avepa éorw Ta 
rexva (1 Jo. 3:10). Cf. Gal. 5:19. Winer? and (to some extent) 
Blass* feel called on to explain in detail these variations, but one 
has to confess that the success is not brilliant. It is better to re- 
gard this indifference to congruity as chiefly an historical move- 
ment characteristic of the xown as shown above. Even the Attic 
did not insist on a singular verb with a neuter plural of animate 
objects when the number of individuals was in mind. The 
neuter plural was in origin a collective singular. In 1 Cor. 10: 
11 the MSS. differ much between cuvéBavey and —ov. 

3. Collective Substanties. These show a similar double usage. 
Thus we have éxkaOnto rept aitov 6xdos (Mk. 3:32) and so more 
commonly with these collective substantives like dyXos, rA7O0s, 
oixia, dads. But plenty of examples of construction according 
to sense occur. So 6 6€ mdetatos bxdos ~otpwoav (Mt. 21:8). 
Sometimes we have both together, as jKxodotlfer aire SxAos ToXds, 
d7t Cewpovv (Jo. 6:2). Where there was such liberty each writer 
or speaker followed his bent or the humour of the moment. 
The same variation is to be noticed with the participle. Thus 6 
OxAos 6 LI) YwWwoKWY TOV VvouoY éerapaTol eicw (Jo. 7:49). Here the 
predicate is plural with the verb. Cf. also Lu. 23:1. But in Ac. 
5:16 the participle dépovres is plural, though the verb ovrypxero is 
singular like rAqO0s. Cf. also Ac. 21:36; 25: 24; Lu. 2:13. It is 
not, of course, necessary that a predicate substantive should agree 
in number with the subject. So éoré éricrod Xprorod (2 Cor. 3:3). 

4A. The Pindaric Construction. Another complication is possible 


1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 486. 
? W.-Th., p. 514 f, 2 Gr. Of Na be Gk Danis 


THE SENTENCE 405 


when several subjects are united. If the predicate follows this 
compound subject, it is put in the plural nearly always. But the 
“Pindaric construction” (cxAua Ivdapixdv) puts the verb in the 
singular. Blass says German cannot do this, and he ignores 
the N. T. examples.' In Jas. 5:2f. we have a striking ex- 
ample: “O mdodros tuav céontev, Kal Ta tudtia buoy onToBpwra yeyo- 

vev, 0 Xpvao0ds bua Kal 6 apyupos katiwrat. Here xariwra is natural 
like the English translation, ‘is cankered’ (A.V.). Note also 
Mt. 6:19, dzov ons kat Bpdos adavive (‘where moth and rust doth 
corrupt,’ A.V.). Other examples are Mk. 4:41, kal 6 dveuos xal 4 
Garacoa vraxover avt@; 1 Cor. 15: 50, dre capé xal atua Bacrrelay Oeod 
KAnpovoujcar ov dtvatat. Here the principle of anacoluthon sug- 
gested by Moulton? will hardly apply. It is rather the totality 
that is emphasized by the singular verb as in the English exam- 
ples. But when the predicate comes first and is followed by sev- 
eral subjects, anacoluthon may very well be the explanation, as in 
the Shakespearean examples given by Moulton. The simplest ex- 
planation (see under 5) is that the first subject is alone in mind. 
Thus in 1 Cor. 13:13 vuvi 6€ pever riotis, Edmis, ayarn, Ta Tpia 
tavra (cf. English ‘and now abideth faith, hope, love, these three,’ 
like the Greek). Cf. also 1 Tim. 6:4. However, in Mt. 5: 18, éws 
av mapedNOn 6 ovpavos Kal } yn, 1t seems rather the totality that is em- 
phasized as above. See Jo. 12:22. ‘In Rev. 9:12, dod epxerac Ere 
dbo oval wera tabra, probably the neuter conception of the interjec- 
tion prevails, though just before we have 7 oval 7 via. In Lu. 2: 
33, WV 6 TaTHp avTov kal ) unrnp davuafovres, the copula follows one 
plan and the participle another. So also jv xabjuevar (Mt. 27: 61). 
Just so &f6n Mwvojs kal "Hellas cvvAadodvres (Mt. 17:3). Cf. Eph. 
4:17f. In Rev. 21: 16, 76 pijxos cal tO wAGTOS Kai 76 bWos ats ica 
éoriv, the neuter plural adjective and singular copula are regular. 

5. Singular Verb with First Subject. It is very common indeed 
for the verb to have the singular with the first of the subjects. 
Cf. Jo. 2:2, 12; 3:22; 18:15; Ac. 11:14. But on the other hand 
we have rpooropevovrat aitd “laxwBos Kal "Iwavns of viot ZeBedatov 
Vik Uieoo) mei ealsoulail. 2a: 12°-Jo. 21:2; Ac. 5:24. In Ac. 
25 : 23 one participle is singular and the other plural. So in Ac. 
5:29 we meet doxpiHels dé Ilétpos kat of aroctod\on eiray. With 7 


FAD: Dian 09: 

2 Prol., p. 58. Sometimes Shakespeare used a singular verb for the sake of 
metre (Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 65), at other times more like our mod. Eng.: “It 
is now a hundred years since,” etc. Cf. Gk. éorw oi, etc. Cf. also Riem. and 
Goelzer, Synt., p. 18; Giles, Man, of Comp. Philol., pp. 263-268, 


406 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the verb is usually in the singular in the N. T. So Mt. 12:25 
waca ods 7 oikia pepicbetoa Kad’ éavtys ov atabnoera. Cf. also 
Mt. 5:18; 18: 8;) Eph: 5:5. In Gal. 1; 82Blass® thinks at 
would be impossible to have evayyedrfwueba with jets 7 ayyedos. 
But the impossible happens in Jas. 2:15, éav adedpos } adeddy 
yuuvot brapxwow. We have a similar difficulty in English in 
the use of the disjunctive and other pronouns. One _ will 
loosely say: ‘‘If any one has left their books, they can come and 
get them.” 

6. The Literary Plural. We have already mentioned the use 
of the plural in a kind of impersonal way to conceal one’s identity, 
as teOvjxacw (Mt. 2:20), airotow (Lu. 12:20) and the general 
indefinite plural like ws Aeyovow (Rev. 2: 24). The critics disagree 
sharply about it (the literary plural). Blass? flatly denies that we 
have any right to claim this literary plural in Paul’s Epistles be- 
cause he associates others with himself in his letters. Winer? in- 
sists that Paul often speaks in his apostolic character when he 
uses the plural and hence does not always include others. Moul- 
ton‘ considers the matter settled in favour of the epistolary plural 
in the xown. He cites from the papyri several examples. So Tb.P. 
26 (i1/B.c.) dvre pou &v IroNeuaider — rpocerecey nuiv, B.U. 449 (Gi- 
lii/A.D.) akovoas Ott vwOpel’n aywvioduev, J.H.S. xix 92 (4i/A.D.) yxatpe 
Mol, MATEp yAvKuTaTn, Kal dpovrifere Nudv. Dick® has made an ex- 
haustive study of the whole subject and produces parallels from 
late Greek that show how easily éyw and jets were exchanged. 
The matter can be clarified, I think. To begin with, there is no 
reason in the nature of things why Paul should not use the literary 
plural if he wished to do so. He was a man of culture and used to 


books even if he used the vernacular xowy in the main. The late. 


Greek writers did; the papyri show examples of it. G. Milligan 
(Thess., p. 132) cites Tb. P. 58 (ii/B.c.) ebpnxawev — ebpov — BeBov- 
Aevbueba; P. Hib. 44 (iii/B.c.) eypavapyev — dpGvres — wiunv; P. Heid. 
6 (iv/A.D.) micrebouev — ypadw kal ddAvapnow; and an inscription, 
possibly a rescript of Hadrian, O. G.I. S 484, Notwev — [uerereu-] 
Yaunv — BovdrAnbeis — Edokev huctvy — Edokiudoapev — ErloTevoyv — nYynoaunv 
—vouifw. Besides, Blass* admits that we have it in 1 Jo. 1:4, where 
ypapouev does not differ in reality from ypadw of 2:1. But in Jo. 
21: 24 otéauey probably is in contrast to John, who uses ofuae just 


Grol No Te Gk. psu: PEW Loy peole 
2 Ib., p. 166. *Proly p.c6. 

’ Der schriftstell. Plu. bei Paulus (1900), p. 18. 

6 


Gr. of N. T. Gk,, p. 166. 





THE SENTENCE 407 
below. In Jo. 1: 14, as certainly in 1:16, others are associated 
with the writer. The author of Hebrews also uses the singular or 
plural according to the humour of the moment. Thus re6duea— 
éxouev (13 : 18) and the next verse rapaxaXS — droxatacrabd. Cf. 
also 6:1, 3, 9, 11, with 18: 22f. Now as to Paul. In Ro. 1:5 
he has 6c’ od €XaBouev xapw kal aroorod\nv. Surely he is talking of no 
one else when he mentions arooro\nv. Blass! overlooks this word 
and calls attention to xapw as applicable to all. Then again in 
Col. 4:3 jutv is followed in the same verse by dédeua. It is 
clear also in 1 Th. 2:18, 70e\noapev — eyw ev Iladdos. But what 
really settles the whole matter? is 2 Cor. 10:1-11:6. Paul is 
here defending his own apostolic authority where the whole point 
turns on his own personality. But he uses first the singular, then 
the plural. Thus zapaxadd (10: 1), Oapp&, Aoyifoua (10 : 2), orpa- 
revoueda (10:3), quets (10:7), Kavxnowpya, aicxvrOncouar (10:8), 
dofm (10:9), éovev (10:11), xavynooueba (10:18), ete. It is not 
credible that here Paul has in mind any one else than himself. 
Cf. also 2 Cor. 2 : 14-7: 16 for a similar change from singular to 
plural. The use of the literary plural by Paul sometimes does 
not, of course, mean that he always uses it when he has a plural. 
Each case rests on its own merits. Jesus seems to use it also in 
Jo. 3:11, 6 oléauev Nadoduev kal 6 éwpaxayev waptvpoduev. In Mk. 
4 : 30 (1Qs duowmowpev THY Bacrdrelay Tod Geod;) Christ associates others 
with him in a very natural manner. 

(b) SUBSTANTIVE AND ApgectTIvE. The concord between ad- 
jective and substantive is just as close as that between subject 
and verb. This applies to both predicate and attributive adjec- 
tives. Here again number is confined to the singular and the 
plural, for the dual is gone. Cf. in lieu of the dual the curious 
Kapov Kal Katpods Kal fucov Karpod (Rev. 12:14). When adjectives 
and participles deviate from this accord in number or gender 
pee ete ecorsat 2) 2°) Rev. 19.14); it is ‘due to the 
sense instead of mere grammar, xara oiveow. Thus in Mk. 
9:15 we have 6 dydos iddvres, Ac. 3:11 cvvédpayev mas 6 dads 
€xOay Bor, Lu. 2:13 orparias aivolvrwy, Mk. 8:1 dxXov SvyTos Kal py 
éxévrwv (note both), Ac. 21:36 rd7Oos xpafovres, etc. Cf. 6 dxAos 
éraparo (Jo. 7:49). In Ph. 2:6 76 efvac ica Oe the plural adjec- 
tive differs little from tcov in adverbial sense. Cf. tadra ti €oruy 
els rooovrous (Jo. 6 : 9), ri av ein radra (Lu. 15 : 26). 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 166. 


2 Dick, Der schriftstell. Plu. bei Paulus, 1900, p. 53. Milligan, St. Paul’s 
Epist. to the Thess., 1908, p. 131 f. agrees with Dick. 


408 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) REPRESENTATIVE SINGULAR. But other points come up 
also about the number of the substantives. One is the use of 
the singular with the article to signify the whole class. The ex- 
amples are frequent, such as 6 aya6os avOpwros (Mt. 12 : 35), onueta 
Tov amoarédov (2 Cor. 12:12), 6 épyarns (Lu. 10:7), rod “Iovéaiou 
(Ro. 3:1), rov rrwxdv (Jas. 2:6). This discussion about the 
number of nouns could more properly be treated under syntax of 
nouns, but I have no such chapter. Cf. Cases. 

(d) Iptiomatic PLuRAL In Nouns. Abstract substantives oc- 
cur in the plural in the N. T. as in the older Greek, an idiom for- 
eign to English. Thus rdcoveéias (Mk. 7: 22), tpoowrodnupias (Jas. 
2:1). Cf. also dovo. Mt. 15:19; ras wopveias 1 Cor. 7:2. In2 
Cor. 12:20: and 1 Pet. 2:1 both the singular and the plural 
occur in contrast. This use of the plural of abstract substan- 
tives does indeed lay stress on the separate acts. Some words 
were used almost exclusively in the plural, or at any rate the 
plural was felt to be more appropriate. So aiéves in the sense 
_ of ‘world’ (Heb. 1: 2) or ‘eternity,’ as eis rods aidvas trav aiwvwr 
(Gal. 1:5), or with singular and plural, as 70d aidvos rév aiwvwv 
(Eph. 3:21). Cf. also 7a ayia for ‘the sanctuary’ (Heb. 8: 2) and 
ayia ayiwv for ‘the most Holy Place’ (Heb. 9:3). The word ovpa- 
vos is used in the singular often enough, and always so in the Gos- 
pel of John, as 1:32, but the plural is common also. Cf. Paul’s 
allusion to ‘‘third heaven” (2 Cor. 12 : 2), an apparent reflection 
of the Jewish idea of seven heavens. In English we use “the 
heavens”’ usually for the canopy of sky above us, but 4 Bao- 
Nela TV ovpavGy uniformly in the N. T.,as Mt. 3:2. The Hebrew 
p12 is partly responsible for otpavoi. The so-called ‘plural of 
majesty’? has an element of truth in it. For further details see 
Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 88. A number of other words have 
this idiomatic plural, such as ék defav, é& aprotepav, EF ebwvbuwr 
(Mt. 25 : 383), els ra deEva wéepyn (Jo. 21:6), ev Tots deEvots (Mk. 16 : 5), 
amo avatodav (Mt. 2:1), aro dvopdv (Mt. 8: 11), Opa (Ac. 5 : 19), 
midae (Mt. 16:18), xoArou (Lu. 16 : 23). But the singular of some 
of them is also found, as & rf avarodj (Mt. 2:9), ev deéa (Eph. 1: 
20), po ris Oupas (Ac. 12:6). The plural of iuarcov seems to mean 
only fuariov (not x:Twy also) in Jo. 19:23 (cf. 19:2). For the 
plural atuara note Jo. 1:18. The names of feasts are often plural, 
such as ra éyxaivia (Jo. 10 : 22), ra yeveouw (Mk. 6: 21), ra &fvpya 
(Mk. 14:1), yauo. (Mt: 22: 2), ca8Bara (Ac. 17: 2). So also 
some cities have plural names, as ’Iepocd\vua (Mt. 2:1), ’APAvae 
(Ac. 17: 16), Kodoooai (Col. 1: 2). Different are éricrodal (1 Cor. 


THE SENTENCE 409 


16:3), 7a dpybpia (Mt. 27:5), ra dPara (Lu. 3:14), diabFxow (Ro. 
9:4). 

(e) IpIoMATIC SINGULAR IN Nouns. On the other hand the 
singular appears where one would naturally look for a plural. A 
neuter singular as an abstract expression may sum up the whole 
mass. Thus wav 6 in Jo. 6: 37 refers to believers. Cf. also 
Jo. 17:2. The same collective use of the neuter singular is found 
in ro é\atrov (Heb. 7:7). So not 76 yervmuevov (Lu. 1:35) but ray 
TO yeyerynuevoy (1 Jo. 5:4). The same concealment of the person 
is seen In 76 karéxov oldate (2 Th. 2: 6). The neuter plural in- 
deed is very common in this sense, as ra wwpa, ra adobe, etc. (1 Cor. 
1 :27f.). Then again the singular is used where the substantive 
belongs to more than one subject. So mrerwpwuevny evere rH Kap- 
diay (Mk. 8:17), @evro &v TH Kapdia aitav (Lu. 1 : 66), érecav énl 
mpoowmrov a’rav (Mt. 17:6), repifwodpevor tHv dodtv budv (Eph. 6: 
14), &606y abrots ctody evkn (Rev. 6:11), ard rpocwrov t&v Taré- 
pwv (Ac. 7:45), 61a orduatos mavtwy (Ac. 3:18), & Tis xeLpds abrav 
(Jo. 10:39). In 1 Cor. 6:5, ava peor rod adedGod, the difficulty lies 
not in ypeoov, but in the singular aée\¢od. The fuller form would 
have been the plural or the repetition of the word, déed¢od kal 
adedgod. In all these variations in number the N. T. writers 
merely follow in the beaten track of Greek usage with proper 
freedom and individuality. For copious illustrations from the 
ancient Greek see Gildersleeve, Greek Syntax, pp. 17—59.1 

(f) Sprctat Instances. Two or three other passages of a 
more special nature call for comment. In Mt. 21:7 (érexabicer 
éravw aitav) it is probable that airéy refers to ra iuaria, not to Hv 
dvov kal Tov wadov. In Mt. 24 : 26 & 7H Epnuw and ev rots Tapelos 
are in contrast. In Mt. 27: 44 of Anorai is not to be taken as plural 
for the singular. Probably both reproached Jesus at first and 
afterwards one grew sorry and turned on the other, as Lu. 23: 39 
has it. In Mt. 22:1 and Mk. 12:1 efrev & rapaBondais is followed 
by only one parable, but there were doubtless others not recorded. 
In Mt. 9:8, ed£acav Tov Oedv Tov dovta eEovoiay TovabTny Tots avOpwrots, 
we have a double sense in dév7a, for Jesus had the é£ovaiay in a sense 
not true of avOpwros who got the benefit of it. So in Ac. 13:40 
To elpnuévov &v Tots rpopyras is merely equivalent to év BiBrAw Tar 
mpoontav (Ac. 7:42). On these special matters see Winer- 
Schmiedel, p. 251. Cf. xepovBetv (Aramaic dual) and xatackia- 
fovra (Heb. 9: 5). 


1 Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 133-172, 3. TL, pp. 240-248; 
K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 271 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 369-373. 


410 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


VIII. Concord in Gender. Here we deal only with nouns, for 
verbs have no gender. But gender plays an important part in the 
agreement of substantive and adjective. 

(a) FLUCTUATIONS IN GENDER. The whole matter is difficult, 
for substantives have two sorts of gender, natural and gram- 
matical. The two do not always agree. The apparent violations 
of the rules of gender can generally be explained by the conflict 
in these two points of view with the additional observation that 
the grammatical gender of some words changed or was never 
firmly settled. All the constructions according to sense are due 
to analogy (Middleton in Syntax, p. 39). For further general re- 
marks on gender see chapter on Declensions. In Ac. 11:28 Luke 
has Auwov peyadnv, not peyav. In Rev. 14:19 two genders are 
found with the same word, €Gadev els tiv Anvov TOD Bvuod Tod Beod Tov 
peyov. Cf. Lu. 4:25 and 15:14. The papyri vary also in the 
gender of this word (Moulton, Prol., p. 60). The common gender 
of Oeds (Ac. 19 : 37, cf. Oe 19 : 27) and similar words is discussed in 
the chapter on Declensions. In Rey. 11:4 ai éo7&res skips over 
Avxviae curiously! and goes back (the participle, not the article) to 
ovTot (ovTOL eiowv at dvo éXatar Kal at dbo AvxXViaL at Evwmrovy TOD KUpiou 
Ths Yas éor@res). But more about the Apocalypse later. In Mk. 
12 : 28, rota éoriv evtoN} Tpwrn TavtTwy, Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 
178) thinks that zac&v would be beside the point as it is rather the 
general idea of omnium. Is it not just construction xara obvecw? 
In Ph. 2:1 e tus orddxva is difficult after ef re trapautOcov and & 
tis Kowwvia. Blass? cuts the knot boldly by suggesting et 7: in all 
the examples here which Moulton® accepts with the sense of si 
quid valet, but he cites papyri examples like éwi ti play Tov... 
oixiav, Par. P.15(ii/B.¢.) ; ef 6€ Tu weptood ypdupata, B.U.326 (ii/A.D.). 
See also éay 6€ Te GANG arrartyMGuev, AMh. Pap. HT, 85, 11, and éay 6é 
Tt &Bpoxos yérnrat, ib., 15. Cf. Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 184. 
Perhaps after all this correction may be right or the text may be 
corrupt. The scribe could easily have written z.s for twa because 
of the preceding examples. A nodding scribe may even have 
thought ord\axva feminine singular. But what is one to say of 4 
ovai in Rev. 9:12; 11:14? Shall we think? of OXtyis or radarTw- 
pia? In Mt. 21:42 (Mk. 12:11), rapa xupiov eyevero arn kal éorw 


‘ But Moulton (Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151) cites from the pap. numerous 
false gender concords like ryv rerrwxdra, etc. Cf. Reinhold, De Graec. etc., 
p- 57; Krumbacher, Prob. d. neugr. Schriftspr., p. 50. 

2° Gre ofeN ls Gk ewes. 

*Prol., p. 59. 40 W.-och, D. 200. 


THE SENTENCE 411 


Oavuaoth, we may have a translation of the Hebrew nk* (Ps. 
(117) 118 : 23), for otros is used just before in reference to didov. 
Tovro would be the Greek idiom for airy. It is even possible that 
airn may refer to kepadjv ywvias. So also 77 Baad in Ro. 11:4 
comes from the LX:X (Jer. 2:8; 2:28; 7:9; Hos. 2:8). Cf, 
TH Baad 7H dayadec in Tobit 1:5 B. See Declensions for further 
remarks. 
- (b) Tue NEUTER SinGuLaR. This is not always to be regarded 
as a breach of gender. Often the neuter conveys a different con- 
ception. So in the question of Pilate, ri éorw adjOeva; (Jo. 18 : 38). 
Cf. also ri ody 6 voyos; (Gal. 3:19), ri éoriv &vOpwros; (Heb. 2 : 6), ri 
adv ein radra; (Lu. 15 : 26), ef doxe? ris efvai te undev dv; (Gal. 6:3). 
But on the other hand note eivai twa (Ac. 5 : 36), airy éorly 4 pe- 
yarn evtor\n (Mt. 22 : 38), ris ) mpdodAnuyis; (Ro. 11:15), ris éorw 
édzis; (Eph. 1:18). In particular observe ri 6 Ilérpos éyévero (Ac. 
12 : 18) and otros 6é ri (Jo. 21:21). Cf. also rot70 yapus (twice) in 
1 Pet. 2:19 f., where rodro is predicate and really refers to ei io- 
géper Tis and ei brouevetre. Cf. also 7 Wux% mretov eat THs Tpodfs 
(Lu. 12 : 23). Indeed ratra may be the predicate with persons, as 
Tavra tTwes nre (1 Cor. 6:11). The neuter adjective in the predi- 
cate is perfectly normal in cases like tkavov 7G rovwotTw 7H ériTiula 
avtn (2 Cor. 2: 6). So also dpxerov 7H juepa 7 Kaxia adris (Mt. 6: 34). 
Cf. also the reading of D apeordy in Ac. 12:3. Blass! treats apxe- 
tov above and tkavoy éorw in Lu. 22:38 as like the Latin satvs. 
The neuter singular in the collective or general sense to represent 
persons is not peculiar to the N. T. So 76 xaréxov (2 Th. 2 : 6), 
mav & (Jo. 17:2), 76 drodAwdds (Lu. 19:10), etc. So the neuter 
plural also as ra pwpad rod Kdcpou, Ta aobevp (1 Cor. 1:27). The 
neuter article 7d “Ayap (Gal. 4 : 25) deals with the word Hagar, 
not the gender of the person. In Jas. 4:4 poryadides in W. H. 
stands without poryadol cai, but none the less may be regarded 
as comprehensive.2 Cf. yeved worxadis (Mt. 12:39) and Hos. 2: 
4, 23. In 1 Cor. 15:10 note eiul 5 ew, not ds, a different idea. 
(c) EXPLANATORY 6 éotty AND TOOT éotiv. A special idiom is 
the relative 6 as an explanation (6 éoriv) and the demonstrative 
rovr’ éort, which are both used without much regard to the gen- 
der (not to say number) of antecedent or predicate. Thus in Mk. 
3:17 dvoua Boaynpyes, 6 éorw viol Bpovrfs; 12: 42 derra dvo 6 éoTw 
KoOpavrns; 15:16 ris adds, & eat mpattwprov; 15: 22 Todyobav 
rorov, 3 éarw Kpaviov Toros (cf. Mt. 27: 33); paBBel, 6 Neyerar (Jo. 1: 
38); 1:42 Meoolay 6 éorwv; Col. 3:14 rv ayarny, 6 EaTiv cvvdEcpOs ; 
1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 76. 2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 254. 


412 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Eph. 6:17 pdxarpay, 6 éor pfjua Oeod. Blass! observes that it is 
only in the Apocalypse that this explanatory relative is assimilated 
to the antecedent or predicate, as Aaumades, & elowy Ta TVEebuaTa (Rev: 
4:5), but d¢Oaduods éxra, ot eiow Ta mvebuara (5:6). But it is other- 
wise with the ordinary relative, as 6 vads Tod Oe0d, oltwes éore tyes (1 
Cor. 3:17); Bidimmous, Aris early tpwrn mods (Ac. 16:12); b2d rev 
aVvTiKELMLEVWV, ATs éoTly avrots evderks Am@wAelas (Ph. 1: 28); év rats OXL- 
Yeolv pou brép budv, Aris eotiv bdéa budv (Eph. 3:13). The use of 
tovr’ éorw is a common idiom in the later Greek (less so in the 
older) and is exactly equivalent to the Latin zd est and has no 
regard to case, number or gender. So ’Ed\wi— rodr’ éorw bee you 
(Mt. 27:46); rotr’ éorw robs ddedpots (Heb. 7:5). Cf. Heb. 2: 
14; 9:11, etc. See further p. 399, and ch. XV, vit, (d), 10. 

(d) THe ParticreLte. It often has the construction xara obve- 
ow, asin Mk. 9: 26, xpaéas cal rod\dd orapaéas referring to 7d mvedua. 
Cf. Lu. 2:13 orparias aivotytwv; trH00s kpavovres (Ac. 21:36); Bodv- 
res (25 : 24). But on the other hand note dvacray rd7H00s (Lu. 23 : 
1). So also in 1 Cor. 12:2 vn arrayouevor; Eph. 4:17 f. vn éoxo- 
Tapevor; Rev. 4:8 Ga, &v kad’ ev Exwy A€yortes; 11:15 dwval yeya- 
at A€yovres (cf. dwviv NEyovra, Rev. 9: 14); 19: 14 orparetpara 
évdedupevor. Cf. Onpiov yeuovra (Rev. 17:3). Winer (Winer-Thayer, 
p. 526) takes éoxorwuevor in Eph. 4:18 with tyuads. Cf. also rA7Oos 
gepovtes (Ac. 5:16). Cf. Lu. 19:37. So (aé exxAnoiac) axovortes (Gal. 
1:22f.). But in Rev. 21:14 76 retxos Exwy seems a mere slip. 
But ¢dov — éxwv (Rev. 4:7) may be mere confusion in sound of 
éxov and éxwv. See also dwv7 — reywv (4:1), dwval — deyorres 
(11:15), Avxviac — éordres (11:4). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 
87) cites (Gov — aotparrwr from A pocalypsis Anastasiae (pp. 6, 13). 

(e) ApsEcTIvES. The question of an adjective’s using one 
form for more than one gender has been already discussed at 
length in the chapter on Declensions. Thus orparcas odpaviov (Lu. 
2 : 18) is not a breach of concord, for ovpaviov is feminine. If mas- 
culine and feminine are used together and the plural adjective or 
participle occurs, the masculine, of course, prevails over the fem- 
inine when persons are considered. Thus jv 6 rarjp airod xal 7 
untnp Oavyatorvres (Lu. 2:33). So also ’Aypimmas kal Bepvixn doma- 
capevor (Ac. 25: 138) and even with the disjunctive 7, as adeddos 7 
added? yuuvol (Jas. 2:15). In Rev. 8:7 the neuter plural is used 
of two nouns (one feminine and one neuter), xdadata kal zip 
peurypweva. Cf. POaprots, apyupiw 7 xpvoiw (1 Pet. 1:18), same 
gender. So zoxidats vooos kal Bacdvors (Mt. 4: 24), raons apxfs kal 

1 Gr. of N: T. Gk., p. 77: 


THE SENTENCE 413 


éfovoias (Eph. 1:21), etc. Thus we may note dds 4 olka 
Heptobetoa (Mt. 12:25), the same gender. But when different 
genders occur, the adjective is usually repeated, as in rorarol dior 
kal roramal oixodouat (Mk. 13:1), raca ddcs kal ray depnua (Jas. 1: 
17), oipavov Kavov kal viv kawny (Rev. 21:1), etc. There is em- 
phasis also in the repetition. But one adjective with the gender 
of one of the substantives is by no means uncommon. Thus in 
Heb. 9:9, dpa re kat Pvoiar ur duvauevar, the last substantive is 
followed, while in Heb. 3 : 6, éav tiv rappnciay Kal 7d kabynua péxpe 
Tedovs BeBaiay kataoxwuer, the first rules in gender! Per contra 
note viov apcev in Rev. 12:5. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 86) 
cites dite téxvoy from the Iliad, X XII, 84. 

IX. Concord in Case. This is not the place for the syntax of 
the cases. That matter belongs to a special chapter. 

(a) ApsectTIvVES. They concur in the case of the substantive 
with which they are used. The variations are either indeclinable 
forms like rAnpns? in Jo. 1: 14 (agreeing with atrod or 66£av) or are 
due to anacoluthon, as Jas. 3:8 ri 6é yAGocar ovdels Saudoar Sivarac 
avOpwrwv’ axataotatov Kaxdv, wecT? iod (So W. H. punctuate). 

(b) ParticipLes. They lend themselves readily to anacoluthon 
in case. Thus éd0f rots arocrddos Kal tots mpecButepo.s, ypavarres 
(Ac. 15:22 f.). See Mk. 7:19 kaBapitwr. Mk.6:9 has trodede- 
pevous, Whereas before we have avrots and aipwow, but W. H. 
read évdtcacba (Nestle, évdtoncbe). In Mk. 12:40, of xarécOovrtes 
kal mpocevxouevor, We have a nominative in apposition with the 
ablative a76 Tv ypauyatéewvy t&v Bedovtwy. In Ph. 3:18 f. rods 
éxpovs is in agreement with the case of ots, while of ¢povotyres 
below skips back to zodAoi. Sometimes, as in éricrelOnoav Ta Adyra 
(Ro. 3:2), the substantive will make sense as subject or object 
of the verb. In Heb. 9:10 drxacmpara — érikeiweva In apposition 
with @vcia: skips over the parenthetical clause between. Cf. also 
perhaps dp£devor (Lu. 24: 47), aptduevos (Ac. 1:22. Cf. Lu. 23: 5), 
apéauevos (Ac. 10:37). Note this idiom in Luke’s writings. 

(c) Tae Boox or ReveLaAtTion. It is full of variations (sole- 
cisms) from case-concord, especially in appositional clauses. 
Thus in Rev. 7:9 after edov, kal ido we first have the nomina- 


1 On the subject of gender see Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 1. Tl., pp. 89-133; 
Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 365-369. 

2 The exx. of this indecl. use of rAfpns are abundant in MSS. of the N. T., 
occurring in most passages of the N. T. See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 81. 
The pap. confirm the N. T. MSS. See Moulton, Prol., p. 50. See ch. VII, 2, 
(f), of this book, for details. 


414 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tive with idob and then the accusative with eféov. Thus 6 paprus 
(Rev. 1:5) retains the nominative rather than the ablative a6 
’Inood Xpiorod, whereas in 11:18 robs uixpo’s is in apposition with 
the dative rots dotAos, xrA. Cf. 20:2 where 6 ddis (text, marg. 
acc.) is in apposition with the accusative roy dpaxovra. The 
papyri show the idiom. Cf. rod déed¢od — 6 didroxos (=61a6.) in 
Letr. 149 (ii/a.p.), ’Avtidirov “EAAnv — irrapxns in B.G.U. 1002 
(i/B.c.). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 60. The Apocalypse is thus by 
no means alone. See also zapa ro[d Hoar ]lobuou tov etpovTa B.G.U. 
846 (ii/A.D.), Hxovoa Tobfs Neywv P. Par. 51 (B.c. 160), ewe A€AvKas 
Todas €xwv, 7b. In particular the participle is common in the nom- 
inative in the Apocalypse. In the case of ad 6 ay xal 6 Av Kal 6 
épxouevos the nominative is evidently intentional to accent the 
unchangeableness of God (1:4). Cf. this formula in 1 : 8; 4:8; 
11:17; 16:5. ‘Ovxdév occurs as a set phrase, the case being ex- 
pressed by aizés which follows. So in 2:26 airtd (rnpé&v also); 
3:12 a’rov, 21 aitG. But in 76 vexdvre dwow aitg 2: 7, 17, the case 
is regularly in the dative without anacoluthon. The wrong case 
appears with éywyv in 1:16 (almost separate sentence) if it is 
meant to refer to a’rod or gender if ¢dwrn; 9 : 14 (6 éxwv In apposi- 
tion with ayyedw); 10:2 eywy (sort of parenthesis, cf. 1 : 16); 
14 : 14 éywv (loosely appended); 19 : 12 (loose connection of éxwyr). 
In 5:6 and 17:3 éywv has wrong gender and case. This parti- 
ciple seems to be strung on loosely generally, but in 21:11 f. 
the proper case and gender occur. Cf. also # déyouvoa (2: 20) 
and \éywr (14:7). In 14:12 of rnpodyres is a loose addition like 
 KataBaivovoa (38:12). More difficult seems év kayivw memupwye- 
yns (1:15), margin zervpwyevor. In 19: 20 rHv Aiwvynv Tod supds 
Ths Katouevns the participle agrees in gender with Aiuyny and in 
case with avpés. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 86) cites daméxw 
map’ avtod tov duoroyotvra (Amh. Pap. II, in to 13, where regu- 
larly the accusative of a participle is in apposition with a geni- 
tive or ablative). He gives also Oxy. P. I N 120, 25, ob 6d€doxrar 
yap july éxew te dvotvxodvres; Flinders-Pet. Pap. III 42 C (8) 38, 
adtxovpeba bro ’Ato\wriov EuBartrdwv. Dittenberger (Or. inser. 611) 
gives LeGaorod and vids in apposition. But the point of difficulty 
in the Revelation of John is not any one isolated discord in 
case or gender. It is rather the great number of such violations 
of concord that attracts attention. As shown above, other 
books of the N. T. show such phenomena. Observe especially 
Luke, who is a careful writer of education. Note also Paul in 
Ph. 1:30 where éxovves (cf. this word in Rev.) is used with syip, 


THE SENTENCE 415 


and 2 Cor. 7: 5 nudv — OrXLBduevor. Similar discords occur in the 
LXX, as in Jer. 14:13; Dan. 10 : 5-7; 1 Macc. 13: 16; 1 Mace. 
15 : 28; and indeed occasionally in the very best of Greek writers. 
The example in 1 Macc. 13:16 (Aadv Neyor7es) is worth singling 
out for its bearing on both case and number. Nestle (Hinf. in das 
griech. N. T., p. 90 f.) notes the indeclinable use of \éywv and dé- 
yovres in the LXX, like "nxb, Cf. Nestle, Phil. Sacra., p. 7. See 
also Thackeray, Gr., p. 23. One must not be a slavish martinet in 
such matters at the expense of vigour and directness. The occa- 
sion of anacoluthon in a sentence is just the necessity of breaking 
off and making a new start. But the Apocalypse demands more 
than these general remarks. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 534) calls 
attention to the fact that these irregularities occur chiefly in the 
description of the visions where there would naturally be some 
excitement. Moulton! argues from the fact that the papyri of 
uneducated writers show frequent discord in case that John was 
somewhat backward in his Greek. He speaks of “the curious 
Greek of Revelation,” “the imperfect Greek culture of this book.” 
He notes the fact that most of the examples in both the papyri 
and Revelation are in apposition and the writer’s “grammatical 
sense is satisfied when the governing word has affected the case 
of one object.”? Moulton® cites in illustration Shakespeare’s use 
of ‘‘between you and IJ.”’ This point indeed justifies John. But 
one must observe the comparative absence of these syntactical 
discords in the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John. In Ac. 
4:13 both Peter and John are called dypauparor kal idurar. This 
need not be pushed too far, and yet it is noteworthy that 2 Peter 
and Revelation are just the two books of the N. T. whose Greek 
jars most upon the cultured mind and which show most kinship to 
the cow in somewhat illiterate papyri. One of the theories about 
the relation between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is that Silvanus (1 Pet. 
5:12) was Peter’s scribe in writing the first Epistle, and that thus 
the Greek is smooth and flowing, while in 2 Peter we have Peter’s 
own somewhat uncouth, unrevised Greek. This theory rests on 
the assumption of the genuineness of 2 Peter, which is much dis- 

puted. So also in Acts Luke refines Peter’s Greek in the reports 


1 Exp., Jan., 1904, p. 71; Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151; Prol., pp. 9, 60. 

2 Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 151; Prol., p. 9. 

3 Ib. Merch. of Venice, iii, 2. Cf. also Harrison, Prol. to the Study 
of Gk. Rel., p. 168. In the Attic inscr. the noun is found in apposition with 
the abl., the loc. and in absolute expressions. Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., 
p. 203 f. 


416 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of his addresses. Now in Jo. 21 : 24 we seem to have the com- 
ment of a brother (or several) on the Gospel of John which he has 
read and approved. Moulton! naturally suggests the hypothesis 
that the Gospel and Epistles of John had the smoothing hand of 
this brother of culture (perhaps in Ephesus), while in the Apoca- 
_lypse we have John’s own rather uncultured Greek. One may 
add to this the idea of Winer about possible excitement and pas- 
sion due to the great ideas of the book. In the Isle of Patmos 
John, if still there, would have little opportunity for scholarly 
help and the book may have gone out unrevised. There are other 
theories, but this matter of authorship is not the grammarians’ 
task. 

(d) OTHER PECULIARITIES IN APPOSITION. Further examples of 
apposition call for illustration. Thus in 1 Jo. 2:25, atrn éorly 7 
éeTAYYEALA, HY avTOS exnyyetAato Hucv, THY CwHhy THY aiwviov, we have tiv 
fay in the case of the relative (because nearer) and not in that of 
the antecedent. Then again in Jo. 1:38 paSBei is explained as 
d.dacxade, Vocative in the predicate (cf. also 20 : 16), while in 1 : 41 
Meooiay is naturally interpreted as Xpiorés. In Jo. 13:13 6 6:64- 
okados is in apposition with we where we would use quotation-marks. 
But this passage needs to be borne in mind in connection with 
Revelation. In 1 Cor. 16:21, rH éuf xerpi Iatdov, note the geni- 
tive in apposition with the possessive pronoun éuf according to 
the sense of the possessive, not its case. Once more the common 
use of the genitive of one substantive in practical apposition has 
already been noted in this chapter, III, (c), 5, Apposition. Thus 7 
€opTn TOV afbuwv (Lu. 22:1). The use of rof7’ éorw with any case 
has already been alluded to under Gender. Note Mk. 7:2; Ac. 
19 245 Ro. 7518; Phil?12; 1 Petu3 +203) Hebe 9 ihn wal Geetc: 
In airos owrnp 708 caparos (Eph. 5: 23) airés gives emphasis to the 
apposition. Inverse attraction of antecedent to case of the rela- 
tive (see Pronouns) is really apposition. 

(e) Tue Anso.ute Usk oF THE CasEs (nominative, genitive, abla- 
twe and accusative). These will receive treatment in the chapter 
on Cases. Some of the peculiar nominatives noted in Revelation 
are the nominativus pendens, a common anacoluthon. Cf. ratra 
a Oewpetre (Lu. 21: 6), 6 nxav cal 6 rnpdv (Rev. 2:26). The paren- 
thetic nominative is seen in Jo. 1: 6, dvoua air} "Iwavns, where ’Iwa- 
vns might have been dative. But here merely the mention of the 
fact of the absolute use of the cases is all that is called for2 


1 Prol., p.9. See also Zahn’s Intr., § 74. 
2 Cf. Gildersleeve, Gk. Synt., p. 3; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 373-376. 





THE SENTENCE 417 


X. Position of Words in the Sentence. 

(a) FREEDOM FROM RuuLeEs. The freedom of the Greek from 
artificial rules and its response to the play of the mind is never seen 
better. than in the order of words in the sentence. In English, 
since it has lost its inflections, the order of the words in the sen- 
tence largely determines the sense. Whether a substantive is 
subject or object can usually be seen in English only thus, or 
whether a given word is verb or substantive, substantive or ad- 
jective. Even the Latin, which is an inflectional tongue, has 
much less liberty than the Greek. We are thinking, of course, of 
Greek prose, not of poetry, where metre so largely regulates the 
position of words. The N. T. indeed enjoys the same freedom! 
that the older Greek did with perhaps some additional independ- 
ence from the vernacular xowyn as contrasted with the older lit- 
erary language. The modern Greek vernacular has maintained 
the Greek freedom in this respect (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). The 
Semitic tongues also have much liberty in this matter. In Eng- 
lish it is common to see words in the wrong place that make ab- 
surd bungles, as this, for instance: ‘The man rode a horse with a 
black hat.’”’ In Greek one may say dude? 6 tatnp Tov vidv, 6 Ta- 
Tp pidrec Tov viov Or Pidee Tov vidv 6 raTHp, according to the stress in 
the mind of the speaker.” 

(6) PREDICATE OFTEN Frrst. In Greek prose, where the rhe- 
torical element has less play, the predicate very commonly 
comes first, simply because, as a rule, the predicate is the most 
important thing in the sentence. Thus paxaproe of rrwyxol TH rveb- 
pare (Mt. 5:3), ebdoynuévn od ev yuvaréiy (Lu. 1:42), eyevero d€ (Lu. 
2:1), kal éropebovro (2 : 3), avéBn Je (2: 4), etc. But this is true so 
often, not because of any rule, but simply because the predicate 
is most frequently the main point in the clause. Blass* even 
undertakes to suggest a tentative scheme thus: predicate, sub- 
ject, object, complementary participle, etc. But Winer* rightly 
remarks that he would be an empirical expositor who would in- 
sist on any unalterable rule in the Greek sentence save that of 
spontaneity. 

(c) Empuasis. This is one of the ruling ideas in the order of 
words. This emphasis may be at the end as well as at the begin- 
ning of the sentence, or even in the middle in case of antithesis. 
The emphasis consists in removing a word from its usual position 
to an unusual one. So ddvkov yAvuKd Torjoae bowp (Jas. 3:12). Thus 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 287. a2 Gr sOL NL hake pee ts 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk, Gr., p. 312, 4 W.-Th., p. 551, 


418 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Lu. 1:12 we have kal @oBos erérecev éx’ adrov, but in Ac. 19:17 
Kal érerecey PoBos él mavtas avtovs. Sometimes the words in con- 
trast are brought sharply together, as in Jo. 17:4, éyw ce édd£aca, 
and 17:5, viv dogacov pe ob. So btudv euod Lu. 10:16. Note also 
the intentional position of 6 warpiapyns in Heb. 7:4 @ dexarny 
"ABpadm eOwKkev Ex TOV akpoOiviwy, 6 TaTtpiapxys. So also in 1 Pet. 2: 
7, bulv ovv 7 TY Tots micTebovow, note the beginning and the end 
of the sentence. This rhetorical emphasis is more common in the 
Epistles (Paul’s in particular) than in the Gospels and Acts for 
obvious reasons. Thus observe the position of ot in Ro. 11:17 
and of xaxetvo. in verse 23. In Heb. 6:19 acdand7F re xai BeBaiav do 
not come in immediate contact with ayxvpay as adjectives usually 
do. Observe also the emphatic climax in rereAewwuevov at the end 
of the sentence in Heb. 7:28. Cf. 76n — xetrac in Mt. 3:10. Note 
the sharpness given to ov in 1 Cor. 1:17 by putting it first. .So 
10:5. In 1 Cor. 2:7 6c0d codiav throws proper emphasis upon 
Jeod. The position of the subordinate clause varies greatly. It 
often comes first, as in Lu. 1 : 1-4. 

(d) THe Minor Worps IN A SENTENCE. In general they 
come close to the word to which they belong in sense. Thus the 
adj. is near the subst. and after it. So téwp fav (Jo. 4:10), b- 
dackade ayabe (Mk. 10:17), fwhv aiwnor (ib.). But observe édov 
avOpwrov byrq (Jo. 7:23), both adjs. So also note 6c’ avidpwr rorwy 
(Mt. 12 : 48), cxadov omrepua (Mt. 13: 27), éxOpos &vOpwros (Mt. 13: 
28), where the adj. gives the main idea. With the repeated 
article the adj. has increased emphasis in 6 ro.ujy 6 kados (Jo. 10: 
11). With rvetua aycov this is the usual order (as Mt. 3 : 11), but 
also 76 ay.ov mvedua (Ac. 1:8) or 76 rvedua 76 aytov (Jo. 14: 26). In 
Ac. 1: 5 the verb comes in between the substantive and adjective 
(ev mvebuate BarticOnoecbe ayiw) to give unity to the clause. So 
in Mt. 1: 20, & avebuards éorw aylov. Cf. Cwhv exere aiwrov (1 Jo. 
5:13). In Ac. 26 : 24 note ce thus, 7a woAAa ce ypammara els paviav 
mepitperet. SO also in 1 Cor. 10:4 émov comes between 76 and 
mroua. The position of the genitive varies greatly, but the same 
general principle applies. The genitive follows as in rots Ndyors 
Ths xapiros (Lu. 4 : 22), unless emphatic as in ray dddorpiwy riv 
dwvnv (Jo. 10:5). There is sharp emphasis in rév tamwv in 
Jas. 3:3. A genitive may be on each side of the substantive as 
In judy oikia tod oxnvous (2 Cor. 5:1). Sharp contrast may be ex- 
pressed by proximity of two genitives, as in rév cuvotpatierny pou, 
buav 6€ aréatonov (Ph. 2:25). There may be some contrast also 
in ob pou virres tobs modas (Jo. 13:6). But the personal enclitic 


THE SENTENCE 419 


pronouns have a tendency to come early in the sentence without 
emphasis, aS mas AvewxOnody cov of ddbaduoi (Jo. 9:10). Cf. va 
gov mpookuynow THv xépav B.G.U. 423 (11/a.D.). Radermacher (N. 7. 
Gr., p. 90) notes great freedom in the position of the genitive in 
the Attic authors and in the inscriptions. In the case of 6 av6pw- 
os ovros and otros 6 GvOpwros one must not look for any fine-spun 
distinction, though the same general principle of emphasis exists. 
In thé matter of tatra ravra (Lu. 12:30) and ravra ratra (Mt. 
6 : 32) the first word carries the emphasis just as in ws 6 dyXos 
and 6 6xdos was. Cf. mavra Ta weAN TOD cwuartos (1 Cor. 12 : 12) and 
ot mateépes Nucv mavtes (1 Cor. 10:1) with 6 was vouos (Gal. 5 : 14). 
Note the common Greek od ris ef (Jo. 8:25). The vocative is 
often at the beginning of the sentence, as rarjp dixae (Jo. 17: 25), 
but not always, as in rapaxadG dé buds, ddedpot (1 Cor. 1:10). In 
Jo. 14:9 ovk éyvwxas pe, Pidurme the vocative naturally comes after 
the pronoun. It comes within the sentence, as @ Ocddire (Ac. 1: 
1), or at either end according as occasion requires. Some set 
phrases come in formal order, as avdpes adeddol kal marepes (Ac. 7 : 
2), like our “brethren and sisters,’ “ladies and gentlemen,” etc. 
Other conventional phrases are avdpas kal yuvatxas (Ac. 8 : 3), xwpls 
yuvakav Kal madiwy (Mt. 14:21), vixra Kat quepay (Ac. 20:31), 
aapé kal atua (Mt. 16:17), Bpdots cat roots (Ro. 14:17), SavTwr 
kal vexcpav (Ac. 10:42); rHv yav Kal tiv Oadaccay (Ac. 4 : 24), Ariw Kal 
cednvn (Lu. 21:25), rod obpavod cai ths ys (Mt. 11: 25), éoyw kai 
Noyw (Lu. 24:19), "Iovdaious re kai “EAXnvas (Ro. 3 : 9), dotdAos ovdé 
é\eiOepos (Gal. 3:28). The adverb generally has second place, as 
ivnrov Nilay (Mt. 4:8), but not always, as Nav yap avreory (2 Tim. 
4:15). Blass! notes that Matthew often puts the adverb after 
imperatives, as kataBarw viv (Mt. 27:42), but before indicatives, 
as ru borep@ (Mt. 19 : 20), a refinement somewhat unconscious, 
one may suppose. In general the words go together that make 
sense, and the interpretation is sometimes left to the reader’s in- 
sight. In Eph. 2:3, #uca réxva dboe dpyjs, note the position of 
dboe between réxva and dpyjs. In Ro. 8 : 3, caréxpwe THv ayapriav ev 
Th capki, the adjunct é rf capxi goes in sense with karéxpwve, not 
dpaptiav. But this matter comes up again under the Article. In 
Mt. 2:2, eiSouer yap adrod rov dorépa év 77 avatrohf, probably ev 77 ava- 
rodj belongs in sense to the subject (‘we being in the east,’ ete.). 
(ec) EupHony AND Ruytum. It will not do to say that em- 


PSST OLN ele Git ep i200: ; 
2 Porphyrios Logothetes as quoted by Agnes Lewis Smith in Exp. Times, 
Feb., 1908, p. 237. 


490 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


phasis alone explains every unusual order of words in a Greek sen- 
tence. Take Jo. 9:6, for instance, éréOnxev abrod Tov mndov Ext Tods 
6pbadpols. Here avrod is entirely removed from 6¢@adyots and is 
without particular emphasis. It was probably felt that the geni- 
tive of the pronouns made a weak close of a sentence. Observe 
also Jo. 9:10, cov of d6dOaduoi (cf. 9:11). Thus also 9:17, 26, 30. 
Note érecev aitod mpds tobs rodas (Jo. 11:32) and ovk ay pou arébavey 
6 ddeAdos (1b.). So atv pou virres Tovds wodas (Jo. 13 : 6) where some 
emphasis by contrast may exist in spite of the enclitic form pov. 
Cf. buty éuot in Ph. 3:1. But on the other hand we have 6 
adedpos pou in Jo. 11:21 (ef. 11: 23 cov) and 70d zarpos you (Jo. 10: 
18). The tendency to draw the pronouns toward the first part of 
the sentence may account for some of this transposition, as in 7a 
TOAAG CE Yodupata eis waviay mepitperer (Ac. 26 : 24), but the matter 
goes much beyond the personal pronouns, as in év zvebmware Barricb4- 
ceobe aylw (Ac. 1:5), uexpay Exes dbvaww (Rev. 3:8), etc. Buta 
large amount of personal liberty was exercised in such trajection 
of words.! Is there any such thing as ryhthm in the N. T.? Deiss- 
mann? scouts the idea. If one thinks of the carefully balanced 
sentences of the Attic orators like Isocrates, Lysias and Demos- 
thenes, Deissmann is correct, for there is nothing that at all ap- 
proaches such artificial rhythm in the N. T., not even in Luke, 
Paul or Hebrews. Blass* insists that Paul shows rhythm in 
1 Cor. and that the book is full of art. He compares* Paul with 
Cicero, Seneca, Q. Curtius, Apuleius, and finds rhythm also in 
Hebrews which “not unfrequently has a really oratorical and 
choice order of words.’’> He cites in Heb. 1: 4 rocotrw kpeirtwy 
yevouevos TOV ayyéAwy bow dtapopwrepov map’ attods KexAnpovounKker 
évoua; 1:5; 11:32; 12:1, 8, etc.. In Greek in general he suggests 
that lively and animated discourse gives rise to dislocations of 
words. Now one would think Blass ought to know something 
of Greek style. But Deissmann will have none of it. He refers 
Blass to Schramm, who wrote in 1710 of De stwpenda eruditione 
Pauli apostoli and thinks that Blass is wilful and arbitrary in his 


1 Boldt, De lib. Ling. Greece. et Lat. Colloc. Verb. Capita Sel., p. 186. 

2 Theol. Literaturzeit., 1906, p. 434; Exp., Jan., 1908, p. 74. 

3 Die Rhythmen der asian. und rém. Kunstprosa, 1905, pp. 43, 53. 

4 Ib., pp. 73 f., 77. Cf. Hadley, On Anc. Gk. Rhythm and Metre in Ess. 
Phil. and Crit., pp. 81 ff. 

> Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 288. Cf. Zarncke, Die Entstehung der griech. 
Literatursprachen, p. 5 f., for good remarks about rhythm. See also Dewing, 
The Orig. of the Accentual Prose Rhythm in Gk., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1910, 
pp. 313-328. 


“7 wl hes 


Ee ara, Sa pla ge i nth Tie tin 


a al a roe 


PRAT tO a AMEN Ne. 


a SET 
en at 


eee 





| 





Sree eae 
a ae A ee 


THE SENTENCE 491 


use and proof of rhythm. On the other hand Sir W. M. Ramsay! 
contends that Paul was a better Hellenist in point of culture than 
some suppose, and knew Greek philosophy and used it. It is after 
all partly a dispute about terms. If by rhythm one means grace 
and charm of diction that naturally belong to the expression of 
elevated ideas under the stress of chastened passion, surely one 
would be hypercritical to deny it to 1 Cor. 18 and 15, Ac. 17, Ro. 
8 and 12, Eph. 3, Jo. 14-17, Heb. 2 and 11, not to mention many 
beautiful passages that seem perfect like pearls. At white heat 
nature often strikes off what is better than anything mere art can 
do even as to beauty of form and expression. Luke? may even 
have known Thucydides, and yet one has no right to expect the 
“niceties of language* in the vernacular which contribute so 
much to the charm of Plato.’’ Intonation and gesture in spoken 
language take the place of these linguistic refinements to a very 
large extent. It is true that Paul’s ‘Greek has to do with no 
school, with no model, but streams unhindered with overflowing 
bubbling direct out of the heart,” but “‘yet is real Greek,” as Wila- 
mowitz-Mollendorff* remarks. Wilamowitz-Moéllendorff does in- 
deed hold that Paul knew little Greek outside of the Greek Bible, 
but he thinks that his letters are unique in Greek literature. On 
Paul’s Hellenism see chapter IV, and also G. Milligan, Hpistles to 
the Thess., p. lv. On p. lvi Milligan takes the writer’s view that 
the ‘well-ordered passages” and “splendid outbursts”? in Paul’s 
writings are due to natural emotion and instinctive feeling rather 
than studied art. Bultmann (Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt 
und die Kynisch-stoische Diatribe, 1910) finds that Paul had the 
essential elements of the Stoic Diatribe in his argumentative style 
(question and answer, antithesis, parallelism, etc.). Paul’s art 
is indeed like that of the Cynic-Stoic Diatribe as described by 
Wendland,* but he does not have their refinement or overpunc- 
tiliousness.* It is not surprising to find that occasionally N. T. 
writers show unintentional metre, as is common with speakers and 
writers of any language. In the Textus Receptus of Heb. 12:13 
there is a good hexameter, xav rpdxi| as op | Aas wou|joare| Tous woot | 


1 The Cities of Paul, 1908, pp. 6, 10, 34. Cf. Hicks, St. Paul and Hellen. 

2 J. H. Smith, Short Stud. on the Gk. Text of the Acts of the Apost., Pref. 

3 J. H. Moulton, Intr. to the Study of N. T. Gk., p. 7. 

4 Die griech. Lit. des Altert., p. 159. TI. I, Abt. 8, Die Kultur der Gegenw., 
1907. W.H. P. Hatch, J.B.L., 1909, p. 149 f., suggests 7’ ay. in Jas. 1:17. 

5 Beitr. zur Gesch. der Gk. Phil. und Rel., 1905, p. 3 f. 

6 J. Weiss, Beitr. zur Paulin. Rhet., 1897, p. 167 f. 


422 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


vuav, but the critical text spoils it all by reading zovetre. So also 
one may find two trimeters in Heb. 12: 14 f. (ot — amo), one in 
Jo. 4:35 (rerpaunvos — epxerar), one in Ac. 23 : 5 (apxovrTa — xak@s). 
Green (Handbook to the Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 356) cites the acci- 
dental English anapestic line ‘To preach the acceptable year of 
the Lord,’ the hexameter “ Husbands, love your wives, and be 
not bitter against them,’’ and the iambic couplet ‘‘Her ways are 
ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.”’ But surely 
no one would call these writers poets because occasional metre 
is found in their writings. There is an unconscious harmony of 
soul between matter and form. Paul does indeed quote the Greek 
poets three times, once an iambic trimeter acataleptus from the 
comic poet Menander (1 Cor. 15: 33) ¢6étpou| civ 7/04 xpHlora dut| 
Aiac|Kaixar, though one anapest occurs (some MSS. have xpno0’), 
once half an hexameter from Aratus (Ac. 17:28) tov yap|xat 
vevos |eovev, and a full hexameter from Epimenides of Crete (Tit. 
1:12) xpynrés ala Pev|orat Kaka | Onpia| yaorepés|apyar. How much 
more Paul knew of Greek poetry we do not know, but he was 
not ignorant of the philosophy of the Stoics and Epicureans in 
Athens. Blass! indeed thinks that the author of Hebrews studied 
in the schools of rhetoric where prose rhythm was taught, such as 
the careful balancing of ending with ending, beginning with be- 
ginning, or ending with beginning. He thinks he sees proof of 
it in Heb. 1:1f., 3,4 f.; 12:14f., 24. But here again one is in- 
clined to think that we have rather the natural correspondence 
of form with thought than studied rhetorical imitation of the 
schools of Atticism or even of Asianism. We cannot now follow 
the lead of the old writers who saw many fanciful artistic turns 
of phrase.? Antitheses and parallelisms could be treated here as 
expressions of rhythm, but they can be handled better in the 
chapter on Figures of Speech. As a specimen of an early Chris- 
tian hymn note 1 Tim. 3:16. Harnack (The Independent, Dec. 
28, 1912) takes this as a Christmas hymn. Elizabeth (Lu. 1: 
42-45), Mary (1:46-55) and Zacharias (1:67-79) break forth 
into poetic strains with something of Hebrew spirit and form. 
In Eph. 5 : 14 we have another possible fragment of a Christian 
hymn. The Lord’s Prayer in Mt. 6: 9-18 is given in metrical 
arrangement by W. H. Cf. Hort, Inir. to N. T. in Gk., p. 319 f. 
In general on N. T. parallelism see Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels 
W Gri of: NAPAGKS paZouis 


2 Cf., for instance, Gersdorf, Beitr. zur Sprachcharakt. d. Schriftst. d. N.T., 
1816, pp. 90, 502. 


THE SENTENCE 423 


and Messiah of the Apostles. In 1 Cor. 13 one can see the beauty 
and melody of a harmonious arrangement of words. See also the 
latter part of 1 Cor. 15. 

(f) PRoLEPSIS is not uncommon where either the substantive is 
placed out of its right place before the conjunction in a subordinate 
clause like ray ayarnv iva yrdre (2 Cor. 2:4) and Bwrikd xpirhpra 
éav Exnre (1 Cor. 6 : 4), or the subject of the subordinate clause even 
becomes the object of the previous verb like idety rov *Incobdy Tis 
éorw (Lu. 19:3). Cf. Ac. 18:32. But this betokens no studied 
art. Ci. Mk. 8:24; Lu: 10 : 26; Ro. 9:19, 20; 14:4, 10; 1 Cor. 
15:36. So jut in Ac. 3 : 12. 

(g) HysTreRoN PRoTERON. We occasionally meet also an ex- 
ample of torepov rporepov like ayyeéXous Tod Oe0d avaBatvovtas Kal KaTa- 
Baivovras (Jo. 1:51), a natural inversion from our point of view. 
But Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 553) does not admit this figure in 
the N. T. Certainly not all the apparent examples are real. The 
order of wemiorevkayev kal éyvaxayey (Jo. 6 : 69) is just as true as 
that of éyywoay Kal ériotevoay (Jo. 17:8). Cf. also mepirarav kai 
addouevos (Ac. 3 : 8) and fAarTo Kal reprerare (Ac. 14 : 10) where each 
order suits the special case. Cf. 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 1:9 for 
alleged examples that disappear on close examination. 

(h) HypprRBAton. Adverbs sometimes appear to be in the 
wrong place, a phenomenon common in all Greek prose writers. 
In 1 Cor. 14:7 6uws would come in more smoothly just before 
éav, but it is perfectly intelligible where it is. Cf. also Gal. 
3:15 for similar use of duws. Cf. distance of 467 from ke?rat 
(Mt. 3:10). In Ro. 3:9 ov zavrws is our ‘not at all,’ while in 
1 Cor. 16:12 révtws otk ‘wholly not,’ just as in 1 Cor. 15:51 
mavres ov KolunOnodueOa means ‘all of us shall not sleep,’ not ‘none 
of us shall sleep.’ Cf. also ob ravrws in 1 Cor. 5:9 f., an explana- 
tion of the negative m1) cuvavamiyvucba just before, ‘not wholly.’ 
In the case of od pdvov in Ro. 4:12, 16, the words ov pdvoy are 
separated and in 4: 12 the repetition of the article rots makes ov 
povoy seem quite misplaced. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 555) is 
certainly right in insisting that obx érc (2 Cor. 3:5) is not to be 
treated as ru otk. Cf. obx tva — add’ iva (2 Cor. 18:7). A more 
difficult passage is found in Heb. 11:3, eis 7d un ex harvowerwy Ta 
Breropueva yeyovevat, where yu is the negative of the phrase é« davo- 
pevav TO Breropuevov yeyoveva. In general the negative comes before 
the word or words that are negatived. Hence ov« etwy (Ac. 19: 30), 
oik torw (Gal. 3:20). But note pi) roddol didacKxador yiveobe (Jas. 
3:1). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 257) notes the possible am- 


424 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


biguity in Ac. 7:48 because of the use of ovx before 6 tyros 
instead of before xarocxe?. Observe in strong contrasts how ov 
stands over against a\\a (Ro. 2:18). Blass! has little sympathy 
with the grammatical device of hyperbaton to help out exegesis. 
The construction, found in as a6 cradiwy dexarevte (Jo. 11 : 18) 
has been supposed to be a Latinism when compared with Lu. 
24:13. So also with rpo e& nuepSv tod racxa (Jo. 12:1) was for- 
merly considered a Latinism. But Moulton? shows conclusively 
that it is Doric and Ionic before the possibility of Latin influence, 
and besides is common in the cow papyri, a mere coincidence with 
the Latin. See also ch. XIII, vir, (m), 5. 

(i) Posrpositives. A number of words are always postposi- 
tive in Greek. In the N. T. av, yap, ye, 6€, wev, wevTor, odv, Te NEVer 
begin a sentence, in harmony with ancient Greek usage. These 
words commonly in the N. T. come in the second place, always so 
with pévrou (Jo. 4 : 27, etc.). In the case of uéy the third place is 
occasionally found as 1 Pet. 2:4, the fourth as 2 Cor. 10:1, the 
fifth in Eph. 4:11; Jo. 16:22, or even the sixth in Jas. 3:17. It 
occupies the seventh place in Herm. Sim. viii, 5:1 (Mr. H. Scott 
has noted). In general these words vary in position according to 
the point to be made in relation to other words. So also ody is 
more commonly in the second, but varies to the third (Jo. 16 : 22) 
and fourth (1 Cor. 8:4). The same remark applies to yap, for 
which see Mk. 1:38; 2 Cor. 1:19. As to 6é, it may not only go 
to the fourth place (Jo. 8 : 16), but even appears in the fifth (1 Jo. 
2:2), ob rept 7&v juerépwy de. It stands in the sixth place in 
Test. XII. Patr. Judah, 9:1 (Mr. H. Scott reports). In the case 
of ye it follows naturally the word with which it belongs as in 
Ro. 8 : 32 (és ye), even in the case of adda ye (Lu. 24 : 21) which is 
always separated in the older Greek. Cf. also ed ye Eph. 3: 2. 
"Av in the apodosis (not=éay) or with relatives or conjunctives, 
never begins a clause in Greek. It is usually the second word in 
the apodosis, either after the verb, as efrov av (Jo. 14 : 2), or after 
ovk, as ox av (Mk. 18 : 20), or the interrogative, as ris av (Lu. 9 : 46). 
With the relative ay follows directly or as the third word, as és &v 
and és é’av (Mt. 23:16). Te usually follows the word directly, 
as in movnpots te (Mt. 22: 10), even after a preposition, as oty re 
XtAlapxois (Ac. 25 : 23); but note r&v evar re (Ac. 14 : 5). 

(j) Fuucruatina Worps. There is another group of words 
that vary in the matter, now postpositive, now not. Thus dpa 


1° Gr, of Ni T..G kab eo0. 
2 Prol., pp. 100 ff. Cf. also LX X, as Amos 1:1; 4:7, etc. 








THE SENTENCE 425 


may be first in the clause (Mt. 12 : 28), contrary to older Greek 
custom. So also dpaye (Mt. 7: 20) and dpa oty (Ro. 7:3). Except 
in a few instances like Ro. 8:1 the examples where dpa is post- 
positive in the N. T. are in questions after the interrogative or 
after a conjunction. Once (Ro. 10:18) pevotvye begins the sen- 
tence. Toivuy occurs only three times and twice begins the sen- 
tence (Lu. 20 : 25; Heb. 13:13) as rovyapodvy does (Heb. 12 : 1). 
The indefinite ris sometimes comes first in the sentence, as tues 5€ 
(Lu. 6 : 2). Enclitics can therefore stand at the beginning, though 
not commonly so. In the case of éexev its position is usually be- 
fore the word except with the interrogative, as rivos &exey (Ac. 
19 : 32), or a relative, as ov eivexey (Lu. 4:18). But yépw follows 
its case save in xdapw rivos (1 Jo. 3:12). Xwpis precedes the word, 
but note ob ywpis (Heb. 12: 14). The N. T. therefore shows rather 
more freedom with these words. 

(k) THe ORDER oF CLAUSES IN COMPOUND SENTENCES. Blass! 
considers this a matter of style rather than of grammar. When 
the whole sentence is composed of a principal clause, with one or 
more subordinate clauses, the order of these clauses is largely 
dependent on the flow of thought in the speaker’s mind. In the 
case of conditional as Mt. 17 : 4, final as in Mt. 17 : 27, and rela- 
tive clauses as in Mt. 16:25, the dependent by rule precedes 
the principal clause. There is usually a logical basis for this order. 
But in Jo. 19 : 28 the final clause somewhat interrupts the flow 
of the sentence. Cf. also Ro. 9:11. In 2 Cor. 8:10, otzuves ob 
povov TO Tovhoat AAA Kal TO OeAELY Tpoevrnpéacbe A7r6 Tepvct, there is no 
violent change of order. Logically the willing preceded the doing 
and makes the natural climax. Blass? is undoubtedly right in 
refusing to take rim Ndyw ebnyyedtoaunv as dependent on eé xa- 
réxere (1 Cor. 15:2). In Jo. 10:36 we meet a somewhat tangled 
sentence because the antecedent of ov is not expressed. Here 
Neyere is the principal verb, the apodosis of the condition, and has 
two objects (the relative clause and the 67: clause) with a causal 
clause added. So in Jo. 10:38 we have a good example of the 
complex sentence with two conditions, a final clause, an object- 
clause, besides the principal clause.’ 

XI. Compound Sentences. 

(a) Two Kinps oF SENTENCES. The sentence is either simple 
or compound. The compound is nothing but two simple sentences 


Sel. OLN LK pe 201, "Ib. 
3 On the whole subject of the position of words in the sentence see K.-G., 
Bd. II, pp. 592-604. 


426 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


put together. All that is true of one part of this compound sen- 
tence may be true of the other as to subject and predicate. The 
same linguistic laws apply to both. But in actual usage each part 
of the compound sentence has its own special development. The 
two parts have a definite relation to each other. Originally men 
used only simple sentences. Cf. Brugmann, (riech. Gr., p. 552. 

(6) Two Kinps oF ComPpouND SENTENCES (Paratactic and 
Hypotactic). In parataxis (raparaés) we have co-ordination 
of two parallel clauses. Take Mk. 14:37 as an example, xal 
EpxeTat Kal evpioxer a’Tovs Kabevdovtas, kal Neyer TS Lerpw. In hypo- 
taxis (ioraés) one clause is subordinated to the other, as in otk 
oldate Ti aitetobe (Mk. 10 : 38) where ri airetobe is in the accusative 
case, the object of oiéare. Parataxis is the rule in the speech of 
children, primitive men, unlettered men and also of Homer. Cf. 
Sterrett, Homer’s Iliad, N. 49. 

On the two kinds of sentences see Paul, Principles of Language, 
p. 139 f. See also Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, 3. Tl., pp. 259-286; 
Brugmann, Griech. Gr., pp. 551 ff.; Kithner-Gerth, Bd. II, p. 351. 

(c) Paratactic SENTENCES. ‘They are very common in the 
Sanskrit and in Homer (cf. Brugmann, Giriech. Gr., p. 555) and in 
the Hebrew. In truth in the vernacular generally and the earlier 
stages of language parataxis prevails. It is more common with 
some writers than with others, John, for instance, using it much 
more frequently than Paul or even Luke. In John xai sometimes 
is strained to mean ‘and yet,’ as in 3:19; 4:20, etc! The 
xown Shows a decided fondness for the paratactic construction 
which in the modern Greek is still stronger (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 184). As in the modern Greek, so in the N. T. xai, according 
to logical sequence of thought, carries the notion of ‘but,’ ‘that,’ 
besides ‘and yet,’ introducing quasi-subordinate clauses. For 
details concerning paratactic conjunctions see chapter on Par- 
ticles. In the use of xai (cf. Heb.1) after éyévero the paratactic kai 
borders very close on to the hypotactic 671. Thus éyevero 6€ kal 
—atros TO tpdcwrov éornpicev (Lu. 9 : 51). 

(d) Hypotactic SENTENCES. They are introduced either by 
relative pronouns or conjunctions, many of which are relatives in 
origin and others adverbs. The subject of conjunctions will demand 
special and extended treatment later on (chapters on Modes and 
on Particles), and so will relative clauses. On the use of the relative 
thus see Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 553. The propensity of the 
later Greek for parataxis led to an impoverishment of particles. 

1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 135. 


THE SENTENCE 427 


Hypotactic sentences, once more, are either substantival, ad- 
jectival or adverbial, in their bai to the principal or another 
subordinate clause. Thus in Lu. 22 : 2 76 ras évédwow is the sub- 
stantive object of éfjrouv, as 76 ris etn is of ouv¢nrecy in Lu. 22 : 23. 
As a sample of the subject-clause in the nominative take of Médet 
gow Ste dmodNipea (Mk. 4:38). In Mt. 7:12 boa édp déX\nre 1S an 
adjective sentence and describes révra. In Mt. 6:16 érap vnoteb= 
nre iS an adverb in its relation to yiveoOe. 

In the beginning the hypotactic sentence corresponded closely 
to the principal sentence. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 554. On 
the whole subject of substantive, adjective and mice sentences 
see Kitthner-Gerth, Bd. II, pp. 354-465. The matter has further 
discussion under Modes (Subordinate Clauses). 

XII. Connection in Sentences. 

(a) StneLE Worps. These have connectives in a very natural! 
way, as divamy Kal éfovoiay — daudma xal vocovs (Lu. 9:1). But 
common also is kai —xat (Jo. 2:14), re —xai (2:15), and rarely 
te — te (Ac. 26:16). This tendency to break up into pairs is well 
shown in Ac. 2:9-11. For # see Mt. 5:17, &\d4 2 Cor. 7:11, 
ovdé Rev. 5:3. In enumerations the repetition of kai gives a 
kind of solemn dignity and is called polysyndeton. Cf. Rev. 
7:12 9 eddoyia Kal 7 6déa Kal  codla kal 4 evxapioria Kal ) TLL Kal 
divayis Kal » ioxus 7H OeG. Cf. also Rev. 4:11; 5:12; Ro. 9:4. 
Note also a similar repetition of otre in Ro. 8:38 f. For uhre 
see Jas. 5:12. So with 4 in Mk. 10:29. Perhaps, as Blass sug- 
gests,” polysyndeton is sometimes necessary and devoid of any 
particular rhetorical effect, as in Lu. 14:21. But asyndeton is 
frequent also. It often gives emphasis. See Mt. 15:19; Jo. 5:3;1 
Cor. 14:24; 15:1f. Fora striking example of asyndeton see Ro. 
1 : 29-31, where some variety is gained by change in construction 
(case) and the use of adjective instead of substantive, zemrAnpw- 
Mévous Tao adikia Twovnpia wAeoveEia Kakia, uecTOvs POdvov ddvou Ep.dos 
dddov. KaxonOias, WiOuvpraTds, KaTaddAovs, Oeoorvyets, UGpioras, vreEp- 
nbavous, adagovas, EpEeupEeTas KaKaV, yovevow ameeis, AovvETOUS, aoUP- 
Oérous, doTopyous, avedenuovas. Cf. also 1 Cor. 3:12. Sometimes 
the connective is used with part of the list (pairs) and not with 
the rest, for the sake of variety, as in 1 Tim. 1:9f. An ex- 
ample like evxaipws axaipws is compared by Blass? to nolens volens. 


1 On the whole subject of connection in sentences see Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 
3. TI1., pp. 406-437; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 551-566; Is.-G., Bd. II, pp. 224-515. 
On asyndeton in general see Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., pp. 342-358. 
SPUOLHOLIN LAG pa2l ls . call ey 


428 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(b) Cuauses. But connection is by no means uniform between 
sentences. This remark applies to both the paratactic and the 
hypotactic sentences. Asyndeton in sentences and clauses is on 
the whole repugnant to the Greek language in the opinion of 
Blass.!. Hence compound sentences in the N. T. usually have 
connectives, but not always. 

1. Paratactic Sentences. The co-ordinating conjunctions form 
the most frequent means of connecting clauses into one paratactic 
sentence. These conjunctions will receive special treatment in the 
chapter on Particles and here only some illustrations can be given. 
Kai, te, d€, ovde, unde, wev and dé, ote, adda are the most frequent 
particles used for this purpose. They are more common indeed 
in historical writings, as in the Gospels and Acts. But in the Gos- 
pels the use of xai varies a good deal. Mark, for instance, has it 
more than 400 times, while John contains it only 100.2 Deissmann 
calls this use of xai primitive popular Greek. ‘The presence of 
dialogue in John hardly explains all the difference, and even in 
John the first chapter uses it much more frequently than the last. 
As a good example of the use of xai turn to Mt. 4 : 23-25. Cf. 
Lu. 6: 138-17 and Mk. 9:2. Te is common chiefly in the Acts, as 
14: 11-13. Sometimes the use of cai between clauses amounted 
to polysyndeton, as in Jo. 10:3, 9, 12. Aé is perhaps less common 
in clauses (Jo. 4:6) except with wey (Mt. 3:11). For 6€ kai see 
Jo. 2:2. Ovéde is illustrated by Mt. 5:15, adda by 5:17, otre by 
Ac. 28:21. But asyndeton appears also, as in Lu. 6: 27f., 
ayaTare, movette, evAoyelTe, TpocevxXecbe, even if it be to a limited 
extent. Cf. Gal. 5:22. Blass’ points out that that is not a case 
of asyndeton where a demonstrative pronoun is used which re- 
flects the connection. Cf. thus the use of rodrov in Ac. 16:3; Jo. 
5:6. Winer‘ finds asyndeton frequent in cases of a climax in 
impassioned discourse, as in 1 Cor. 4:8, #6n Kexopecuevor éore” Hdn 
érAouTnoaTe, Xwpls Nudv EBacrrtevcate. The absence of the connective 
gives life and movement, as in cgiwwra, rediuwoo (Mk. 4:39). Ob- 
serve also traye tp&rov diaddaynie (Mt. 5:24), traye EXeyéov (18:15), 
everpe dpov (Mk. 2:11), évelpecOe adywuev (Mt. 26 : 46), dye, craboare 
(Jas. 5:1). This use of aye is common in the old Greek (Gilder- 
sleeve, Greek Syntax, p. 29). But in Jo. 1:46 we have épxovu xal 
iée. In 1 Tim. 3: 16 the fragment of an early hymn is neatly bal- 
anced in Hebrew parallelism. 

12 Gr OLE: DG Daa 


2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 134. On the subject of asyndeton in John see Abbott, 
pp. 69 ff, BeGr OleN wl ak Dad Us 4 W.-Th., p. 538. 





THE SENTENCE 429 


“Os epavepwOn ev capkt, 
edtKaLwOn ev mvebuaTt, 
apon ayyérous, 
exnpvxOn ev Ove, 
emtaTevOn ev KOT MY, 
avednupOn év dp. 


Here the connective would be quite out of place. 

In contrast the connective may also be absent, as in spets 
TpookuvelTe O ovK oldaTe, HuEts TpocKuVOdue 5 oldauev (Jo. 4:22). So 
Ac. 25:12. Cf. in particular 1 Cor. 15 : 42 ff., oeiperar ev p60p4, 
eveiperar ev adbapcia® oreiperar ev aTimia, eyelperar év dEN* orreEtperar ev 
acbeveia, evyeiperar ev duvaper’ omeiperar cua WuyxiKov, eyelperar c@ua 
mvevyatixov. Here the solemn repetition of the verbs is like the 
tolling of a bell. Cf. also Jas. 1:19, taxds eis 76 dxodcar, Bpadds els 
TO Nadjoat, Bpadis eis opynv. John is rather fond of repetition with 
asyndeton in his report of Jesus’ words, as éyw eiue 4 650s Kal 7 
adnbera Kat 7 [wn ovdels EpxeTar pds TOV TaTépa el uN OL Euod (14 : 6). 
Cf. 10:11; 15:18, ete. But this sort of asyndeton occurs else- 
where also, as in 1 Cor. 7: 15, od dedotAwTar 6 ddeAdds. Cf. also 7: 
23; Rev. 22:13. A common asyndeton in Luke occurs after xai 
éyevero without another xai, as efzev tus (11:1). 

2. Hypotactic Sentences. In the nature of the case they usu- 
ally have connectives. The subordinating conjunctions are more 
necessary to the expression of the exact shade of thought than in 
paratactic clauses. The closeness of connection varies greatly in 
various kinds of subordinate clauses and often in clauses of the 
same kind. The use of the correlative accents this point, as ofos 
6 émoupavios, ToLodToL Kal ot érovpdrroe (1 Cor. 15 : 48); Sorep — ot ws 
(Mt. 12:40). But real antithesis may exist without the correla- 
tive, as in Mt. 5:48; 6:2. In relative clauses the bond is very 
close and is sometimes made closer by agreement of the relative 
and antecedent not only in number and gender but even in case, 
as ots (Lu. 2 : 20) and rév dprov bv (1 Cor. 10: 16). There may be 
several relative clauses either co-ordinate (Ac. 3 : 2 f.) or subordi- 
nate to another (Ac. 13:31; 25:15f.). So also the use of efra, 
Tore, dpa, kal, Add, 6€ in the apodosis accents the logical connection 
Petioucht Cre vitel2 28° Mk. 13:14; Jo. 7:10; 20:21; 1 
Cor. 15:54; 2 Cor. 7:12, etc. But much closer than with tem- 
poral, comparative, conditional, or even some relative clauses is 
the tie between the principal clause and the subordinate objec- 
tive, consecutive, final and causal clauses. These are directly de- 


430 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pendent on the leading clause. Interrogative sentences when in 
indirect discourse really become object-clauses, like 76 ris apa ein 
(Lu. 22 : 23), object of cuvénretv. The dru, va, drws (and ws rarely) 
clauses are closely knit to the principal clause as subject, object 
(direct or indirect) of the verb. There is a natural interblending 
between object and causal sentences, as shown by the use of é7u for 
both and 6.67: in late Greek in the sense of ‘that,’ objective 67. 
Cf. quod and quia in late Latin, and English the “reason that” 
and colloquial the ‘reason why.” In Greek 67: even interchanges 
with ei (cf. English “wonder if” and “wonder that”’). So @abuacey 
el On TeOvnxev (Mk. 15: 44). Cf. Ac. 8: 22; 26: 8. Clauses with 
the consecutive idea usually have the infinitive in the N. T. Hy- 
potactic sentences cannot be here discussed in detail, but only as 
illustrating the point of connection between sentences. Winer! is 
hardly right in describing as asyndeton Jas. 5:13, kaxorafet rus 
ev bully; tpocevxéoOw, Where ei is not used, and the structure is para- 
tactic. He cites also dodNos éxAnOns; un cor wederw (1 Cor. 7:21). 
The questions in Jas. 2:19 f. are also paratactic. But more cer- 
tain examples exist than these, where either a conjunction has 
dropped out or, as is more likely, we have original parataxis. 
Thus ddes éxBatw (Mt. 7:4), ages tOwuey (Mt. 27:49) can. 
be compared with deire idere (Mt. 28: 6), Sedpo drocreithw (Ac. 
7:34), dedre dmoxretvwuey (Mk. 12:7) and the common Greek 
idiom with aye, depe. Cf. Jas. 5:1. In Mk. 15:36 note ddere 
iéwuev. One verb really supplements the other much as the infin- 
itive or participle. Cf. English “let us see.”’ In the modern Greek 
as (abbreviation of d&des) is used uniformly as the English and al- 
most like a particle. Of a similar nature is the asyndeton with 
Oeders cvANeEwuery (Mt. 13 : 28) and GBotdAecbe azodtcw (Jo. 18 : 39). 
Cf. O€dere tournow (Mk. 10: 36). Cf. also éyeipecbe aywuer (Mt. 26 : 
46) above. These are all paratactic in origin, though hypotactic 
in logical sequence. But see chapter on Modes for further details. 
In the case of dpa, épare, BX€rere, We can find examples of both the 
conjunctional use of uy and clear cases of asyndeton with some on 
the border line. Thus clearly conjunctional uy is found in BXerérw 
un wéon (1 Cor. 10 : 12), Brerere wy EredOn (Ac. 18 : 40), Brerere pH 
rapaitnonobe (Heb. 12 : 25). Asyndeton is undoubtedly in épa yun- 
devl undev elans (Mk. 1 : 44) with which compare tzaye detéov in the 
same verse. Cf. also Mt. 8:4. Thus again 6pare unédels yewwoKxéeTw 
(Mt. 9:30) where note two imperatives as in 6pa@re, ur) Opoetobe 
(Mt. 24:6). But in Brérere wh Tis buds tAavHon (Mt. 24:4) and 
1 W.-Th., p. 541. . 





THE SENTENCE 431 


dpare uy Tis ar0d@ (1 Th. 5:15) the asyndeton is more doubtful, 
since yy can be regarded as a conjunction. Cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 20. 

3. The Infinite and Participle as Connectives. A very common 
connection is made between clauses by means of the infinitive 
or the participle, sometimes with particles like éore and pip 
with the infinitive or ws, ®orep, xairep, with the participle, but 
usually without a particle. The infinitive often is used with 
the article and a preposition, as & 7G eicedety (Lu. 9:34). 
Usually the infinitive is brought into the closest connection 
with the verb as subject (7d yap Oé\ev mapdxetat por, Ro. 7 : 18) 
or object (GobdAouat mpoce’xecOar avdpas, 1 Tim. 2:8), or in a 
remotér relation, as é&j\Me 6 o7elpwy tod oreipa (Mk. 4 : 3). 
The participle sometimes is an essential part of the predicate, as 
éravoato \adey (Lu. 5:4), or again it may be a mere addendum 
or preliminary or even an independent statement. Thus observe 
eigehOwv, diadeyouevos kal re(Mwv in Ac. 19:8. As further examples of 
participles somewhat loosely strung together without a connec- 
tive in more or less close relation to each other and the principal 
sentence see Ac. 12:25; 16:27; 23:27. The genitive abso- 
lute is common in such accessory participles. The only point to 
consider concerning the infinitive and participle here is the fre- 
quency with which they are used in the structure of the Greek sen- 
tence. Thus long sentences are easily constructed and sometimes 
the connection is not clear. Frequent examples of anacoluthon 
come from the free use of the participle, as will be shown later. 
See ye.porovnfeis and oreddduevor as instances in 2 Cor. 8:19 f. 
By means of the infinitive and participle the Greek enjoyed much 
elasticity and freedom which the modern Greek has lost. In 
modern Greek conjunctions and finite verbs have very largely dis- 
placed the infinitive and the participle. Even in the N. T. a tend- 
ency in that direction is discernible, as is seen in the use of iva 
with #é€\w (Mk. 6: 25), adinue (Mk. 11:16). One is inclined to 
think that Viteau! overstates it when he says that the N. T. writers 
have a natural and general inability to combine and subordinate 
the elements of thought and so express them separately and make 
an abnormal use of asyndeton. I would rather say that there is 
a great simplicity and directness due partly to the colloquial style 
and the earnestness of the writers. They are men with a message 
rather than philosophical ramblers. But part of this absence of 
subordination may be due to the Hebrew temper as in John, and 
part to the general spirit of the time as less concerned, save in the 

1 Le Verbe, Synt. des Prop., p. 9. 


432 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


case of the Atticists, with the niceties of style. Clearness and force 
were the main things with these N. T. writers. They use connec- 
tives or not as best suits their purposes. But the infinitive con- 
struction and the conjunction construction must not be regarded 
as identical even in the N. T. Note xaddv atta ef otk eyevvnOy 
(Mk. 14 : 21), & rovrw ywaokouer dre (1 Jo. 5 : 2), Bovdy evyevero iva 
(Ac. 27 : 42). 

(c) Two Krinps oF StyLtE. There are indeed two kinds of style 
in this matter, the running (epouevn) and the periodic (& zepidédors) 
or compact (xareorpaupevn), to use Aristotle’s terminology.! In 
the words of Blass? the running or continuous style is character- 
istic of the oldest prose as well as unsophisticated, unconventional 
prose like the vernacular xo.wy, and hence is the usual form in the 
N. T. The periodic style, on the other hand, belongs to “artistic- 
ally developed prose”’ like that of Demosthenes and Thucydides. 
As a matter of fact the O. T. narrative is also in the running style, 
while the prophets sometimes use the periodic. The longer N. T. 
sentences are usually connected by xai or use asyndeton as shown 
above. But occasionally something approaching a real period 
appears somewhat like that of the great Greek writers, but by no 
means so frequently. Interesting examples of some length may 
be found in Lu. 1:1-4; Ac. 15 : 24-26; 26:10—-14, 16-18; Ro. 
P71) Petn3 218-22; (2) Pete. Zee eb. 2 32 4 ein ieee 
14 Blass? notes that the protasis has three clauses and the apod- - 
osis two, while in Heb. 1: 1-8 he finds some ten divisions of the 
sentence which is not so neatly balanced as the passage in Luke. 
It is noticeable that Luke uses this classic idiom nowhere else in 
his Gospel, while the Epistle to the Hebrews has a fluent oratorical 
style of no little beauty. Chapter 11 finds a spiendid peroration 
in 12:1 f., which should belong to chapter 11 as the closing period 
in the discussion about the promises. Cf. a similar peroration, 
though not in one sentence, in Ro. 11 : 33-86. So also Ro. 8 : 31- 
39, where verses 38 and 39 form a really eloquent period. Blass* 
indeed gives a rather free interpretation to the term period and 
applies it to sentences of only two parts like a conditional sentence 
when the condition comes first, sentences with antithesis with 
pev — 6€, disjunctive clauses with 7, or parallelisms with re — kai. 
He even finds a period in a case of asyndeton like 1 Cor. 7 : 27. 
But this is to make nearly all complex sentences periods. Blass’ 

1 Arist. Rhet., iii. 9. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 275, who amplifies 


this point. 2*Ib. 
* Gr of NL. Gkapa2ou: 


THE SENTENCE 433 


opinion on this point is to be borne in mind when he argues for 
literary rhythm on a considerable scale in the N. T. Paul indeed 
has some noble periods like Eph. 1:3-14; 2: 14-18; 3 : 14-19. 
He would show many more than he does but for the fact that he 
seems to grow impatient with the fetters of a long sentence and 
breaks away in anacoluthon which mars the fulness and sym- 
metry of the sentence as a period. Cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 18-21; Ro. 12: 
6-8; Col. 1: 9-23. In Ro. 3:7 f. the xaws and 67: clauses make 
a not very strong culmination. The ground element in Paul’s 
speech is the short sentence. Only occasionally does he combine 
these into a period.! But Paul does use antithetic and comparative 
particles and apposition. One other reason for the absence of 
rhetorical periods is the avoidance of prolonged passages of indi- 
rect discourse. In truth none of that nature occurs at all, so that 
we do not have in the N. T. passages of much length in indirect 
discourse such as one meets in Xenophon or Thucydides (cf. 
Cesar). But the quotations are usually direct either with recita- 
tive dre (Mt. 9 : 18) or without (Mt. 9 : 22). Winer? well remarks 
that what the style thus loses in periodic compactness, it gains in 
animation and vividness. But the use of the participle in giving 
periodic compactness is to be noticed, as in Ac. 23 : 27. The at- 
traction of the relative to the case of its antecedent, as already 
observed, adds another bond of union to the compactness of the 
- relative sentence as in Lu. 5:9. 

(d) TH PARENTHESIS (7rapévOects). Such a clause, inserted in 
the midst of the sentence without proper syntactical connection, 
is quite common in the N. T.’ Once the editors used too many 
parentheses in the N. T., but the number is still considerable. 
The term is somewhat loosely applied to clauses that really do 
not interrupt the flow of the thought. Thus it is not necessary to 
find a parenthesis in Jo. 7:39. The yap clause is merely ex- 
planatory. The same thing is true of Jo. 9:30 and Ac. 13:8. 
Certainly not every explanatory remark is to be regarded as pa- 
renthetical. On the other hand even a relative clause may be 
regarded as parenthetical where it is purely by the way as the 
interpretation of ‘PaSBei (Jo. 1:38 6 Néyerar) and of Mecolay (6 
éorw, ete., Jo. 1:41). But see Mk. 7:11. Editors indeed will 


1 J. Weiss, Beitr. zur Paulin. Rhet., Theol. Stud., 1897, p. 167. 

2° W.-Th., p. 545: 

3 For the Joh. use of parenthesis see Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 470-480. John 
is fond of the resumptive ody after a parenthesis, as in 2:18; 3:25; 4: 28. On 
the parenthesis in general see K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 353, 602. 


434 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


differ as to what constitutes a parenthesis as in the case of Mk. 
3:16 where W. H. use the marks of parenthesis while Nestle does 
not consider this a parenthesis. In Jo. 1:15 W. H. print a double 
parenthesis, using the dash inside the parenthetical marks. Here 
again Nestle has the colon instead of the dash and the full stop in 
lieu of the parenthetical marks. W. H. are not uniform in the in- 
dication of the parenthesis. They do it by the curved lines () 
as in Mk. 3: 16, or the dash as in Jo. 7: 22; 10: 12, or merely the 
comma as in the short phrases like g¢yoiv (2 Cor. 10:10), or 
again with no punctuation at all as in the case of doxetre (Heb. 
10 : 29). The insertion of one or two words in the midst of the 
sentence is the simplest form of the parenthesis, like-oddol, \eyw 
duiv, <nrhoovow (Lu. 13:24) and dre xara dbvam, waptup&, Kai (2 
Cor.8:3). Cf. dnolv (Mt. 14:8), én (Ac. 23 : 35), od Webdouae (Ro. 
9:1), & adpootvy Neyw (2 Cor. 11:21), etc. But the insertion of 
gnotv and én between words is rare in the N. T. Cf. Simcox, 
Language of the N. T., p. 200. A.very interesting parenthesis is 
the insertion in the speech of Jesus to the paralytic, of Aeye 74 
mapaduTik@ (Mk. 2:10). Mt. (9:6) adds rére. Lu. (5:24) has 
eitev TS Tapadedvperw. The Synoptists all had the same source 
here. These phrases, common also to the ancient Greek, do not 
need marks of parenthesis, and the comma is sufficient. A little 
more extended parenthesis is found in a clause like évoua aire 
"Iwavys (Jo. 1 : 6), Nexddnuos dvoua aiT (Jo. 3 : 1), though this again 
may be considered merely a form of apposition. A more distinct 
parenthesis still is the insertion of a note of time like joav 6e 
Huepar THY aCbuwr (Ac. 12:3). Thackeray (Gr., p. 149 note) notes a 
tendency in the LXX to put numeral statements in parenthesis. 
Note also the explanatory parenthesis in Ac. 1:15 introduced by 
te. Cf. also woel quépar dxt® In Lu. 9 : 28, which can be explained 
otherwise. In Mt. 24:15 the parenthetical command of Matthew 
or of Jesus, 6 dvaywaokwy voeitw, is indicated by W. H. only with 
the comma. In general the historical books have fewer parentheses 
than the Epistles, and naturally so. In Paul it is sometimes hard 
to draw the line between the mere parenthesis and anacoluthon. 
Cf. J. Cor. 1675s) Romoe 1218) 8 Or 15 252 Sa Oomerricnys 
look back beyond the parenthesis as in Jo. 4:7 ff. (Abbott, Jo- 
hannine Grammar, p. 470). See Jo. 10:35 xat ob dbvatar AvOAvaL 
n ypadn. Cf. the sharp interruption in Jo. 4:1-8. In Gal. 2: 5f. 
we have two parentheses right together marked by the dash in 
W. H.’s text, besides anacoluthon. Cf. Lu. 23:51, Col. 1:21 f. for 
parenthesis of some length. But see 2 Pet. 2:8 for a still longer 


THE SENTENCE 435 


one, not to mention 2 Cor. 9:12; Heb. 7: 20f.; Lu. 6:4. See 
Viteau, Htude, 1896, p. 11. As illustrating once more the wide 
difference of opinion concerning the parenthesis, Blass! comments 
on the harshness of the parenthesis in Ac. 5:14, while W. H. do 
not consider that there is a parenthesis in the sentence at all. At 
bottom the parenthesis in the text is a matter of exegesis. Thus 
if in Jo. 13:1 ff. es redos Hyaanoe abrots be regarded as a paren- 
thesis and verses 1-5 be considered one sentence (note repetition 
of eiéws) a much simpler construction is the result.2. Instead of a 
parenthesis a writer switches off to one aspect of a subject and then 
comes back in another sentence as Paul does in 1 Cor. 8 : 1-4. He 
resumes by the repetition of zepi — eldwdobbrwv oldapev. Cf. also a 
similar resumption in Eph. 3 : 14 rotrov xapw after the long digres- 
sion in verses 1-13. This construction is not, however, a technical 
parenthesis. 

(e) ANACOLUTHON. But a more violent break in the connection 
of sentences than the parenthesis is anacoluthon. This is merely 
the failure to complete a sentence as intended when it was begun 
(avaxddovfov). The completion does not follow grammatically from 
the beginning. The N. T. writers are not peculiar in this matter, 
since even in an artistic orator like Isocrates such gtammatical 
blemishes, if they be so considered, are found.’ And a careful 
historian like Thucydides will have édoéev avrots — éruxadodrres (ill. 
36. 2). It is just in writers of the greatest mental activity and ve- 
hemence of spirit that we meet most instances of anacoluthon. 
Hence a man with the passion of Paul naturally breaks away from 
formal rules in the structure of the sentence when he is greatly 
stirred, as in Gal. and 2 Cor. Such violent changes in the sentence 
are common in conversation and public addresses. The dialogues 
of Plato have many examples. The anacoluthon may be therefore 
either intentional or unintentional. The writer may be led off by 
a fresh idea or by a parenthesis, or he may think of a better way of 
finishing his sentence, one that will be more effective. The very 
jolt that is given by the anacoluthon is often successful in making 
more emphasis. The attention is drawn anew to the sentence to 
see what is the matter. Some of the anacolutha belong to other 
languages with equal pertinence, others are peculiar to the Greek 
genius. The participle in particular is a very common occasion 


1 Grr ofp Nate Gks p. 279, 

2 8. M. Provence, Rev. and Exp., 1905, p. 96. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 282. On the anacoluthon see K.-G., Bd. IT, 
pp. 588-592. 


\ 


436 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


for anacoluthon. The Apocalypse, as already shown, has many 
examples of anacoluthon. The more important N. T. illustra- 
tions of anacoluthon will now be given. It is difficult to make a 
clear grouping of the examples of anacoluthon in the N. T. on 
any scientific principle. But the following will answer. 

1. The Suspended Subject. What Abbott! calls the suspended 
subject finds illustration elsewhere than in John, though he does 
have his share. It may be looked at indeed as suspended object 
as well sometimes. The point is that the substantive, pronoun or 
participle is left by the wayside and the sentence is completed 
some other way. Thus in ray pijua apyov 6 Nadnoovew of avOpwror 
amodwaovow tept avtod (Mt. 12 : 36) observe how wav pjua is dropped 
in the construction and epi attod used. In ras otv batts 6uodoyn- 
cel — Ouodoyjnow Kayw ev ai7@ (Mt. 10:32) the same principle holds 
in regard to mds and év ai7g. But in the same verse the regular 
construction obtains in dots apynontat — apvncomar Kaya abrov. In 
Lu. 6 : 47 was 6 €pxouevos KTX., UrodelEW uty Tire EoTly Guovos WE See 
a similar anacoluthon unless 7ds 6 éox. be regarded as a rather vio- 
lent prolepsis of the subject, which is not so likely in this instance. 
In Lu. 11:11 the anacoluthon is not quite so simple, though riva 
is after all left to itself (riva 6€ é& bu@y tov ratépa aitnoe 6 vtOds 
ixObv, un avril ixObos dd aiTG érrdwoe;). If instead of tiva the sen- 
tence read ei or éav, all would go smoothly except that €£ tuav would 
be slightly awkward. Observe that airnoea has two accusatives 
without riva. The apodosis is introduced by un and as an interrog- 
ative clause expects the answer ‘“‘no.”’ But in spite of the gram- 
matical hopelessness of the sentence it has great power. In Lu. 
12:48 the matter is simpler (zapti 6€ @ €660n modd, TOAD &nTnOn- 
getat Tap’ avtod). Here two things are true. We not only have the 
stranded subject (cf. zap’ airod), but it has been attracted into the 
case of the relative (inverse attraction), zavvi, not mas. With this 
compare mas Os épet — adeOnoerar a’TG (Lu. 12:10). In 2 Cor. 12: 
17 we merely have the anacoluthon without any attraction, tiva 
expecting a verb governing the accusative (un twa dv aréotadka 
mpos buds, Ou’ av’Tod érdeovextnoa buas;). Here indeed wy is attracted 
into the case of robrwy unexpressed. A simpler instance is 6 Mwv- 
as ovTos — oldapev Ti eyevero aita@ (Ac. 7:40; Ex. 32:1). Blass? 
finds anacoluthon in Mk. 9:20 (iéav airoy 76 rvedua cuveora- 
paéev avrov), but surely this is merely treating rvedua as masculine 
(natural gender). But in Ac. 19: 34 (érvyvortes 6€ bre Lovdatds éorev 
pwr) &yevero pia éx wavTwv) there is a clear case of anacoluthon in 

A Job. Grape ee 2 Gr. of Ni-Ts2Gk., p. 233, 


THE SENTENCE 437 


the change to é ravtwv. The writings of John show similar illustra- 
tions. There is no anacoluthon in Jo. 6:22 in the text of W. le by 
which reads eidov dru instead of idav 87. — bre (margin of W. ELS) 
But in 6 : 39 there is real anacoluthon (ray 6 dédwxév por Ln amroNeow 
é€ ajrod) in the change from ray to é& abrod. It is possible to re- 
gard way un here! as equivalent to ovdeis and not like ras — un in 
Jo. 3:16. In 7:38 another suspended subject is found in 6 m- 
orebwy eis eué (cf. advo further on). But 10 : 36 is hardly anacolu- 
thon,” since one has merely to supply the demonstrative éxeiv OF 
the personal pronoun ai7é with \éyere to make the sentence run 
smoothly. In 15:2 wav «\jua — aird we have very slight anacolu- 
thon, if any, since both may be in the same case (cf. resumptive 
use of otvos). But in 15:5 the matter is complicated by the in- 
sertion of kayw & aité (6 wevwv & euol Kaya & avT@ ovtos déper). In 
17:2 (ray 6 dédwxas abtG doe abrots) we have the more usual ana- 
coluthon. In 1 Jo. 2: 24 (ipets & jxobcare am’ dpyfs & byty MEVETW) 
duets may be merely prolepsis, but this seems less likely in verse 
27 (tpuets TO xpioua 5 édaBere az’ aiTod péve év butv) where note the 
position of tyets and & tuiv. In Rev. 2:26 the anacoluthon 
(6 vexav — dwow airg) does not differ from some of those above.’ So 
also as to Rev. 3:12, 21, but in 2:7, 17 (74 vixdvre dHow aid) the 
case is the same and may be compared with Jo. 15:2, 5. Cf. the 
probable reading (W. H. bracket ai7d) in Rev. 6:4 as well as Mt. 
4:16 (LXX); 5:40 (7 O€d\ov7s — ait), where there is no real 
anacoluthon, but a resumptive use of aivé. Cf. also tuads repeated 
after parenthesis in Col. 1:22. The LXX has other similar ex- 
amples like Josh. 9: 12; Ps. 103: 15. A similar resumptive use of 
® occurs in the text (not marg. in W. H.) of Ro. 16:27. Ina sim- 
ilar way a relative clause may be left as a suspended subject or 
object, as in Lu. 9:5, dcr ay mw) S€xwvtar buds — arorwaccere Er’ 
atrots. Cf. Mt. 10:14; Lu. 10:8, 10. Cf. this with the very 
common use of resumptive ov7os after the article and the participle, 
like 6 bropetvas eis TeXos OUTOS gwOHoeTar (Mt. 10 : 22). 

2. Digression. A somewhat more complicated kind of anacolu- 
thon is where a digression is caused by an intervening sentence or 
explanatory clause. Those naturally occur mainly in the Epistles 
of Paul where his energy of thought and passion of soul overleap 
all trammels. In Jo. 5:44 the participle is dropped for the indica- 
tive (nretre. In Jo. 21:12 (ovdels éro\ua Tdv wabnrav eLeracar abrov 
Xv ris ef; eiddres) the question breaks the smooth flow and «idéres 


+Blass,.Gr. of Ni T. Gk.) p: 283. 2 Abbott, Joh. Greipaso. 
3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 283, calls it a “very awkward instance.” 


438 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


agrees in case with ovdeis and number with patyrav. With this 
compare the change from iva wi) aipwow in Mk. 6: 8 to the infini- 
tive mw) &vdtcacba in verse 9. Nestle has, however, &ébonobe. In 
Mk. 7:19 (kadapifwy ravta Ta Bpwyata) the participle can be con- 
nected in thought, as Mark probably did, with \éye in verse 18, 
but the intervening quotation makes Mark’s explanatory adden- 
dum a real anacoluthon. The example in Jo. 1:15 Abbott? calls 
‘‘impressionism’”’ due to the writer’s desire to make his impression 
first and then to add the explanatory correction. He compares 
4:1 with 3:22. In 1:15 otros jv dv efor is taken by Abbott as a 
part of the Baptist’s statement, but W. H. read od7os jy 6 eiwv as 
a parenthetical remark of the writer. So in Jo. 20:18 kal ratra 
etrev aitH does not fit in exactly after éri ‘Ewpaxa tov xbpiov. The 
added clause is the comment of John, not of Mary. The margin of 
Ac. 10:36 (W. H.) with 6v is a case of anacoluthon, but the text 
itself is without 6v. In Ac. 24: 6 the repetition of dv kai leaves ebpov- 
res cut off from éxparnoayev. In Ac. 27:10 (Oewpd br. — peddev) the 
é7c clause is changed to the infinitive, a phenomenon noted by 
Winer? in Plato, Gorg. 453 b. The anacoluthon in Gal. 2 : 6 (azo 6é 
Tov dokovyTwv eivat TL— OTOtol TOTE Haav OvdEY LoL SLadepEer — TPOTwTOV O 
deds avOpwrov ov NapBaver — Evol yap of doxodyTes oldév mpocaveberTo) 
is noteworthy for the complete change of construction as shown by 
the repetition of the of doxodvres in the nominative and followed by 
the middle instead of the passive voice. Observe the two paren- 
theses that led to the variation. It is easier in such a case to make 
a new start,as Paul does here. In Gal. 2:5 Blass? follows D in omit- 
ting ots in order to get rid of the anacoluthon, as he does also in Ro. 
16 : 27 (@), but it is more than likely that the difficulty of the an- 
acoluthon with ois led to the omission in D. One of the most strik- 
ing anacolutha in Paul’s Epistles is found at the end of Ro. 5 : 12 
where the apodosis to the do7ep clause is wanting. The next sen- 
tence (axpu yap) takes up the subordinate clause é¢’ @ juaprov and 
the comparison is never completed. In verse 18 a new comparison 
is drawn in complete form. The sentence in Ro. 9 : 22—24 is with- 
out the apodosis and verse 25 goes on with the comparative as. 
2 Pet. 1:17 shows a clear anacoluthon, for the participle \aBav is 
left stranded utterly in the change to kal tabrnv tiv dwviv jyets 
nxovoayev. Winer* seems to be wrong in finding an anacoluthon in 
the long sentence in 2 Pet. 2:4-10. The apodosis is really ofdev 
in verse 9 (verse 8 being a long parenthesis as W. H. rightly punc- 


1 Joh,’ Gr., p. 34. ° Griot Nv TG ke ces 
2 W.-Th., p. 573. 4 W.-Th., p. 569. 








eas 
oo 


THE SENTENCE 439 


tuate). However, Winer’ is justified in refusing to see anacoluthon 
in many passages formerly so regarded and that call for no dis- 
cussion now. See further Mt. 7:9; 12:36; Mk. 2:28;7:3f.: 
Piezo els 2b) 6; 30. 6:39) 17:18- Ac. 15:22 ff.- 
Rea eee e20roy 0 1625-27; 1°Cor.:9:15; Col. 2 22: 
PeOemepiows eaeored 25521 Th: 421) Heb. 3:15; 10:15-4.- 
1 Tim. 1:3-5; Ju. 16. It is very common in the Apocalypse as 
in 2 Corinthians and Galatians. 

3. The Participle in Anacolutha. It calls for a word of its own 
in the matter of anacoluthon, although, as a matter of fact, it 
occurs in both the kinds of anacoluthon already noticed. The 
reason is, the free use of the participle in long sentences (cf. Paul) 
renders it peculiarly subject to anacoluthon. The point with the 
participle is not that it is a special kind of anacoluthon in any other 
sense. Gal. 6:1, kataprifere, cxomav ceavTov, ui) Kal ov Te_pacb7s MAY 
be regarded as anacoluthon in the change of number, but it is a 
natural singling-out of the individual in the application. In 2 Cor. 


5:12 the ellipsis of ypagouev tatra with diddvres is so harsh as to 


amount to anacoluthon. Cf. also @ABduevo. in 2 Cor. 7:5. It is 
less certain about oredddpevor in 2 Cor. 8 : 20, for, skipping the long 
parenthesis in verse 19, we have ouvereufauev. But in the paren- 
thesis itself xeporovnfeis is an example of anacoluthon, for regu- 
larly éxe.porovnfy would be the form. In 2 Cor. 9:11, 138, the 
participles our fouevor and dofafovres have no formal connection 
with a principal verb and are separated by a long parenthesis in 
verse 12. But these participles may be after all tantamount to the 
indicative and not mere anacoluthon. Just as sequimini (sec. pl. 
mid. ind.)= éduevor, so other Greek participles may correspond 
to the indicative or imperative. Moulton® cites numerous ex- 
amples from the papyri which make this possible for the xov7. 
But Moulton‘ sees a sharp difference between the ‘‘ hanging nom- 
inative” like éywv 6 vouos in Heb. 10:1 (if dtvavtar be accepted, 
W. H. divarac marg.) and éxovres in Ph. 1 : 80, where, however, 
W. H. make a long parenthesis and seek to connect éxovres with 
atnkere (verse 27). These are indeed mere anacolutha, but one 
wonders if the connection between these and Ro. 12 : 6 (€xovres) is 
so very distant after all. Participles are scattered along in this 
chapter in an “unending series”® mingled with infinitives and 
imperatives. Thus in 12 :9-13 we have participles, verse 14 the 
1 Tb., p. 571. 


2 Moulton, Prol., p. 223. dey 4 Tb., p. 225. 
2°) Blass, Grvof N.T. Gk.,-p. 285. 


440 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


imperative, verse 15 infinitive, verse 16% participles, 16° impera- 
tive, 17 participles. Here the participle does seem to be practi- 
cally equivalent to the imperative (cf. inf. also). See Participle 
(Verbal Nouns) for discussion of this point. In 2 Cor. 6:3 the 
participles skip over verse 2 and carry on the construction of 
verse 1, and it is resumed in verse 9. For a group of participles 
with the imperative see Eph. 5 : 15-22. Cf. also Col. 3:16. The 
point is that these various gradations in the use of the participle 
are not always clearly defined. As regards the nominative par- 
ticiple rather than the genitive absolute, Winer! remarks that 
thus the participle gains greater prominence in the sentence. In 
Eph. 4:2 avexouevo. may not be anacoluthon, but may be in ac- 
cord with js é&kAnOnre. Col. 1:26 is the case of the indicative rather 
than a participle (é¢avepwOn, not redavepwuevov). See 1 Cor. 7: 37 
where éywy is succeeded by éve, but (W. H.) éyeipas Kal xabicoas 
(Eph. 1: 20). Cf. Rev. 2:2, 9. As to Heb. 8:10 (10:16) d:d0ts 
is explained by Winer? as referring to dca?jcouar without anaco- 
luthon, while Moulton* considers it equal to an indicative and 
parallel to érvypayw. Iam inclined to agree with Winer on this 
point. In 2 Cor. 5:6ff. Paul, after using 6appotvres, repeats it in 
the form of @appoduevy because of the intermediate clauses before 
he expresses eddoxoduer, the main verb.* Finally compare éq@’ dy av 
ions TO mvedua KaTaBatvoy Kal pEevov éx’ av’rov (Jo. 1 : 33) with 76 mvedyua 
KataBatvoy ws mepratepav €& ovpavod, kal euewev éx’ aitov (verse 32), 
where the last clause is the comment of the Baptist to give spe- 
cial emphasis to that point, more than the participle would. 

4. Asyndeton Due to Absence of 6€ and a\d\a. Winer? considers 
the absence of 6€ or a\Xa to correspond with ye as a species of 
anacoluthon, and Blass® shares the same idea. Asa matter of fact 
(see chapter on Particles) wey does not require 6€ either by etymol- 
ogy or usage. It is rather gratuitous to call such absence an in- 
stance of anacoluthon. The examples will be discussed later, such 
as. Ac. 13131324 Roz lle sete: 

(f) ORATIO VARIATA. 

1. Distinction from Anacoluthon. Sometimes indeed the line 
between anacoluthon and oratto variata is not very clearly drawn. 
Thus in Lu. 17:31 (és éorae emt rod dwparos Kal ra oxen abtod & TH 
oixia) the second clause cannot repeat the relative és, but has to 
use a’tod. Cf. 1 Cor. 8: 6 (é& ob — kal eis abrov), 2 Pet. 2:3 (ots — 
kal ait@v). So also in 1 Cor. 7:13 atrfs repeats Aris. Cf. Rev. 

1 W.-Th., p. 572. a Prok, pe224: 5. Tb. 

2 1D. p. aiae 4°W.-Dh., p.-5738: 6 Op. cit., p. 286. 


THE SENTENCE 441 


17:2. In Ro. 2:6ff. after the relative Clause 8s’ dmodace ‘there 
is a subdivision of the object, on the one hand (rots yey — ¢nTotow 
fwnv aiwvov), on the other (rots 6é — adixia dpy1) al Ovuuds) where the 
nominative changes the construction and és cannot here be re- 
peated. In Ro. 11:22 indeed both of the phrases that extend the 
accusatives xpynorornTa kal arorouiay Geod are put in the nominative 
(aroropuia, xpnororys). In Gal. 4:6f. Paul changes from éoré to 
ef. This is all oratio variata in reality and is in accord with the 
ancient Greek idiom. Blass! considers Tit. 1 : 2 f. an instance of 
oratvo varrata, but tov doyor in all probability is to be regarded as 
in apposition with 4, which is the object both of érnyyeidaro and 
epavepwoev. Thus W. H., but Nestle agrees with Blass. 

2. Heterogeneous Structure. That is what oratio variata really 
is and it can be illustrated by a number of passages other than the 
relative and with less element of obscurity about them. In Rev. 
2:18 6 &wyr is followed by kai atrod just like the relative sentences 
above. Thus also 2 Jo. 2. In Rev. 7:9 after efdov kai idob we find 
a mixed construction, dxXos éor&res (constr. xara obveow) with idod, 
mepiBeBrAnuevovs With efdov. Winer? rightly distinguishes the varia- 
tion in case in Rey. 18 : 12 f. (gen., acc., gen., acc.) and the similar 
phenomenon in Rev. 2 : 17 where there is a real distinction between 
the use of the genitive and the accusative. The use of brodede- 
pevovs in Mk. 6:8 is probably due to the ellipse of ropevecOar, for 
the correct text has ui évdtoacba just after. For similar ellipse and 
oratio variata see 2 Cor.8:23. InMk. 12:38 after dedovtwr Trepitarety 
it looks like a sudden change to find adcracuots, but after all both 
are in the accusative with dedov7wv. The irregularity in Mk. 3 : 16 
is met in the text of W. H. by a parenthesis, but it could have 
been cleared up also by @ (referring to [eézpov instead of kai as 
Winer? suggests). In Jo. 8: 53 the continuity of the interrogative 
form of sentence is abruptly broken by the short clause kal of mpo- 
dita. aréfavov, a very effective interruption, however. ‘The case 
of 1 Jo. 2:2 is simple where instead of wept r&v ddov Tod Kocpov 
(to be parallel with od wept trav juerepwv) John has merely zepi 
Sdov Tod Kécuov, a Somewhat different conception. A similar ex- 
ample is found in Ac. 20 : 34 as between rats xpelars wou and tots 
otot per’ éuod. Heb. 9:7 furnishes the same point in inverse order 
(irép cavrod Kal T&v Tod aod a&yvonudtrwr). A lack of parallel is 
shown also in Ph. 2: 22 between rarpi réxvov and ody éuot where 
Paul purposely puts in ctv to break a too literal carrying out of 
the figure. In Rev. 1:6 the correct text in the parenthesis has 

Pare Ol Nels Gk.. Ds.250- 2 W.-Th., p. 579. Sal: 


442 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Huds Bacirelav, tepets 7H Oe, a different conception from BaovXe?s. 
See further Ac. 16:16 f. 

3. Participles in Oratio Variata. These offer a frequent occa- 
sion for oratio variata, since they can so often be used parallel 
with subordinate clauses of various kinds. Thus in Jo. 5:44 
AauBavovtes would naturally be followed by ¢nrodyres, but we have 
-gnretre. So, on the other hand, in 1 Cor. 7:13 kai cvvevdoxet does 
not fit in as smoothly with arucrov as kal cvvevdoxodyra would. The 
same lack of parallel in the use of the participle is seen in Jo. 
15:5 (6 wevwy xayw) and in Lu. 17:31 where the relative and the 
participle are paired off. So also Ph. 1:23 and 1 Jo. 3:24. Cf. 
the Participle in Anacolutha. In Ro. 12:6 f. participles and sub- 
stantives are placed in antithesis, as in 2 Cor. 6:3 f. we have 
participles, in 4-7 &, in 7” f. 6:4, in 9 f. adjectives and parti- 
ciples. Cf. 2 Cor. 11:23 ff. where adverbs, adjuncts and verbs 
are in antithesis. ‘ 

4, Exchange of Direct and Indirect Discourse. But the most 
striking instance of oratio variata is that between direct and in- 
direct discourse. It is either from the indirect to the direct or 
from the direct to the indirect. As Blass! justly observes, the N.T. 
writers, like all popular narrators, deal very little in indirect dis- 
course. The accusative and the infinitive is not common in the 
old sense nor is é7e always the sign of indirect quotation. Fre- 
quently it is merely recitative 67. and corresponds to our quotation- 
marks, as in Mk. 14:14, ezare 7G oixodeorérn Ste ‘O b1ddoKados 
Aeyer. So also duets Neyere Ste BrAacdyuets (Jo. 10: 36). This re- 
version to one form of discourse from another is not unknown to 
the ancient Greek. But it is peculiarly in harmony with the N. T. 
vernacular and essentially vivid narrative style. In Lu. 5:14 we 
have a typical instance of the change from indirect to direct dis- 
course (rapnyyerey atT@ undevi eiretv, ANd’ arreNay SetEov ceavTor). 
Exactly parallel with this is Ac. 1:4 a\\a qepiuevery tiv érayyedlav 
Tov TaTpos HY HNKoVcaTe you Where observe pwov. Cf. also Ac. 17:3 
where after dvedeEaTo 671 — 6 ’Inoods Luke concludes with the direct 
words of Paul dv éya katayyéd\dAw buiv. In Jo. 138 : 29 we have the 
reverse process where the writer drops from the direct to the in- 
direct statement (aydpacov Gv xpelav exouev els THY EopThy, 7 Tots 
mTwxots iva tt 63). So also we see the same thing in Ac. 23 : 23 f. 
(éro.udoate — THs vUKTOs, KTHVN TE TapacThaa iva — Siacwowow). But 
in Ac. 23 : 22 the other change occurs, as wapayyelAas pndevi éxXa- 
Ajioa Ore Tadta evedaviocas mpos eve. In W. H.’s text of Ro. 12: 

Af Gre or Nv. Gk pecee. 





THE SENTENCE 443 


1f. we have rapakad® buds rapacrioa’ Kal un ovvoxnuartivecbe (not 
—cbar). In Mk. 11:32 the writer proceeds with his own remarks 
(€poBobvro roy OxXov) after the question rather in the nature of ana- 
coluthon, though in Mt. 21 : 26 ¢oBotueba is read as indeed a few 
MSS. do in Mark. So also Mt. 9:6, where the writer injects 
into the words of Jesus 7ére Neyer 7H wapaduTiKG, we probably have 
anacoluthon rather than oratio variata (see (d), Parenthesis). 

(g) CONNECTION BETWEEN SEPARATE SENTENCES. So far we 
have been considering the matter of connection between the vari- 
ous parts of the same sentence, whether simple or compound, and 
the various complications that arise. But this is not all. The 
Greeks, especially in the literary style, felt the propriety of indi- 
cating the inner relation of the various independent sentences that 
composed a paragraph. This was not merely an artistic device, 
but a logical expression of coherence of thought. Particles like 
Kal, 6€, dAAG, yap, ovv, 6n, etc., Were very common in this connec- 
tion. Demonstrative pronouns, adverbs, and even relative pro- 
nouns were also used for this purpose. I happen to open at Mt. 
24 : 32-51 a paragraph of some length. The first sentence begins 
with de. The sentences in verses 33 and 34 have asyndeton and so 
are without a connective. In verse 36 d6€ reappears, while the two 
sentences in verses 37 and 38 both have yap. Verse 40 begins with 
Tore, 2 common word in this usage in Matthew, as & a’r7 77H pa is In 
Luke. Verse 42 begins with oty as its connective, while 43 drops 
back to 6é In 44 6a rot7vo answers as a link of union while 45 
uses dpa. Verses 46 f. have. asyndeton while 48 has de. This long 
sentence completes the paragraph save the short sentence in verse 
51 introduced by éxe?. I think this paragraph a fair sample of the 
didactic portion of the Gospels. Asyndeton occurs, but it 1s not 
the rule. In the Gospel of John ofy is a.much more frequent con- 
nective between sentences than «ai, as any chapter (11 for instance) 
will show. The Beatitudes (Mt. 5:3-12) have no connectives 
at all, and are all the more effective because of the asyndeton. 
Winer! finds this didactic asyndeton common also in James, the 
Gospel of John (cf. 14-17) and 1 John. But asyndeton is sometimes 
noticeable also in the non-didactic portions of John, as 20: 14-18. 
No formal rules on the subject can be made, as the individual 
speaker or writer follows his mood of the moment in the matter. 
The point is to observe that, while asyndeton often occurs, in 
general Greek writers even in the N. T. use connectives between 
separate sentences. 

1 W.-Th., p. 536. 


444 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(h) CONNECTION BETWEEN PARAGRAPHS. It is only natural 
to carry the matter one step further and unite paragraph with 
paragraph. For a discussion of the origin of the paragraph see 
the chapter on Orthography and Phonetics. The paragraphs in 
our printed Greek texts are partly the work of the modern editors, 
yet not wholly so. But even in real or original paragraphs the 
connection varies greatly. In some there will be none at all, but 
an entirely new theme will be presented, whereas with others we 
merely have a new aspect of the same subject. I happen to turn 
to the sixth chapter of John. The chapter opens with pera radra, a 
real connective that refers to the incidents in chapter 5, which may 
have been a full year before. The next paragraph in W. H. begins 
at verse 14 and has oty. At verse 22 there is no connective ex- 
cept 7H éxabprov which may be compared with the 76re of Matthew. 
The paragraph at verse 41 has oty again, which is very common in 
John in this connection, as can be seen illustrated also in verses 
52 and 60. At verse 66 the paragraph begins with é« rotrov, a real 
connective. If we go into chapter 7 we find xai in verse 1, dé in 
verse 10, 6€ again in verse 14, oty in verse 25, no connective in verse 
32, 6€ in verse 37, ovv in verse 45. Asyndeton on the whole is 
rather more frequent in the Gospel of John than in the Synoptic 
Gospels. Abbott? gives a detailed discussion of the kinds of 
asyndeton in John. In Paul’s Epistles one would expect little 
asyndeton between the paragraphs especially in the argumentative 
portions. In general this is true, and yet occasionally even in 
Ro. asyndeton is met as in 9:1; 18:1. But in chapter 8 every 
paragraph has its connective particle. Note also ody in 12 : 1 at the 
beginning of the hortatory portion after the long preceding argu- 
ment. As between sentences, there is freedom in the individual 
expression on the subject. For Hort’s theory of the paragraph see 
Intr. to N. T. in Gr., p. 319. By means of spaces he has a system 
of sub-paragraphs, as is plain in the text of W. H. 

XIII. Forecast. There are other things to be considered in 
the construction of the sentence, but enough has been treated in 
this chapter. What remains in syntax is the minute examination 
of the relations of words (cases, prepositions, pronouns, verbs in 
mood and voice and tense, infinitives and participles), the relations 
of clause with clause in the use of subordinating conjunctions, 
the particles, figures of speech (aposiopesis, ellipsis, paronomasia, 
zeugma, ete.). There is a natural order in the development of 
these matters which will be followed as far as possible in the dis- 

1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 70f. 2 Ib. Cf. W.-Th., p. 537. 


’ THE SENTENCE 445 
cussion of syntax. The individual words come before the relation 
of sentences or clauses. In the discussion of words either nouns 
or verbs could be taken up first, but, as verbs are connected more 
closely with conjunctions than nouns they are best treated Just 
before conjunctional clauses. Prepositions are properly discussed 
after cases. The article is a variation of the demonstrative pro- 
noun. But at best no treatment of syntax can handle every aspect 
and phase of language. The most that can be achieved is a pres- 
entation of the essential principles of N. T. syntax so that the 
student will be able to interpret his Greek N. T. according to 
correct grammatical principles derived from the living language 
of the time. 


CHAPTER XI 
THE CASES (IITQZEIS) 


I. History of the Interpretation of the Greek Cases. 

(a) Conrusion. Perhaps nowhere has confusion been worse 
confounded than in the study of the Greek cases. The tendency 
has been usually to reason backwards and to explain past phenom- 
ena by present conditions. The merely logical method of syntax 
has turned the pyramid on its apex and has brought untold error 
into grammar.' The Stoics took interest in grammar for philo- 
sophical purposes and gave the logical bent to it in lieu of the his- 
torical. Dionysius Thrax and Apollonius Dyscolus went off on 
the wrong trail in the matter of the Greek cases. 

(b) Bopr’s Contrisution. Bopp brought daylight out of 
darkness by comparative grammar. Hibschmann? gives an ad- 
mirable history of the matter. He illustrates the eight cases 
copiously from the Sanskrit, Zend and Persian. Thanks now to 
such workers as Schleicher, Brugmann, Delbriick, the eight Indo- 
Germanic cases are well wrought out and generally acknowledged. 
Cf. brief discussion of the forms of the Greek cases in chapter VII 
(Declensions). Greek grammarians still differ, however, in the 
terminology applied to the cases. In 1911 the Oxford and Cam- 
bridge scholars issued a tract “On Terminology in Grammar,” 
but confusion still reigns. See also W. Havers, Untersuchungen 
zur Kasussyntax der indog. Sprachen. When the Stoic gramma- 
rians wrote, the genitive and ablative had the same forms, and 
the locative, instrumental and dative likewise. There were oc- 
casional survivals of distinction like otxo. and oixw, Cypriotic 
instrumental apa and dative apa, etc. But in general the work of 
syncretism was complete in the respects just mentioned, though 


1 Hiibschmann, Zur Casuslehre, p. v. : 

2 Ib. Cf. Dewischeit, Zur Theorie der Casus (1857); Rumpel, Die Casuslehre 
(1875). Hadley (Essays Phil. and Crit., Gk. Gen. as Abl., p. 46) speaks of “the 
Beckerite tendency, too frequently apparent in Kiihner, to impose a meaning on 
language rather than educe the meaning out of it.” 

446 


THE CASES (ITOZEIZ) 447 


in Arcadian the genitive and the locative took the same form! 
(cf. Latin Romae, domi). But the grammarians, ignorant of the 
history of the language, sought to explain the genitive and ablative 
ideas from a common source. Thus Winer? boldly calls the gen- 
itive the “whence-case” and undertakes to explain every usage of 
the genitive from that standpoint, a hopeless exercise in grammat- 
ical gymnastics. The same sinuosities have been resorted to in 
the effort to find the true dative idea in the locative and instru- 
mental uses of the forms called dative by the grammars. 

(c) Mopern Usacre. Some modern grammarians? help mat- 
ters a good deal by saying true genitive, ablatival genitive, true 
dative, locatival dative, instrumental dative. This custom recog- 
nises the real case-distinctions and the historical outcome. But 
some confusion still remains because the locative and the dative 
never mean exactly the same thing and are not the same thing in 
fact. It partly depends on whether one is to apply the term 
‘“‘case”’ to the ending or to the relation expressed by the ending. 
As a matter of fact the term is used both ways. ”“Ovoya is called 
indiscriminately nominative, vocative or accusative, according to 
the facts in the context, not nominatival accusative or accusatival 
nominative. So with Bacudels or toes. We are used to this in 
the grammars, but it seems a shock to say that wo\ews may be 
either genitive or ablative, that éuoi may be either locative, instru- 
mental or dative. But why more of an absurdity than in the case 
of dvoua and wodes? The only difference is that in the gen.-abl. 
the syncretism of form applies to all Greek words. For various 
examples of syncretism in the forms of the Greek cases with 
fragments of distinctive endings also see Brugmann, Griech. Gr., 
p. 375 f.; Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 420 f.; and chapter 
VII (Declensionis). 

(2) GREEN’s CLASSIFICATION. I agree with B. Green,* whom 
I shall here quote at some length: ‘‘I shall classify the uses of the 
cases under the heads of the Aryan Cases, as in every instance the 
true method of explanation of any particular idiom is to trace its 
connection to the general meaning of the original Aryan case, to 
which the case in Greek or Latin corresponds, and not arbitrarily 
to distinguish the uses of any case in Greek or Latin by terms 
which cannot be properly applied to that case; e. g., the term 
dative of manner is no explanation. Manner cannot be expressed 

1 Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 303. 2 W.-Th., p. 184 f. 


3 Cf. Babbitt, A Gr. of Attic and Ionic Gk., 1902. 
4 Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., 1897, p. 11. 


448 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


by the true dative case. The correct explanation is that the use 
is instrumental, but the instrumental case in Greek has coalesced 
in form with the dative. This method of explanation has the ad- 
vantage of demanding fewer set terms, while at the same time it 
requires a logical connection to be made between the particular use 
in question and the fundamental meaning of the case involved. 
Such an explanation is the better the simpler the words used in it 
are.” This is wonderfully well said and has the advantage of be- 
ing true, which is not always said of grammatical comments. It 
is the method of history, of science, of life. It is the method pur- 
sued in the etymology and history of a word. It is the only way 
to get at the truth about the significance of the Greek cases. 

(e) SYNCRETISM OF THE Cases. This method of interpretation 
does not ignore the syncretism of the cases. On the other hand 
it accents sharply the blending of the forms while insisting on the 
integrity of the case-ideas. There are indeed some instances where 
either of the blended cases will make sense, like 77 de&a rod Oeod 
ipwheis (Ac. 2 : 33), which may be locative ‘exalted at,’ instrumen- 
tal ‘exalted by,’ or dative ‘exalted to’ (a rare idiom and in the 
older Greek), ‘the right hand of God.’ Cf. also rH édride éowOnuev 
(Ro. 8:24). So in Heb. 12:11 xapaés and Avrns may be explained 
either as genitive or ablative. But such occasional ambiguity 
is not surprising and these instances on the “‘border-line”? made 
syncretism possible. In general the context makes it perfectly 
clear which of the syncretistic cases is meant, just as in English 
and French we have to depend on the order of the words to show 
the difference between nominative and accusative. Yet no one 
would say that nominative and accusative are the same in Eng- 
lish and French.! 

(f) FrEEDoM IN UsE or Case. Asa matter of fact it was often 
immaterial whether a writer or speaker used one of several ways 
of expressing himself, for the Greek allows liberty and flexibility 
at many points. Thus 70 yévos and 76 yevee would either answer 
for the specifying idea, rpocxvvéw is used with either accusative or 
dative, wruvnoxowac with accusative or genitive, etc.2 But this is 
not to say that one construction is used for another or is identical 
with the other. The difference may be ‘‘subtle, no doubt, but real’’ 
(Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 66). Moulton properly (7b.) cites the 


1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 75, illustrates the rapid disappearance of 
case-endings in the Irish tongue, which as late as i/aA.p. had a full set of inflec- 
tions, whereas by the fifth century only traces of the dat. plur. survive. 

2 W.-Th., p. 180. 


THE CASES (IITOQSEIZ) ~ 449 


well-known distinction between the accusative and genitive with 
axovw in Ac. 9:7 and 22 : 9 as disproof of apparent self-contradic- 
tion and a gentle hint not to be too ready to blur over case-dis- 
tinctions in Luke or elsewhere in the N. T. He notes also genitive 
and accusative with yevec@a: in Heb. 6:4 f. and the common use 
of eis with accusative after verbs of rest and é& with locative even 
after verbs of motion. But it is hazardous to insist always on a 
clear distinction between eis and &, for they are really originally 
the same word. The point is that by different routes one may reach 
practically the same place, but the routes are different. Indeed 
one may take so many different standpoints that.the border-lines 
of the cases come very close sometimes. So é£ dpiorepas (abl.), & 
apioTepa (loc.), eis apioreparv (acc.) are all good Greek for ‘on the left’ 
(we have also in English ‘at the left,’ ‘to the left’).! 

II. The Purpose of the Cases. 

(a) ARISTOTLE’S Usace. He applied the term z7éavs to verb, 
noun, adverb, etc., but the later grammarians spoke only? of the 
mT@o.s ovouatos, though as a matter of fact adverbs and prepo- 
sitions are in cases, and even conjunctions and other particles 
are usually in cases. But in ordinary parlance substantives, ad- 
jectives, pronouns, the article are in cases and have inflection. 
The cases originally had to do only with these. The adverbs were 
merely later modifications or fixed case-forms. 

(b) Worp-RExations. The cases were used to express word- 
relations, the endings serving to make it plain what the particular 
case was. The isolating languages, like the Chinese, show such 
relations by the order of the words and the tone in pronunciation. 
Modern English and French use prepositions chiefly besides the 
order of the words. These word-relations concern substantives in 
their relations with other substantives, with adjectives, with prep- 
ositions and with verbs. So adjectives and pronouns have all 
these relations. It is immaterial whether verb or substantive is 
the earliest in the use of a case with a substantive. In the old 
Sanskrit practically all the word-relations are expressed by the 
eight cases. This was a very simple plan, but as language became 
more complicated a great strain was bound to be put on each of 
these cases in order to convey clearly so many resultant ideas. 

As a matter of fact the ground-meaning of the case-forms is not 
known.? On Origin of Case-Forms see chapter VII, 1, 2, (c). 

1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 67. 

2 Cf. Steinthal, Gesch. der Sprachw., p. 259; Hiibschm., Zur Casusl., p. 3. 

3 Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 374. 


450 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


III. The Encroachment of Prepositions on the Cases. 

(a) THe Reason. The burden upon the cases was too great. 
Even in the later Sanskrit a number of set case-forms (adverbs) 
came to be used with some of the cases to make clearer the exact 
relations of words, whereas in the older Sanskrit no such helpers 
were felt to be needed. This was the beginning of prepositions. 
Prepositions have a wrong name. They do not come before any- 
thing essentially, and just as often in Homer came after the noun. 
Indeed éuparwy aro is not anastrophe, but the original type.1. Nor 
was the preposition originally used with verbs. The preposition 
is merely an adverb that is used with nouns or in composition 
with verbs. But more about that hereafter (Prepositions). ‘The 
point to note here is that when the burden upon the cases grew 
too great adverbs were called in to make clearer the meaning of 
the case in harmony with the analytic tendency of language.? 

(b) No “GovERNING” oF Casges. These adverbs did not 
govern cases. They were merely the accidental concomitants, 
more or less constant, of certain cases. At best ‘‘the cases could 
express relationship only in a very general way. Hence arose the 
use of adverbs to go with cases in order to make the meaning more 
specific. These adverbs, which we now call prepositions, in time 
became the constant concomitants of some cases; and when this 
has happened there is an ever-increasing tendency to find the 
important part of the meaning in the preposition and not in the 
case-ending.”? This quotation from Giles puts the matter in a 
nutshell. In spite of the average grammarian’s notion that prep- 
ositions govern cases, it is not true. The utmost is that the prep- 
osition in question is in harmony with the case in question.* 

(c) Nort Usrep INDIFFERENTLY. These prepositions were not 
used indifferently with all the cases. They are, of course, impos- 
sible with the vocative. But the nominative may be used with 
such adverbs, not called prepositions by the grammarians because 
it seems difficult to explain a preposition “governing”? the nom- 
inative. But Paul does not hesitate to say tzep éyw (2 Cor. 11: 23) 
though tzep is not construed with éyw. Cf. also eis xara ets (Mk. 
14:19), xa6’ eis (Ro. 12:5). It is not certain that any preposi- 
tions are [see x11, (f)] used with the true dative and few with 


1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 341. 2 Tb. 

3° bp at ents 

4 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 173. Farrar (Gk. Synt., p. 94 f.) puts 
the matter succinctly: “It is the case which borrows the aid of the preposition, 
not the preposition which requires the case.” 


f 
THE CASES (IITOZEIS) 451 


the instrumental (aya, ctv). Giles! denies that the genitive is ever 
used with a preposition. Certainly what is called the geni- 
tive with prepositions is often the ablative. Probably éri and 
avri are used with the real genitive. Naturally the cases that 
are more local in idea like the locative (‘where’), the accusa- 
tive (‘whither’) which is partly local, the instrumental (‘where- 
with’) and the ablative (‘whence’) are those that are most 
frequently supplemented by prepositions.” 

(dq) OrnteInaAL Usk wits Locau Casss. Originally most of 
the prepositions were used with either of these local cases (loc., 
instr., abl.). Some few of them continued to be so used even in 
the N. T. This matter will come up again under the head of 
Prepositions, but we may note here that ézi and apa are the only 
prepositions that use three cases with any frequency? in the N. T., 
and in the case of éi it is probably the true genitive, not the abla- 
tive. Ilpés has accusative 679 times, locative 6, and ablative 1 
(Ac. 27 : 34, a literary example).4 The bulk of those that have two 
are narrowing down to one case°® while avd, avti, eis, &, mpd have 
only one, and audi has disappeared save in composition. If this 
N. T. situation, which is amply supported by the papyri, is com- 
pared with the usage of Homer, the contrast will be very great.® 
To carry the matter a step further one may note that in late 
Greek there is a constant tendency for all prepositions to be used 
with the accusative, so that in modern Greek vernacular all the 
“proper” prepositions are regularly employed with the accusa- 
tive.’ The occasional LX X use of civ + accusative, while a mere 
error, was in line with this tendency. 

(ec) INcREASING Use oF Prepositions. The constantly in- 
creasing use of prepositions is one of the main reasons for the 
blending of the case-forms. This was already partly apparent in 
the Sanskrit in the assimilation of genitive and ablative singular 
and in the plural of ablative and dative. So the Latin locative, 
dative, ablative, instrumental, in most words merged their forms. 
Moulton’ accents the fact that it was the local cases (loc., abl., 
instr.) in the Greek that first gave way in their endings. That is 
true with the exception of the accusative (not a purely local 


1 Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 341. 

2 Ib. But Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 125, correctly admits the gen. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 106 f. “lb; bribe pao: 
6 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 125 ff. 

7 Thumb, Handb., p. 98; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. 

8 Prol., p. 60 f. 


452 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


case), which has shown more persistence than any case save the 
genitive. The genitive is a non-local case and has held on, though 
the dative has disappeared in modern Greek vernacular before 
eis + accusative, the accusative without eis, and the genitive. But 
this break-down of the case-endings seen in Sanskrit, much more 
apparent in Greek and Latin, has reached its climax in modern 
English and French. In modern English the six Anglo-Saxon end- 
ings, barring pronouns, have disappeared save one, the genitive (s), 
and even that can be expressed by the prep. of. In French the 
process is complete except in prons. Modern Greek vernacular 
shows the influence of this tendency very decidedly. The Greek 
of the N. T. comes therefore in the middle of the stream of this 
analytic tendency. In the old Sanskrit it was all case and no 
preposition. In modern French it is all preposition and no case- 
ending. The case-ideas have not disappeared. They are simply 
expressed more minutely and exactly by means of prepositions. 
By and by the case-endings were felt to be useless as the prepo- 
sition was looked to entirely for the idea. The case without prep- 
osition belongs to the early stage of language history... When 
Delbriick? speaks of a ‘‘living’’ case, he means the case-ending, 
as does Moulton* when he asserts that ‘‘we can detect a few 
moribund traces of instrumental, locative and ablative.’”’ If he 
means the case-meaning, the instances are abundant. And even 
in case-ending it is not all one-sided, for the locative —. and the 
instrumental —o.s both contributed to the common stock of forms. 
Henry‘ even suggests that in dvoua-ros we have the ablative ¢ (d), 
for the Latin word is nomen (nominis). 

(f) DistiINcTION PRESERVED IN THE N. T. But the N. T. has 
not lost distinctive use of the cases and prepositions. Special 
causes explain some of the phenomena in the N. T. The excessive 
use of év in the N. T. is parallel to that in the LXX (cf. Jer. 21: 
5f., 9f.) and is doubtless due partly to the Hebrew 3 which 
it so commonly translates as Moulton® observes. But the so- 
called instrumental use of & like & foudaia (Rev. 6:8; cf. Mt. 
12 : 26 f.) is not due entirely to the Hebrew, for, while very com- 
mon in the LXX, where it is in “‘the plenitude of its power,’’® 
yet the papyri show undoubted examples of the same instrumental 


1 See further Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 376; Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 419. 
2 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 193: 

SATOMI OU: | 

4 Comp. Gr. of Gk. and Lat., p. 217. 

°tProjpeGL 6 C. and &., Sel. from the LXX, p. 82. 


THE CASES (IITQSEI>) 453 


usage.! See further Locative Case and also Prepositions (é). In- 
deed in the N. T. é& outnumbers eis three to two.?_ If these two 
prepositions are left out of consideration, the disappearance of 
the locative with prepositions is quite marked in the N. T., a de- 
cay already begun a good while before,* only to be consummated 
in the modern Greek vernacular, where eis has displaced év (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 100). When one recalls that dative and instrumental 
also have gone from the modern Greek vernacular and that o7é 
with the accusative (eis rév) replaces all three cases in modern Greek 
and that originally & and eis were the same preposition, he is not 
surprised to read 6 es tov aypov (Mk. 13 : 16) where Mt. 24:18 
has 6 év 76 ayp@. So Mt. 12:41, perevonoap eis 7d knpvyya "Iwva. 
Moulton‘ has a very suggestive study of mucrebw. He omits those 
examples where the verb means ‘entrust’ and finds about forty 
others with the simple dative. In the majority of these forty the 
verb means ‘believe.’ There are some debatable passages like 
Jo. 5:24, 38; 8:31; Ac. 5:14; 16:34; 18:8. He finds only one 
passage outside of Eph. 1:13 where év @ is assimilated (cf. éo¢pa- 
yicOnre), viz. Mk. 1 : 15 (morevere & 7 evayyediw), and he follows 
Deissmann® in taking év as ‘in the sphere of.’ IILvoretw émi is 
found six times with the locative and seven with the accusative 
in the sense of ‘repose one’s trust’ upon God or Christ. But m- 
otevw eis occurs 45 times (37 in Jo. and 1 Jo.) in the sense of 
‘mystical union with Christ,’ like Paul’s év Xpicrd.® 

IV. The Distinctive Idea of Each of the Cases. 

(a) FUNDAMENTAL IDEA. The point is, if possible, to get at 
the fundamental idea of each of the eight original cases. To do 
this it is essential that one look at the Greek cases historically 
and from the Greek point of view. Foreigners may not appreciate 
all the niceties, but they can understand the respective import 
of the Greek cases.’ The N. T. writers, as we now know per- 
fectly well, were not strangers to the vernacular xow4, nor were 
the LXX translators for that matter, though they indeed were 
hampered by translating a Semitic tongue into Greek. The 
N. T. writers were in their element when they wrote vernacular 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 61 f. 

2 Ib., p. 62. Helbing, Die Prepos. bei Herodot und andern Histor. (1904), 
pp. 8 ff., gives a summary of the uses of é& and eis. Cf. also Moulton’s re- 
marks on Helbing’s items (Prol., p. 62). 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 62. 

SProbepsosii: 6 Cf. Heitmiiller, Im Namen Jesu, I, ch. 4 

5 In Christo, p. 46 f. 7 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 68. 


454 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


xown. They knew the import of the Greek cases as used at 
that time by the people at large. 

(b) Cases NoT Usrep For ONE ANoTHER. We have no right 
to assume in the N. T. that one case is used for another. That is 
to say, that you have a genitive, but it is to be understood as an 
accusative. Winer! properly condemns such enallage casuwm. 
Not even in 2 Cor. 6:4 (curicravortes éavtods ws Ae00 duaKovor) do 
we have an instance of it, for the nominative (lit. plural) means ‘as 
minister of God I commend myself,’ while the accusative (écaxovous) 
would be, ‘I commend myself as a minister of God.’ We are then 
to look for the distinctive idea of each case just as we find it. In 
the modern Greek, to be sure, the cases are in such confusion (da- 
tive, locative, instrumental gone) that one cannot look for the old 
distinctions. 

(c) ViraLity oF CAsE-IpEA. This independence of the case- 
idea is not out of harmony with the blending of case-forms (abl. 
and gen., loc. and instr. and dat.). This is a very different matter 
from the supposed substitution of cases alluded to above. The 
genitive continued to be a genitive, the ablative an ablative in 
spite of the fact that both had the same ending. There would be, 
of course, ambiguous examples, as such ambiguities occur in other 
parts of speech. The context is always to be appealed to in order 
to know the case. 

(d) THe HistoricAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE Cases. This 
is always to be considered. The accusative is the oldest of the 
cases, may, in fact, be considered the original and normal case. 
Other cases are variations from it in course of linguistic develop- 
ment. With verbs in particular which were transitive the accusa- 
tive was the obvious case to use unless there was some special 
reason to use some other. The other oblique cases with verbs 
(gen., abl., loc., instr., dat.) came to be used with one verb or the 
other rather than the accusative, because the idea of that verb 
and the case coalesced in a sense. Thus the dative with zeifo- 
pat, the instrumental with ypdoua, ete. But with many of these 
verbs the accusative continued to be used in the vernacular (or 
even in the literary language with a difference of idea, as dxobw). 
In the vernacular xow7 the accusative is gradually reasserting itself 
by the side of the other cases with many verbs. This tendency 
kept up to the complete disappearance of the dative, locative and 
instrumental in modern Greek (cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 31), and the 


1 W.-Th., p.180f. The ancients developed no adequate theory of the cases 
since they were concerned little with syntax. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 37. 


ee 


i a re 


THE CASES (IITQZEI2) 455 


genitive, accusative and eis compete for the function of the old 
dative (ib., pp. 38 ff.).1. The accusative was always the most 
popular case. Krebs? has made a useful study of the cases in 
the literary xow7n, and Moulton® thinks that these tendencies of 
the literary xow7 are really derived from the vernacular. But not 
all the verbs fall in with the decay of the dative-locative-instru- 
mental. Thus zpocxvvety in the N. T. has the dative twice as often 
as the accusative, Just the opposite of the inscriptions. But the 
papyri show little proof of the decay of the dative save in the 
illiterate examples.® The accusative gains from the genitive and 
ablative in the N. T. also, as Krebs found in the later literary 
Greek. Moulton® finds that out of 47 examples xparety has the 
genitive only 8 times, but dcadepe (‘surpass’) has the ablative. 
’EvrperecOar takes only the accusative, and the accusative appears 
with verbs of filling (Rev. 17: 3).7 Moulton concludes his résumé 
of Krebs by calling attention to the list of verbs that were once 
intransitive, but are transitive in the xowy. This is a matter 
that is always changing and the same verb may be used either 
way. A verb is transitive, by the way, whether it takes the 
accusative or not; if it has any oblique case it is transitive. As 
illustrations of this varied usage Moulton cites from the N. T. 
évepyetv, cuvepyetv, émepxecOar, KaTaBapety, Katadadety, KaTaTovely, Ka- 
Tisxbew, TAEovEKTELY, TpoTHwvety, WroTpexeLY, Xopnyetv. He concludes 
his discussion of the matter with a needed caveat (p. 65 f.) against 
thinking that all distinctions of case are blurred in the N. T. “We 
should not assume, from the evidence just presented as to varia- 
tion of case with verbs, that the old distinctions of case-meaning 
have vanished, or that we may treat as mere equivalents those 
constructions which are found in common with the same word.” 
Analogy no doubt played its part in case-contamination as well 
as in the blending of the case-endings.® 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 325. 

2 Zur Rection der Casus in der spit. hist. Gric., 1887-90. 

3 Prol., p. 64. 5 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153. 
4 Ib.; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. BP OrOusD. 00: 


7 Ib. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 102. Cf. Thumb, Theol. Lit., XXVIII, 
p. 422, for mod. Gk. usage. As a matter of fact the acc. was always more pop- 
ular in the vernac. Gk., and no wonder that the pap. show it to be so even with 
verbs usually in the lit. lang. used with other cases. Cf. Volker, Pap. Graec. 
Synt., 1900, p. 5f. 

8 Middleton, Anal. in Synt., pp. 47-55. Farrar, Gk. Synt., overstates 1t 
when he says that the ace. alone has preserved its original force, He means 
form alone. 


456 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(e) THe Mertruop or THIS GRAMMAR. In the study of each 
case the method of this grammar is to begin with the root-idea of 
the particular case in hand. Out of that by means of context 
and grammatical history the resultant meaning in the particular 
instance can be reached. This is not only more simple, but it is 
in harmony with the facts of the linguistic development and usage. 
Even in an instance like & paxaipy (Lu. 22 : 49) the locative case 
is not out of place. The smiting (zard£éouev) is conceived as located 
in the sword. Cf. é& pa48dw (1 Cor. 4:21). The papyri show the 
same usage, as indeed the older classical Greek did occasionally. 
In English we translate this resultant idea by ‘with,’ but we 
have no right to assume that the Greeks thought of é as ‘with.’ 
The LXX shows that the Hebrew 2 corresponded closely to the 
Greek év in this resultant idea. In translation we often give not 
the real meaning of the word, but the total idea, though here the 
LXX follows closely the Hebrew. One of the chief difficulties in 
syntax is to distinguish between the Greek idiom and the English 
translation of the idiom plus the context. But enough of prelim- 
inary survey. Let us now examine each case in turn. 

V. The Nominative (1TGots 6p6H, evOeta, d6vopactiKn). 

For the older books on the nominative case see Hiibner, Grund- 
russ etc., p. 36. 

(a) Nor THe Oupest Casn. The first thing to observe about 
the nominative is that it is not the oldest case. The accusative 
is treated first in some grammars and seems to be the oldest. 
That is the proper historical order, but it seems best on the 
whole to treat the so-called ‘oblique’ cases together. The term 
“oblique cases” (rrwces Aaya) has a history. The nominative 
was not originally regarded as a case, but merely the noun (dvoya). 
So Aristotle. The vocative is not a real case, as we shall see di- 
rectly. Hence a case (casus) was considered ws ard Tod évduatos 
metTwkuia, Areal rrGors. All the true cases therefore were oblique. 
Indeclinable words are artwra. When the nominative was con- 
sidered a case it was still called by the word for noun (dvoyacrekn, 
nominativus), the naming or noun case. The Hindu grammarians 
indeed call the nominative prathamd (‘first’) as the leading case, 
not in time, but in service. This is merely the logical arrangement 
followed by the Western scholars.2, There was once no need felt 
for a nominative, since the verb itself had its own subject in the 
personal endings.* But originally one may suppose a word served 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 67. 2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 89. 
§ Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 113; Giles, Man., p. 301. 


THE CASES (IITOQZEI=) 457 


as subject of the verb and may have become an ending. Even 
the impersonal verbs like kadés exe have the subject in the same 
way. The use of a special case for this purpose was an after- 
thought. 

(b) REASON FoR THE Case. Why then was the nominative 
used? Why was it ever originated? Its earliest use was in apposi- 
tion to the verbal subject alluded to above.! Greater precision in 
the subject was desired, and so a substantive or pronoun was put 
in apposition with the verbal ending.” Sometimes both substan- 
tive and pronoun are employed as in a’rds 6€ éyw Tladdos rapaxadd 
(2 Cor. 10:1). Other languages can even use other cases for 
such apposition in the predicate. Cf. English Jt’s me, French c’est 
mov and Latin dedecori est. And the Greek itself shows abundant 
evidence of lack of concord of case in apposition (cf. Rev. in the 
N. T.).* But the nominative is a constant resource in appositional 
phrases, whatever case the other word may be in. The whole 
subject of apposition was discussed in the chapter on the Sentence. 
Cf. 6 avOpwmos otros, where the same point applies.4 Cf. avnp tis 
’Avavias (Ac. 5:1). In the modern Greek this usage partly re- 
places the explanatory genitive, as omrvpl owam., ‘mustard seed’ 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 33). 

(c) PrepicaTE NoMINATIVE. The predicate nominative is in 
line with the subject nominative. It is really apposition.? The 
double nominative belongs to Greek as to all languages which use 
certain verbs as a copula like efvat, yiveoOar, xadetcOar, etc. Cf. 
av ef Ilérpos (Mt. 16:18). The Latin is fond of the dative in such 
examples as id mihi honori est, and the Greek can use one dative, as 
Svoud éort por.© Thus in the N. T. éA70n 76 dvoua adtod Inaods (Lu. 
2:21), avijp xadobmevos Zaxxaios (Lu. 19: 2), av dvoua 7G dobAw Madxos 
(Jo. 18: 10), as well as? "Iwévns éoriv dvoya airod (Lu. 1:63). The 
use of the nominative in the predicate with the infinitive in indirect 
discourse (ddckovres efvar cofol, Ro. 1: 22) is proper when the sub- 
ject of the principal verb is referred to. See Indirect Discourse 
(Modes and Infinitive). But the N. T., especially in quotations 
from the LXX and passages under Semitic influence, often uses 


1 Tb., p. 302. 

2 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 188. / 

3 Cf. Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 203, for exx. of the free use of the 
noun in app. 

4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117. 

5 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 393 f.; Monro, Hom. Gk., p. 114f. 

6 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 44. 7 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 256. 


458 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


eis and the accusative rather than the predicate nom. Moulton! 
denies that it is a real Hebraism since the papyri show the idiom 
écxov map’ vuav eis da(vecov) orepwata, K.P. 46 (i/A.D.), where eis 
means ‘as’ or ‘for,’ much like the N. T. usage. But the fact that it 
is so common in the translation passages and that the LX X is so 
full of it as a tranlation of 2 justifies Blass? in saying that it is 
formed on a Hebrew model though it is not un-Greek. Winer? 
finds it in the late Greek writers, but the Hebrew is chiefly respon- 
sible for the LXX situation. The most frequent examples in the 
N. T. are with evar (€covrar eis capxa piav, Mt. 19 : 5, which can be 
compared with Lu. 3:5; 2 Cor. 6:18; Ac. 8 : 28, etc.), yiverOat 
(€vyevnOn els kedadyy ywvias, Mt. 21:42, with which compare Lu. 
13:19; Jo. 16: 20; Rev. 8:11, etc.), éyeipew eis Baordea (Ac. 13: 22), 
Eoyiabn els Sixacoovyny (Ro. 4: 3 ff.). Cf. also Jo. 16 : 20. Probably 
the following examples have rather some idea of purpose and are 
more in accord with the older Greek idiom. In 1 Cor. 4 : 38, éuol eis 
élaxiorov éotiv, the point is not very different. Cf. also 1 Cor. 
14 : 22 (eis onuetov). But observe un eis xevov yevnrae (1 Th. 3 : 5), 
eis TavrTas avOpwrous els Kataxpiua (Ro. 5:18), éyevero 7 rods els Tpia 
neon (Rev. 16: 19). 

(d) SoMETIMES UNALTERED. As the name-case the nominative 
is sometimes left unaltered in the sentence instead of being put in 
the case of the word with which it is in apposition. Cf. Rev. 1:5; 
Mk. 12 : 38-40; Lu. 20:27; Ac. 10:37. This is in accord with 
the ancient Greek idiom, though the Book of Rev. has rather more 
than the usual proportion of such examples. See chapter on the 
Sentence, pp. 413 ff. In Rev. 9:11 observe dvoua eve ’Amod- 
Niwy (cf. ’ABaddwv also), where the nominative is retained much 
after the fashion of our quotation-marks. The same thing‘ is 
noticeable in Jo. 13:13 byuets dwvetre we ‘O dtddcKados kal ‘O xdbpos, 
for thus W. H. print it. This is a classic idiom. Cf. Xenoph., 
Oec. 6, 14 Exovras, 7d ceuvdy todTo 76 Kaos Te Kayabds. Cf. Lu. 
19 : 29; 21:37, where W. H. print eis 76 dpos 76 Kadobmevov éardv. 
But we know from Ac. 1:12 (a6 dpovs tod kadovpévouv édardvos) 
that €\a.wyv could be in Luke a nominative (abundantly confirmed 


A Prolene alts 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p..85. “Hin starker Hebraismus,” W.-Sch., p. 257. 

3 W.-Th., p. 184. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 235, endorses Blass’s view (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 85) 
that in Jo. 13 : 13 we have the voc. The nom. is hardly “incredible” (Blass). 
Cf. loose use of the nom. in lists in Boeot. inser, in the midst of other cases 
(Claflin, Synt., etc., p. 46). 





THE CASES (IITQ=EIZ) 459 


by the papyri). The most that can be said about the passages 
in Luke is that the nominative é\awy is entirely possible, perhaps 
probable.t In Rev. 1:4 (a6 6 ay kai 6 fv Kai 6 épyduevos) the 
nominative is kept purposely, as has been shown, to accent the 
unchangeableness of God, not that John did not know how to use 
the ablative after azo, for in the same sentence he has amo trav 
avevuatwy. Moulton? aptly describes the nominative as “‘resid- 
uary legatee of case-relations not obviously appropriated by 
other cases.” But as a matter of fact the nominative as a rule 
is used normally and assimilation is general so that in Mt. 1:21 
(cf. 1 : 25 also) we read kadécers 7d dvoua aitod ‘Inooty. Cf. Mk. 
3:16 dvoua Hérpov and Ac. 27:1 éxatovtapyn dvoyuare lovNiw. Cf. 
Ac. 18:2. It is, of course, nothing strange to see the nomina- 
tive form in apposition with a vocative, as of ¢oBotpevor (Rev. 
19:5), warep nuav 6 & Tots ovpavots (Mt. 6:9). This is only nat- 
ural as the article and participles have no vocative form. Cf. & 
avOpwre 6 kpivwy (Ro. 2:3). Cf. even oval byutv, of éurerdAnopevor 
(Lu. 6 : 25), where we have really the vocative, not apposition. 
(e) THE NoMINATIVE ABSOLUTE. ‘The nominative is sometimes 
used absolutely, nominatus pendens, just as the genitive (abla- 
tive) and accusative are. Cf. ablative absolute in Latin, loca- 
tive in Anglo-Saxon, and nominative absolute in modern Greek 
and modern English. In titles the nominative is the natural case 
and is left suspended. Cf. Ilat\os xAnros aroarodos (1 Cor. 1: 1). 
The LXX has an abnormal number of suspended nominatives, 
due to a literal translation of the Hebrew.’ But the N. T. has 
some also which are due to change of structure, as 6 wav romjow 
airév (Rev. 3:12), 6 vuxdv doow atrG (Rev. 3:21), 6 yap Mwvojs 
otros — ov oldauev Ti &yévero alto (Ac. 7:40), mav pnua apyov — 
dmodwaovet epi av’tod Noyov (Mt. 12 : 36), Tatra & Bewpetre, EXeboovTar 
Auepar (Lu. 21:6). In particular is the participle (cf. Jo. 7 : 38, 
6 micrebwy eis €ué) Common in such a nominative, about which see 
the chapter on the Sentence (anacoluthon). Moulton‘ considers 
this one of ‘‘the easiest of anacolutha.’’ Cf. further as és épet 
— apeOnoerar ait (Lu. 12 : 10; cf. verse 8). Cf. Jo. 18:11. Some 
of the examples, like 76 débvaroy rod vouov, & @ jobeve (Ro. 8 : 3), 
may be regarded as accusative as easily as nominative. The 


1 See extended discussion in Moulton, Prol., pp. 69, 235. See also note in 
this Gr. in ch. on Orthog, Cf. W.-Sch., p. 256 f. 

2 Prol., p. 69. 

3 C. and S., Sel. from the. LXX, p. 55.° 

4’ Prol., pp. 69, 225. 


460 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


papyri! show plenty of examples of this suspended nominative. 
For classical instances see Riemann and Goelzer, Syntaze, p. 41. 
For elliptical nominative see Evdia (Mt. 16 : 2). There was a con- 
stant tendency in the LXX to drift into the nominative in a long 
series of words in apposition (Thackeray, p. 23). 

(f) Tut PARENTHETIC NOMINATIVE is of a piece with what we 
have been considering. So in Jo. 1:6 we have évoya ai7ad ’Iwavns 
all by itself. Cf. 3:1 (Nexddnuos dvoua ai7S). Similarly the nom- 
inative in expressions of time rather than the accusative may be 
explained.2. For example in Mk.'8 : 2 we read 6é7c én juépar Tpets 
mpocpevovoly wo. and=Mt. 15:32. In Lu. 9: 28 woel jyepar oxrw the 
matter is simpler. Blass? compares with this passage ws apav tpidv 
duaaotnua (Ac. 5:7) and idod déxa kal oxtw érn (Lu. 13:16). The use 
of iéob with the nominative is very common and may be a case of 
ellipsis. Cf. i6ov dw éx rv obpavdv Neyovoa (Mt. 3:17). Cf. Heb. 
2:18, etc. In Mk. 6:40 observe aveérecay rpacial rpaciai. This 
leads one to suspect that cvurodc.a cuumocra in verse 39 may be 
nominative also. The repetition is not a mere Hebraism, since 
the papyri show examples of it. See Eccl. 2:16 xafdze Hon af 
Huepar Epxouevar TA mavra éredAnobn. ‘This use of the nominative is 
common in the papyri (cf. ére juepac yap én Tpets kal vixres Tpels 
Oexdra ok eynyeptar, Acta Pauli et Theclae in O.P.1., p. 9) and can 
be traced in the Attic vernacular back to the fifth century B.c.4 
Thumb finds it still in the modern Greek, and Hopkins (A.J.P: 
xxiv. 1) “cites a rare use from the Sanskrit: ‘a year (nom.) almost, 
I have not gone out from the hermitage’”’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 235). 
See other papyri examples in Cl. Rev., April, 1904, p. 152. Of a 
piece with this is the nominative with adverbs (prepositions) like 
els xara ets (Mk. 14 : 19) where the first eis is in partitive apposition 
and the second is kept rather than made accusative. Cf. xa’ eis 
(Ro. 12:5), ava ets (Rev. 21:21). Brugmann® indeed considers 
the adverbs rp@rov, devrepov, etc., in the nominative neuter rather 
than the accusative neuter singular. He cites davayié as proof. 
Cf. the use of kai rodro (and also kai tadra), as Kal rodro éml ariotwr 
(1 Cor. 6:6). But aird rotro (2 Pet. 1 : 5) is probably accusative. 
The prolepsis of the nominative as in 1 Cor. 14:16 (6 dvarAnpav 
Tov ToTov Tod idiwwrov Tas epet) is natural. Cf. examples like ypévos 
6 av’rés in Boeotian inscriptions (Claflin, Syntax, etc., p. 47). 


1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 151 f. 

2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 70. ’ Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 85. 
* Moulton, Prol., p. 70; Meisterh., Gr., etc., p. 203. ° 

6 Griech, Gr., p. 378, 


THE CASES (IITQSEI2) 461 


(g) In Excuamations. The nominative is natural in exclama- 
tions, a sort of interjectional nominative.! So Paul in Ro. 7 : 24, 
Tadaltwpos éya avOpwros, and 11:33, @ Baos (a possible vocative) 
mrotrov. So. Ro. 7:24; 1 Cor. 15:57. Cf. xapis 7G O66 (Ro. 
6:17). For parallel in papyri see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. 
Cf. xapis tots Oeots, B.U. 848 (i/a.D.). 

(h) Usep as Vocative. It only remains to consider the nom- 
inative form which is used as a vocative. Cf. chapter VII, 7, (a), 


‘for details as to form. It all depends on what one means by the 


term ‘case’ when he says that the nominative is used as a voca- 
tive. The form is undoubtedly the same as that of the vocative in 
a multitude of instances (all neuter nouns, for instance, singular 
and plural, plural of all nouns in truth). It is only in the singular 
that any distinction was made between the nominative and voca- 


tive in form, and by no means always here, as in the case of fem- 


inine nouns of the first declension, #eds (usually) in the second, 
liquid oxytones like zo.uny in the third, etc. But if by the voca- 
tive one means the case of address, then the nominative form in 


address is really vocative, not nominative. Thus ot, zarnp (Jo. 


17:21) is just as truly vocative as ot, warep (17:5). Indeed in 
Jo. 17:25 we have zarjp dixace, showing that zarnp is here re- 
garded as vocative. The article with the vocative in address was 
the usual Hebrew and Aramaic idiom, as indeed in Aristophanes? 
we have 6 rats axo\ol§e. It is good Greek and good Aramaic too 
when we have ’ASGa 6 ratnp (Mk. 14:36) whether Jesus said one 
or both. In Mt. 11 : 26 (val, 6 tarnp) we have the vocative. When 
the article is used, of course the nominative form must occur. 
Thus in Rey. 18:20 we have both together, otpavé xal of aytor. 
Indeed the second member of the address is always in the nom- 
inative form.’ Thus Kipee, 6 Ocds, 6 ravtoxpatwp (Rev. 15:3). Cf. 
Jo. 20:28. I shall treat therefore this as really the vocative, not 
the nominative, whatever the form may be, and now pass on to 
the consideration of the Vocative Case. 

VI. The Vocative (wT&ots KANHTLKN). 

(a) NATURE OF THE VocaTivE. Dionysius Thrax called it also 
mTpocayopevtixyn, but in reality it is not a case at all. Practically it 
has to be treated as a case, though technically it is not (Farrar, 


Greek Syntax, p. 69). It is wholly outside of syntax in that the 


word is isolated and has no word-relations.* The isolation of the 


1 Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 41; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 115 f. 
2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86; Moulton, Prol., p. 70. 
3 Riem. and Goelzer, p.42. ‘4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p.376; Giles, Man., p. 302. 


462 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


vocative may be compared to the absolute use of the nomina- 
tive, genitive and accusative. The native Sanskrit grammarians 
do not name it in their list of cases, and Whitney! merely 
treats it in the singular after the other cases. Indeed ‘the 
vocative is sometimes as much a sentence as a case, since the 
word stands to itself and forms a complete idea. Thus Mapidy 
and ‘PafPouvvei (Jo. 20:16) tell the whole story of recognition 
between Jesus and Mary. When Thomas said ‘O kdbpids pou Kal 6 
Geos you (Jo. 20:28), he gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and 
of the fact of his resurrection. 

(b) Various Devices. The vocative has no case-ending, but 
has to resort to various expedients. In general it is just like the 
nominative inform. ‘This is true in all pronouns, participles and 
various special words like 6eés, besides the plurals, neuters and 
feminines mentioned under v, (h). Cf. the same practical situation 
in the Sanskrit.2, Farrar’ indeed conjectures that originally there 
was no difference in form at all between the nominative and voca- 
tive and that the variation which did come was due to rapid 
pronunciation in address. Thus zarjp, but ratep. Cf. avep (1 Cor. 
7:16). In most languages there is no distinction in form at all 
between nominative and vocative, and in Latin the distinction is 
rare.t It need not be surprising, therefore, to find the nominative 
form of many singular words used as vocative as noted above 
under the discussion of the nominative. Moulton® indeed re- 
marks: ‘‘The anarthrous nominative should probably be regarded 
as a mere substitute for the vocative, which begins from the ear- 
liest times to be supplanted by the nominative.’ Even in the 
singular the distinction was only partial and not very stable at 
best, especially in the vernacular, and gradually broke down till 
“in modern Greek the forms in ¢ are practically the only separate 
vocatives surviving.” Thus Blass® observes: ‘‘ From the earliest 
times (the practice is as old as Homer) the nominative has a tend- 
ency to usurp the place of the vocative.” This nominative form 
in the singular is Just as really vocative as in the plural when used 
in address. The N. T. therefore is merely in line with the oldest 
Greek idiom in such examples. So dvyarnp (Mk. 5 : 34; Lu. 8: 48; 
Jo. 12:15, LXX), but see 6tyareop in Mt. 9:22. In Jo. 17:21, 
24, 25, W. H: read zrarnp, but razep in. Jo. 12°28: 17:1, 5, 11) ete 
Moulton’ rightly refuses to follow Hort in writing zarnp in voca- 

1 Sans. Gr., p. 89. 3 Gk. Synt., p. 70. Sa Proltiniad - 


2 Whitney, p. 105. 4 Ib., p. 69. 6 Gri of NiLCGk, pases 
7 Prol., p. 71. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 158. 


THE CASES (IITQSEIZ) 463 


tive. In the margin of Mt. 9: 27 W. H. read vié Aaveid rather 
than vids A. Mt. 1:20 has ’Iwond vids Aaveid, and 15: 22 kipre vids 
Aaveid, all examples of apposition. Cf. Mt. 20:30. But in Lu. 
8 : 28 and 18 : 38 we have vie. The adjective d¢pwy is vocative in 
Lu. 12 : 20 and 1 Cor. 15:36. Cf. also yeved &rioros in Lu. 9 : 41. 
In Acts 13:10 wAnpns is vocative. Cf. indeclinable use of this 
word. As is well known 6eés was usually retained in the voca- 
tive in the older Greek, not 6eé. In the N. T. 6cé only appears 
in Mt. 27:46 in quotation from the LXX where it is rare.! 
Jannaris? indeed thinks that in the N. T. this idiom is 
rather frequent. Cf. dAads wou in Baruch 4:5. In Ac. 7:42 
oixos “Iopan\ is vocative (from LXX). Cf. also Ba6os mdovbrov 
(Ro. 11:33), not address, but exclamation. When the vocative 
has a separate form in the singular it is usually merely the stem 
of the word, like zoNira, datuov, Néorv(r), etc. But it is more than 
doubtful if this usage goes back to the original Indo-Germanic 
stock. Cf. Bacired in Ac. 26:7. In the second declension mas- 
culine nouns in the singular show a change in the stem-vowel, o 
changing to e. This usage has persisted in modern Greek verna- 
cular in most words; but note #eds above and the variations about 
vids. But see avOpwre (Ro. 2:1) as usual. In ytva (Mt. 15: 28) 
x has dropped from the stem, as in forms like \éov the 7 vanishes 
for euphony. In @iyarep and rarep the mere stem suffers recessive 
accent. In Ps. 51:6 (yAd@ooav dodiav) we actually have the ac- 
cusative form used as a vocative.4 See further discussion in ch. VII 
(Declensions). 

(c) USE OF ® WITH THE VocaTIVE. It is rare in the N. T., 
only 17 times, all but four of these in Luke and Paul. In Blass- 
Debrunner, p. 90, the rarity of & is attributed to the Semitic in- 
fluence. The common absence of it gives a sort of solemnity 
where it is found.’ Moulton® observes that it is only in Luke’s 
writings that it appears in the N. T. without emphasis after the 
classical fashion. Take as an instance of this literary usage ® 
Oedgrre (Ac. 1:1), but kpdaticre Oeddrre in Lu. 1:3. Moulton 
likewise notes the absence of & in prayer in the N. T. (though 
sometimes in the LX X) and considers “the progressive omission 
of &” in Greek not easy to explain. It came up from the verna- 
cular and then gradually vanished from the vernacular much as 


1 W.-Sch., p. 258 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 86 f. 

galiist, Gk: Grip) o2s- 

3 Delbriick, Syntakt. Forch., IV, p. 28. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 327. 
4 C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 56. SSbTole prc. 


464 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


our O has done.! Blass? notes that in most of the N. T. examples 
it expresses emotion, as @ yivat (Mt. 15 : 28), @ yeved &moros (Mk. 
9:19), & rdnpns (Ac. 13 :10), etc. The tone may be one of censure 
as in Ro. 2:3; 9:20. But it is a mistake to think that the ancient 
Greeks always used ® in formal address. Simcox? notes that 
Demosthenes often said dvdpes ’A@nvator just as Paul did in Ac. 
17:22. Paul says & dvdpes once (Ac. 27:21). But the addresses 
in the N. T. are usually without @ (cf. Ac. 7:2). 

(d) ApsecTIVES USED WITH THE VocATIVE naturally have the 
same form. Thus ® dvOpwre xevé (Jas. 2:20), dod\e rovnpe (Mt. 
18:32), warep aye (Jo. 17:11), xparicre Ocdpere (Lu. 1:3). In 
Jo. 17:25 we read zarip dixae, clearly showing that zatnp was— 
regarded as a true vocative form. In Lu. 9:41 @ yeved amoros 
the substantive has the same form in nominative and vocative 
and the adjective here follows suit. Cf. also Ac. 13:10; Lu. 12: 20 
where the adjective alone in the vocative has nominative form. 

(ec) APPOSITION TO THE VocATIvE. The nominative forms and 
distinctive vocative forms are freely used side by side, in apposi- 
tion, etc., when the case is vocative.t In Mt. 1:20 we have 
"Iwond vids Aaveié, and in 15 : 22 W. H. read in the text kipre vids 
Aaveié. Cf. also Mt. 20:30. So xtpre, 6 beds, 6 ravToxpatwp (Rev. 
15:3), and & avOpwre, as 6 kpivwv (Ro. 2:1). In the last instance 
the participle and article naturally are unchanged. See again 
ovpave kal of ayo, etc. (Rev. 18:20). Cf. also rarep judy 6 & rots 
ovpavots (Mt.6:9). So xbpré you tarnp, B.U. 423 (1i/a.D.). But two 
vocative forms are put together also. So ’Inaod vié rod tWicrov 
(Lu. 8 : 28), rarep xipre rod ovpavod (10 : 21), Incod vie Aaveté (18 : 38). 
In Ac. 13:10 the nominative form is followed by two vocative 
forms, @ wAnpns Tavrds dd\ov KTX., vie dtaBddou, ExOpe TaoNS SiKacocbyns. 
But zAnpys may be here indeclinable. There is a distinct tendency 
among the less educated writers in the papyri to use the nominative 
as a convenient indeclinable (Moulton, Cl. Rev., April, 1904). So 
Ths exitnpnots, N. P. 38 (iii/A.D.). 

(f) VocaTiIvE In Prepicate. The vocative is rarely found in 
the predicate, though not grammatical predicate. This was oc- 


1 Cf. J. A. Scott, Am. Jour. of Philol., xxvi, pp. 32-43, cited by Moulton, 
Prolene. 

2 Greof NeTs Gk) psebs).Clealso.W seh... p.2ort. Johannessohn, Der 
Gebr. d. Kasus u. d. Prap. in d. LXX, 1910, pp. 8-13. 

3 Lang. of the N. T., p. 76. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 378. 

* K.-G., I, p. 50; Giles, Man., p. 302; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 116. Cf. also 
C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 55. 


THE CASES (IITQSEIS) 465 


casionally the case in the older Greek by a sort of attraction to a 
real vocative in the sentence.! But in the N. T. we only have a 
few examples in the nature of quotation or translation. So in Jo. 
1: 38, ‘PaBBei, 6 Néyerar peOeppynvevduevov Ardacxadre; 20:16 ‘PaB- 
Bovvei, 6 NeyeTar AcddoKare. 

(g) THe ARTICLE wWitH THE Vocative. This idiom is frequent 
in the N. T., some 60 examples.? It is a good Greek idiom and not 
infrequent.* Delbriick‘ finds it in harmony with the Indo-Germanic 
languages. Moulton® denies that the coincident Hebrew and 
Aramaic use of the article in address had any influence on the 
N. T. But one must admit that the LXX translators would 
be tempted to use this Greek idiom very frequently, since the He- 
brew had the article in address. Cf. 3 Ki. 17:20, 21, etc. In 
Mk. 5:41 the Aramaic Tade6a is translated 76 xopdcvov. One is 
‘therefore bound to allow some influence to the Hebrew and Ara- 
maic.’ Cf. also ’AGBa 6 warnp in Mk. 14 : 36, Gal. 4:6, and Ro. 
8:15. It is doubtless true that 4 mats éyepe (Lu. 8: 54) has a 
touch of tenderness, and that 76 uxpov roiurov (Lu. 12 : 32) means 
‘you little flock.’ But one can hardly see such familiarity in 
6 matnp (Mt. 11:26). But in Mk. 9: 25 there may be a sort of 
insistence in the article, like ‘Thou dumb and deaf spirit’ (76 
&dadov kal kwhdv mvedua). EHven here the Aramaic, if Jesus used 
it, had the article. Moulton® considers that Baoired in Ac. 26 : 7 
admits the royal prerogative in a way that would be inappropriate 
in the mockery of Jesus in Jo. 19:3 (xatpe, 6 Bacideds Tv Iovdaiwy). - 
But Mk. 15 : 18 does have Bao.red ray ’lovdaiwy, due, according to 
Moulton, to ‘‘the writer’s imperfect sensibility to the more delicate 
shades of Greek idiom.”’ Possibly so, but may not the grammarian 
be guilty of slight overrefinement just here? In Mt. 27:29 the 
text of W. H. has Baotded while the margin reads 6 Baoidebs. In 
Rev. 15:3 we have 6 Baowdels Tay aiwywy. In Heb. 1:8 it is not 
certain whether (6 Opdvos cov 6 beds) 6 Beds 18S Vocative or nominative. 
But 6 decréryns 6 aytos Kal addnOiwos (Rev. 6:10) is vocative. As 
examples of participles in the vocative take 6 katad\twy (Mt. 27 : 40) 


1 Giles, Man., p. 302; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 377. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., 


p. 397 f. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 70. 
3 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 70. Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 46 ff. 
4 Vergl. Synt., p. 398 f. oF Proll aru: 


6 C, and S., Sel., ete., p. 54. 

7 Moulton in a note (p. 235) does concede some Aram. influence. In He- 
brews it only occurs, as he notes, in O. T. citations. Cf. also Dalman, Gr., 
Weis. 

BeProiy. 70.) Cl. Jann. ist. Gk..GT., p. o2/. 


466 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and of éurerAnopevor vov (Lu. 6:25). In Rev. 4:11 we have also 
the vocative case in 6 kipios Kal 6 Beds. In Jo. 20 : 28 Thomas ad- 
dresses Jesus as 6 kbpids pou kal 6 eds wou, the vocative like those 
above. Yet, strange to say, Winer! calls this exclamation rather 
than address, apparently to avoid the conclusion that Thomas 
was satisfied as to the deity of Jesus by his appearance to him 
after the resurrection. Dr. EH. A. Abbott? follows suit also in an 
extended argument to show that xtpre 6 beds is the LX. X way of 
addressing God, not 6 ktpios kal 6 Oeds. But after he had written 
he appends a note to p. 95 to the effect that “this is not quite 
satisfactory. For xi. 18, ¢dwvetré we 6 didaoKados Kal 6 KUpios, and 
Rev. 4:11 d£os ef, 6 xbpios kal 6 beds Hudv, ought to have been 
mentioned above.”’ This is a manly retraction, and he adds: 
“ John may have used it here exceptionally,” Leave out ‘ excep- 
tionally”? and the conclusion is just. If Thomas used Aramaic he 
certainly used the article. It is no more exceptional in Jo. 20 : 28 
than insheve 42shl ieee 

VII. The Accusative (H aitiatiuKy mTdots). 

(a) THE Name. It signifies little that is pertinent. Varro calls 
it accusandei casus from aitidouat, while Dionysius Thrax explains 
it as kar’? airiay (‘cause’), a more likely idea. Glycas calls it also 
To airwov. So Priscian terms it causativus. Gildersleeve (“A Syn- 
tactician among the Psychologists,” Am. Jour. Philol., Jan., 1910, 
p. 76) remarks: ‘‘ The Romans took the bad end of airia, and trans- 
lated aiziatixn, accusativus — hopeless stupidity, from which 
grammar did not emerge till 1836, when Trendelenburg showed 
that aitvatrixy mrdous Means casus effectivus, or causatwus . . 
The object affected appears in Greek now as an accusative, now 
as a dative, now as a genitive. The object effected refuses to give 
its glory to another, and the object affected can be subsumed under 
the object effected.’? With this I agree. Cf. Farrar, Greek Syntaz, 
p. 81. Old English “accuse” could mean ‘betray’ or ‘show,’ but 
the “showing” case does not mark it off from the rest. Originally, 
however, it was the only case and thus did show the relations of 
nouns with other words. On the small value of the case-names see 
Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 379. But at any rate accusativus is a 
false translation of aitariuxy. Steinthal, Geschichte d. Spr., p. 295. 

(b) Ack AND History. A more pertinent point is the age and 
history of the accusative, the oldest of all the cases. Farrar (Greek 
Syntax, p. 81) calls attention to the fact that éywv (old form of 
eyw), Sanskrit aham, tudm, Boeotian rotv, Latin idem, all have the 

1 W.-Th., p. 183. 2, JON Care OD. teutty 








THE CASES (IITQZEIS) 467 


accusative ending though in the nominative. If it is true that 
the accusative is the oldest case, perhaps we are to think of the 
other oblique cases as variations from it. In other words the ac- 
cusative was the normal oblique case for a noun (especially with 
verbs) unless there was some special reason for it to be in another 
case. The other oblique cases were developed apparently to ex- 
press more exactly than the accusative the various word-relations. 
Indeed in the vernacular Greek the accusative retained its old 
frequency as the normal case with verbs that in the literary style 
used other cases.! In the old Greek poets the same thing is no- 
ticeable. Pindar,? for example, has ‘a multiplicity of accusatives.”’ 
In the modern Greek vernacular the accusative has regained its 
original frequency to the corresponding disuse of the other oblique 
cases. Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 35. “When a fine sense for lan- 
guage is failing, it is natural to use the direct accusative to ex- 
press any object which verbal action affects, and so to efface the 
difference between ‘transitive’ and ‘intransitive’ verbs.”*® There 
was therefore first a decrease in the use of the accusative as the 
literary language grew, then an increase in the cow vernacular,’ 
the later Greek,’ and especially the modern Greek vernacular.® 
This gain or rather persistence of the accusative in the vernacular 
is manifest in the N. T. in various ways. But the literary xow7 
shows it also, as Krebs’ has carefully worked out with many verbs. 

(c) THE MBANING OF THE ACCUSATIVE. It is not so easy to 
determine this in the view of many scholars. Delbriick® despairs 
of finding a single unifying idea, but only special types of the ac- 
cusative. Brugmann?® also admits that the real ground-idea of the 
case is unknown, though the relation between noun and verb is 
expressed by it. The categories are not always sharply defined 
in the soul of the speaker.° Hiibschmann" treats the expansion 


1 Mullach, Gr. der griech. Vulgarspr., pp. 328-333. 

2 Giles, Man., p. 306. 

3 Jebb, Vincent and Dickson’s Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 307. 

4 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., p. 5 f. 

® Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 328. 6 Hatz., Einl., p. 221. 

7 Zur Rect. der Casus in der spit. hist. Griic. (1887-90). Cf. also Moulton, 
Prol., pp. 63 ff. 

8 Die Grundl. d. griech. Synt., Bd. IV, p. 29; Vergl. Synt., I, p. 187. Cf. 
III, pp. 360-393. 

9 Kurze vergl. Gr., p. 441. 10 Griech. Gr., p. 379. 

u Zur Casusl., p. 133. For list of books on the acc. see Hiibner, Grundr. 
etc., p.40f. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 44, agree with Hiibschm. Cf. also 
K.-G., I, p. 291. 


468 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of the verb as the ground-idea of the accusative. ‘The relation 
of the accusative to its governing verb resembles the relation of 
the genitive to its governing substantive.’’! La Roche? considers 
it originally a local case and that the inner meaning came later. 
The usage of the accusative can indeed, for convenience, be di- 
vided into the outer (oixiav, Mt. 7 : 24) and the inner (é¢o876noav 
poBov peyav, Mk. 4:41) usage. But the whole case cannot be 
discussed on this artificial principle, as Monro? rightly sees. He 
sees hope only in the direction of the wide adverbial use of the 
accusative. In the Sanskrit certainly ‘‘a host of adverbs are 
accusative cases in form.’’4 Green? calls it “the limitative case,” 
and he is not far out of the way. Farrar® thinks that ‘‘motion 
towards” explains it all. Giles,’ while recognising all the diffi- 
culties, defines the accusative as the answer to the question 
“How far?” The word eatenston comes as near as any to ex- 
pressing the broad general idea of the accusative as applied to 
its use with verbs, substantives, adjectives, prepositions. It is 
far more commonly used with verbs, to be sure, but at bottom 
the other uses have this same general idea. Being the first case 
it is naturally the most general in idea. If you ask a child (in 
English) ‘‘Who is it?”’ he will reply “It’s me.”’ This is, however, 
not a German idiom. The accusative measures an idea as to 
its content, scope, direction. But the accusative was used in 
so many special applications of this principle that various sub- 
divisions became necessary for intelligent study. 

(d) Witn Verss oF Motion. It is natural to begin with verbs 
of motion, whether we know that this was the earliest use or not, 
a matter impossible to decide. We still in English say ‘‘go home,” 
and the Latin used domwm in exactly that way. Extension over 
space is, of course, the idea here. One goes all the way to his 
home. It is found in Homer and occasionally in Greek writers.’ 
Modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 37, has a local accusative) 
Tame orite, ‘we are going home.’ Moulton (Prol., p. 61) notes that 
it is just the local cases that first lost their distinctive forms (abla- 
tive, locative, associative-instrumental; and the ‘terminal accusa- 
tive” like ire Romam disappeared also. ‘The surviving Greek 


1 Strong, Logeman and Wheeler, Hist. of Lang., p. 128. 


2 Der Accus. in Hom., p. 1. 5 Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., p. 10. 
Sona. Gray. sa: Gk pynts pale 
4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 90. 7 Man., p. 303. 


8 See K.-G., I, p. 311 f. for exx.; Monro, Hom, Gr., p. 96, eee com- 
mon in 8: ancl! 











THE CASES (IITQSEIS) 469 


cases thus represent purely grammatical relations, those of subject, 
object, possession, remoter object and instrument.’’. The place- 
adverb does supply the place of the terminal accusative, but not 
entirely of the locative, ablative and instrumental. 

Some MSS. in Ac. 27:2 read mXety rods kara ti ’Aciay Torous, 
but the best (W. H.) have eis after wdety. In trerdeboayue rH 
Ktrpov andro rédayos darevoartes (cf. English “ sail thesea’’), verses 
4 f., the prepositions in composition help to explain the case. In 
Mt. 4:15 660v Oartacons has no verb of motion and comes in 
the midst of vocatives in a way quite startling. Green! refers to 
the LXX (Is. 9:1) for the explanation and quotes “Christ and 
Him Crucified.” But thé LXX gives little relief, for, while B 
does not have it, several MSS. do and without a verb. B how- 
ever reads of rv tapadiay, which presents the same difficulty as to 
case. Winer? suggests olxodyres with of, possibly correct. But 
even in Matthew the writer may have had in mind the general 
accusative notion of extension, ‘along the way of the sea.’ 

(e) ExTeNT oF Space. The ordinary accusative for extent of 
space does not differ materially from that of motion above. Here 
the root-idea of the case is easily perceived apart from the force 
of the verb. The point is that this is not a special development 
of the accusative, but is the normal idea of the case, extension. 
The application to space is natural. The Greek continues all 
along to have this idiom as the Latin and English. The adverb 
paxpav (Ac. 22:21) is a good example. Take Jo. 6:19 édndaxéres 
ws oTadlous elKooe TwEevTE 7 TpLaKxovTa, Lu. 22:41 drecracbn am’ al’tdv 
w@ael Aifov BorAnv. The accusative tells “how far.’”’ Observe in Lu. 
2:44 AdOov juepas d66v. Ilpoce\Oav pxpov (Mt. 26 : 39) is a good 
example of this use of the accusative. In Ac. 1 : 12 caBBarov Exov 
666v varies the construction by the insertion of éyov. In Lu. 24 : 13 
similarly we have améxouvcayv oradious é&nxovta. Cf. Mt. 14 : 24. 
The use of azd, as ws ard oradiwy dexavevte (Jo. 11 : 18; cf. 21:8; 
Rev. 14 : 20), Blass (Gr. of N. 7. Gk., p. 95) calls'a Latinism (cf. 
a millibus passuum duobus), but Moulton (Prol., p. 101 f.) cites 
Doric and papyri parallels for rpé and makes a mere Latinism 
unlikely. So O.P. 492 (ii/A.D.) wer’ éviavrov €va. Diodorus and Plu- 
tarch use the same idiom. It is clearly not a direct Latinism. In 
modern Greek the accusative is common for locality or place 
affected (Thumb, Handb., p. 35 f.). 

(f) Extent or Time. It answers the question ‘how far?’ in 
time, or “how long?” Inthe N. T. the examples of time are far 

1 Handb., etc., p. 234. 2 W.-Th,, p, 231. 


470 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


more frequent than those of mere space. The locative, instru- 
mental and genitive are also used to express time, but they bring 
out a different idea, as will be shown. The accusative is thus used 
for duration or extension in the Indo-Germanic languages gener- 
ally. Cf. ri db€ éotnKxate SAnY THY HuEpay apyot (Mt. 20 : 6); rocadra 
érn dovretw oor (Lu. 15 : 29). A good example is euewvay thy juepav 
éxetynv® (Jor 15239) 1 Cf Jon 2512911 4:6: Lael be Weake 
(text) read racais tats juepas (instr.). Another good illustration 
is arednunoev xpovous txavovs (Lu. 20:9). Cf. &k dnvapiov tiv jyepav 
(Mt. 20:2) where the accusative well brings out the agreement 
between the landlord and the labourers. In vixra xat jnuepay (Mk. 
4 : 27) the sleeping and rising go on continually from day to day. 
Cf. jucpay €& huepas (2 Pet. 2:8). The papyri examples are nu- 
merous, like réxouvs dudpaxpyous THs pvas Tov pnva exacrov, A.P. 50 
(ii/B.c.). Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901. The plural is like- 
wise so used, as Tas uépas — Tas vixras (Lu. 21:37). 

Perhaps little difficulty is felt in the accusative in Ac. 24 : 25, 70 
vov éxov mopevov. So also as to 7d Aourdy (or Aorov) in Mk. 14:41, 
To wAetaTov (1 Cor. 14:27), and even évexorrounv ra wodda (Ro. 15: 
22). But there are uses of the accusative in expressions of time 
that do furnish trouble at first blush. In some of these the accu- 
sative seems to be merely adverbial (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 94) 
with little stress on duration. Indeed a point of time may be in- 
dicated. Cf. 7d mpdrepov (Jo. 6:62), azpdrepov (Heb. 10 : 32), 
apatov (Mt. 5:24). It is not hard to see how the accusative of 


general reference came to be used here, although it is a point of — 


time. Note the article (76 xa’ juépav, Lu. 19 : 47) in the accusa- 
tive. We can now go on to 76 rédos (1 Pet. 3 : 8) and even tiv apynv 
(Jo. 8:25). But a more difficult example is found in Jo. 4 : 52, 
Exbeés pay €Bddunv, where a point of time is indicated. See also 
molay wpay in Rev. 3:3; racav dpay (1 Cor. 15:30). One may 
conjecture that this use of Spay was not regarded as essentially 
different from the idea of extension. Either the action was re- 
garded as going over the hour or the hour was looked at more 
as an adverbial accusative like 76 \ourév above. Cf. also rHv que- 
pay THs mevTnKooTHs yeverOar els "lepocd\vya (Ac. 20:16). In Blass- 
Debrunner, p. 98, examples are given from Aischylus, Euripides, 
Aristotle, Demosthenes, where pay=eis dpav. Cf. Moulton, 
Prol., p. 63, for 76 wéumrov Eros (O.P. 477, i1/a.D.) ‘in the fifth year.’ 
To wapov B.U. 22 (ii/A.D.) means ‘at present’ (Moulton, Cl. Rev.; 
1901, p. 437). In the modern Greek vernacular the accusative is 
used freely to designate a point of time as well as extent of time 








THE CASES (IITQ=EIS) A471 


(Thumb, Handb., p. 37). So in the N. T. the accusative is widen- 
ing its scope again. In Ac. 10 : 30 azo reraprns juépas péexpe Tabrns 
THS Wpas hunv THY evaTnv mpocevxXopevos We Can see an interesting ex- 
ample where 77v évarny 1s explanatory of the previous note of time, 
a point of time, and yet a whole hour is meant. In Ac. 10:3 
(rept dpay évarnv) observe zepi, though some MSS. do not have the 
preposition. Cf. Mk. 13:35 pecovixriov (acc.) 4 ddexropodwvrias 
(gen.) # mpwi (loc.) for points of time.!. The papyri have examples 
of a point of time in the accusative,? as already seen. But the 
locative is still more frequent in the N. T. for a point of time, 
as moia wpa (Lu. 12:39). It is not difficult to see the appro- 
priateness of the accusative in teooapeckadeKatny onpmepov Auepav 
mpocbokavres Gaovtor datedetre (Ac. 27:33). It is good Greek with 
the ordinal. 

(g) WiraH TRANSITIVE VERBS. The most common accusative 
is when it is the object of a transitive verb. One cannot hope 
to pursue all the uses of the accusative in the order of historical 
development. For instance, no one knows whether cognate ac- 
cusative (of inner content or objective result) preceded the ordi- 
nary objective use of the case. Does the adverbial accusative (so 
common in adjectives) precede the accusative with verbs? These 
points have to be left unsettled. In actual usage the accusative 
with transitive verbs calls for most attention. But the term “tran- 
sitive’? needs a word. It means a verb whose action passes over 
to anoun. This idea may be intransitive in another language, as, 
for instance, wu) duriete unre Tov ov'pavoy unre THY yRv (Jas. 5:12). 
In English éuvtdw is rendered by ‘swear by.’ Cf. épyafeobe uw tiv 
Bpdow (Jo. 6:27), English ‘work for.’ Not all Greek verbs are 
transitive, as eiui, for example. The same verb may be used now 
transitively, now intransitively, as éuevov judas (Ac. 20:5) and 
éuevey wap’ avrots (Ac. 18:3). So 6 Br\érwv & 7G kputTé (Mt. 6 : 4) 
and ri 6é BXéres 7O Kappos (Mt. 7:3). Cf. English word ‘“‘see.” 
As further illustration of the freedom of the Greek verb note 
Brémere Ti axovere (Mk. 4 : 24), BX€rere rods xivas (Ph. 3 : 2), BXErere 
amo tis (buns (Mk. 8:15).2 There is indeed a difference between 
the accusative and the use of a preposition as in debyere Thy Topveiav 
(1 Cor. 6:18) and debyere ao ris eidbwdodaTpeias (1 Cor. 10 : 14). 


1 Blass, Gr. of N..T. Gk., p..311. 

2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 152. O.P. 477 (21) éros is so used. The ace. 
is used in the Sans. for a point of time. Cf. Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 92. For 
exx. in the LXX see C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 56. Cf. also Abbott, 
Joh. Gr.; p. 75. 8 Green, Handb., etc., p. 230. 


472 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


But for practical purposes many Greek verbs were used with lib- 
erty. In the case of doBéowar with accus. (Mt. 10: 26, 28) or with 
a6 and ablative (Mt. 10: 28) we have a Hebraism. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 102) admits that this use of a7é is a “translation-Hebraism”’ 
(ya). It occurs in both Mt. (10: 28) and Lu. (12:4) and repre- 
sents probably the Aramaic original. Cf. dpa7e xai dudaccecbe a6 
(Lu. 12:15) and dpare kat mpocéxere ard (Mt. 16:6). Xen. (Cyr., 
11. 3, 9) uses a6 with ¢vAdoow. This matter will call for further 
discussion directly. 

But we have (pp. 330 f.) observed that transitive verbs in Greek 
do not always have the accusative. The transitiveness may be 
as clearly expressed by a dative as with dxodovféw, the genitive 
with émduyew, the ablative with arocrepéw, etc. The accusative is 
indeed the normal case with transitive verbs, but not the only 
one. Some verbs continued to use the accusative parallel with 
the other cases. Thus érAavOavoua has ra wey oriow in Ph. 3: 18, 
but ¢Aogevias in Heb. 13 : 2. Sometimes the point lies in the dif- 
ference of case, aS dxovovres ev THs dwvns (Ac. 9:7), but rHv é6e 
gwryv ovk jKovoay (Ac. 22:9). Then again verbs otherwise in- 
transitive may be rendered transitive by the preposition in com- 
position. Cf. dinpxero trav ’lepecxw (Lu. 19:1), but exeivns in 19 : 4. 
So mapatdedoa tiv "Edecov (Ac. 20: 16), etc. Another introduc- 
tory remark about transitive verbs is that it is not a question of 
the voice of the verb. Many active verbs are intransitive like eiyi; 
middle verbs may be either transitive or intransitive; even passive 
verbs may be transitive. Thus jxovoy radra (Lu. 16 : 14), éxtnoato 
xwpiov (Ac. 1:18), and uy oty PoBnOire aito’s (Mt. 10 : 26) are all 
transitive constructions. Cf. Mk. 8: 38; Ro. 1:16; 2 Tim. 1:8 
for éracoxtvoua (passive) with accusative. 

One cannot, of course, mention all the N. T. transitive verbs 
that have the accusative. Here is a list of the most frequent verbs 
that are not always transitive, but sometimes have the accusa- 
tive! ’Aduxew indeed may be either transitive (Mt. 20: 13) or 
intransitive (Ac. 25:11), in the one case meaning ‘do wrong to,’ 
in the other ‘be guilty.’ Bddarrw (only twice in the N. T., Mk. 
16:18; Lu. 4:35) is transitive both times. Bonféw has only da- 
tive (Mk. 9 : 22) and adedéw only accusative (Mk. 8 : 36). In Lu. 
17 : 2 we have dvourede? ai7d. ’*Amopéouat is always intransitive in 
the N. T. (like dvaz.) except in Ac. 25 : 20 (so ancient Greek some- 
times). ’Azoorpédouat as in Attic is found with the accusative in 
Tit. 1:14 and Heb. 12:25. In 2 Tim. 1:15 the aorist passive 

1 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 87-89. Cf. also W.-Th., pp. 221 ff. 


THE CASES (lTOSEI=S) 473 


(arectpadnoav we) is So used. For like use of the aorist or future 
passive with accusative see évytparjaovrar tov viov wou (Mt. 21:37), 
where the earlier writers generally had dative (érpéropat); érat- 
oxvv07 we (Mk. 8: 38) from éracoxivoua, whereas aicybvouat is in- 
transitive (476 and abl. in 1 Jo. 2:28). So also ovdé& dmexpiby 
(Mk. 15 : 5) as ovdev arepivato (Mt. 27:12), but note dexpiby pos 
ovde ev pnua (Mt. 27:14). Cf. ri aroxpi67 (Mk. 9:6). For doBnOjre 
avrovs see Mt. 10:26 and note goB8nOjre ard rev daroxrevovTwv 
(10: 28) which happens to be in imitation of the Hebrew idiom 
(ya) as of the English ‘“‘be afraid of.’ (Cf. above.) See Jer. 1:8. 
In Mt. 10 : 31 gofetobe is intransitive. 

Bacxaivw in Attic Greek was used with the dative in the sense 
of ‘envy,’ but in Gal. 3:1 the accusative in the sense of ‘be- 
witch.’ Bdacdnuéw in the Attic had eis as in Lu. 12:10, but it 
also occurs as transitive with accusative (Mt. 27:39). In 2 Pet. 
2:12 we find &, not eis (ef. Jude 10). ’Emnpeafw has the accusa- 
tive, not dative as Attic, in Lu. 6: 28; 1 Pet. 3:16. So xcarapaouac 
has buds (some MSS. tyiv like Attic) in Lu. 6:28. Cf. Mk. 11 : 21; 
. Jas. 3:9. For Xovdopéw with accusative see Jo. 9: 28; Ac. 23:4, and 
for Avuaivouar see Ac. 8:3. The MSS. vary in Heb. 8:8 between 
avtovs and avrots (as in Attic) with péudouar, but W. H. read at- 
tos. In Mt. 5:11 and 27:44 ovedigw has the accusative, though 
Attic used the dative. The accusative alone occurs with tBpitw 
(Lu. 11:45). So also both ev\oyéw (Lu. 2 : 28) and xaxodoyéw (Ac. 
19 :9) have the accusative. In Ac. 23:5 otk é€pets xaxds is found 
with the accusative. In the margin of Jo. 1:15 W. H. give 6p 
etrov. In Jo. 8:27 we have rov rarépa aitots e\eyer, with which 
compare ois é\eyov (Ph. 3:18), a construction common in the 
older Greek. A similar construction is found in Attic Greek with 
eb (kaX@s) tovew, Kax@s tovew, etc. In the N. T., however, note at- 
rots eb movety (Mk. 14 : 7) and kadés roveire rots urcodow (Lu. 6 : 27). 

The remaining verbs! that call for discussion in this connection 
cannot be grouped very well. They will be treated simply in 
alphabetical order. In the LXX yevoyuar is fairly common with 
the accusative, and some examples occur in other later writers in- 
stead of the usual genitive.2 In the N. T. the genitive is still the 
usual case (@avarov, Lu. 9:27; Jo. 8:52; Heb. 2:95 detvov, Lu. 
14 : 24; dwpeds, Heb. 6:4; wndevds, Ac. 23 : 14), but the accusative 


1 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., pp. 6-8, gives the following verbs as having 
the acc. in the pap.: adAdoow, dovAcbw, Eemupéw, EmiTVyXaYW, éErrdavOdvopuat, 
éLepxomar, EVSoKEW, KATNYOPEW, KpaTew, Kuptebw, AUTEW, TapioTayat, Topevouat, TANPOW, 


bravTaw, xpaouat, etc. 2 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr, p. 77. 


474 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is found in Jo. 2:9 (76 téwp) and Heb. 6: 5 (kaddv Oeod pjua). In 
Rev. 17:3 we even have yéuovra dvouara instead of dvouatwv. The 
accusative appears with yovureréw (Mk. 10: 17), but absolutely in 
Mk. 1:40, and with é€urpocbev in Mt. 27:29. In Rev. 2:14 drdacxw 
has the dative (7 Badax), a construction which might a priori seem 
natural with this verb, but not so used in Greek (cf. Latin and: 
English)! Awdaw and zevaw are intransitive in the N. T. save in 
Mt. 5:6 where the accusative is used, not the class. genitive. 
Apacooua appears only once (1 Cor. 3 : 19) in a quotation from the 
LXX and has the accusative. ’EXeéw is transitive (Mt. 9 : 27, 
etc.) as is oixreipw (Ro. 9:15, quotation from LXX). ’Eyuopeto- 
pac occurs only twice, once intransitive (Jas. 4 : 13), once with ac- 
cusative (2 Pet. 2:3). ’Evedpetw likewise occurs only twice (Lu. 
11 : 54; Ac. 23 : 21) and with accusative both times. Cf. O.P. 484 
(ii/A.D.) in sense of ‘defraud’ with accusative. (Moulton, Cl. 
Rev., Apr., 1904). ’E:@uyéw is found with the genitive (Ac. 20: 
33) or with the accusative (Mt. 5 : 28) according to W. H. (BD, 
etc.). ’Epyafoua: is often transitive, but r7v Oadaccay épyafovrar 
(Rev. 18 : 17) is somewhat unusual, to say the least. Evayyedifo- 
pac (active in Rev. 10:7; 14:6; passive Gal. 1:11; Heb. 4:6, 
etc.) has the Attic idiom of accusative of the thing and dative 
of the person (Lu. 4:48; Eph. 3:8, etc.), but examples occur of 
the accusative of the person addressed (Lu. 3:18; Ac. 8: 25). 
In Ac. 13:32 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 90 note) denies two 
accusatives to evayy., construing tiv — érayyediav With dre tabrny 6 
Oeos ExrremAnpwkev. This is rather forced, but even so the dru clause 
would be in the accus. Evédoxéw is trans. in the LX X and so appears 
in the N. T. twice (Mt. 12: 18, quotation from the LX X; Heb. 10: 
6, 8, LXX also). Evyapiorew in 2 Cor. 1 : 11 occurs in the passive 
(76 xapiopua evxaptoTnOf) in a construction that shows that the active 
would have had an accusative of the thing and a dative of the 
person. Cf., for instance, meovextnOGuev in 2 Cor. 2:11 with | 
éreovextnoa buds (2 Cor. 12 : 17 f.), only evx. did not go so far as to 
have the accusative. On the other hand in the N. T. Oappéw is 
not transitive (2 Cor. 10:2 instr.), though in the older Greek it 
was sometimes. It occurs absolutely (2 Cor. 5:6), with e (2 
Cor. 7:16), with es (2 Cor. 10:1). Oavuatw has the accusative in 
Lu. 7:9, Ac. 7:31 and Ju. 16. OpiauBerw has the accusative in 2 
Cor 2: 14 and Col. 2: 15, though the verb has a different sense in 
each passage. ‘Iepovpyew occurs only once (Ro. 15:16) and with 
the accusative. In Heb. 2:17 tNaoxouar has accusative of the 
1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 80. 





| 
| 


THE CASES (IITQZEIS) 475 


thing as in LXX, Philo and inscriptions (Blass, Gr. of N. T., p. 
88). Kavxdaouac has accusative in 2 Cor. 9:2 and 11:30. Kavaiw 
has accusative in Mt. 2: 18 (O. T. quotation unlike LXX), but é7i 
in Lu. 23:28. However, D omits éri. KAnpovouéw has only the 
accusative. Kémroua has accusative in Lu. 8 : 52 (éri Rev. 1:7). 
Kparéw out of forty-seven instances in the N. T. has the genitive 
in eight, accusative in 37, one absolute, one 7od and inf.! Ma- 
Ontevw is a late word and has the accusative in Mt. 28:19 and 
Ac. 14:21. The other examples (Mt. 13 : 52; 27 : 57) are passive, 
but in Mt. 27:57 the active (intr.) is the marginal reading of 
W.H. Cf. old English verb ‘‘disciple.”” Méudouar has the accu- 
sative, not dative, in Heb. 8:8, but the text is doubtful. Méw 
is usually intransitive, but in Ac. 20:5, 23, the accusative occurs 
(sense of ‘wait for’). Cf. also accusative with dvayéw (1 Th. 
1:10), repiuerw (Ac. 1:4), brouerw (Heb. 10 : 32) in sense of ‘en- 
dure.’ Nixaw is transitive with accusative usually, but in Rev. 
15:2 it uses é with ablative. So éevitoua is transitive with ac- 
cusative in Heb. 13:2. "Ovum usually has e (Mt. 23 : 16, etce., 
cf. Hebrew 3), sometimes xara (Heb. 6 : 13), or occurs absolutely 
(Mt. 5 : 34), but the accusative (sense of ‘swear by,’ common in 
ancient Greek, cf. Hos. 4:15 for LX X) appears only in Jas. 5: 
12, except dpxov dy Suooey (Lu. 1 : 73), a cognate accusative. The 
papyri show it with the accusative, B.U. 543 (i/B.c.). Moulton, 
Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901. ’Ovedi¢w has the accusative, not the dative, 
in the N. T. ‘Opxiftw has the accusative in both instances that 
occur in the N. T. (Mk. 5:7; Ac. 19:13), while é£opxitw (Mt. 
26 : 63) has the accusative and xara also (ce Kata Tod Oeod). ‘Opo- 
hoyew 18 common with the accusative or absolutely, but in Mt. 
10 : 32 (two examples) and Lu. 12 : 8 (two examples) év is used as 
the translation of the Aramaic 2. Moulton? is unable to find any 
justification for this idiom in Greek and calls attention to the fact 
that both Matthew and Luke have it in a parallel passage as 
proof of the Aramaic original as the language of Jesus. One may 
note mepiBareirar év iuario (Rev. 3:5). The use of év july egedeEaTo 
(Ac. 15:7) is not parallel as Winer? observes. Here é juty means 
‘among us.’ In Ac. 27: 22 rapawéw (like tapaxadew, Blass, Gr. of 
N.T., p. 90) has the accusative instead of the dative of the person. 
In 2 Cor. 12 : 21 wevOéw has the accusative, but é7i in Rev. 18: 11. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 67 f.) has a very helpful discussion of micrebw 

1 Moulton (ib., p. 235) comments on Wellhausen’s remark that D prefers 


uniformly ace. with dxobw, karnyopéw and kparéw. 
#)Prol:, p. 104. 3 W.-Th., p. 226. 


476 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


when not absolute and not meaning ‘entrust.’ Under the dative 
his remarks will be pertinent. Ioretbw is often absolute (Jo. 1: 50) 
and often means ‘entrust’ when it has the accusative (Jo. 2 : 24). 
IIpooxvvew in the ancient Greek uses the accusative regularly. In 
the Ptolemaic inscriptions the accusative is still the more usual 
case,! but the N.T. uses the dative twice as often as the accusative.” 
In Jo.4:23 the accusative and the dative occur with little differ- 
ence in result.2 Cf. also Rev. 13:4, 8. Abbott‘ observes that the 
dative is the regular usage in the LXX. As to torepew we find it 
used absolutely (Mt. 19 : 20), with the ablative (Ro. 3 : 23) and 
once with the accusative (& ce torepe?t, Mk. 10 : 21) as in Ps. 22:1. 
Some of the MSS. in Mark have oo, as the LXX usually.> ®evyw 
occurs absolutely (Mt. 2 : 13), with azo (Mt. 23 : 33), with é« (Ac. 
27:30) or with the accusative (Heb. 11:34; 1 Tim. 6:11). So 
éxdevyw is transitive (Lu. 21:36) with accusative while arodebyw 
has accusative in 2 Pet. 2:20. vdAdcow has, of course, the accu- 
sative, but in Ac. 21:25 two accusatives occur with the sense of 
‘shun.’ In Lu. 12:15 the middle is used with a76 and in 1 Jo. 
5:21 gduddkate éavra ad. Xpdomar still uses the instrumental (cf. 
utor in Latin), as Ac. 27:3, 17, etc., but in 1 Cor. 7: 31 the ac- 
cusative is found (xpmpevor Toy Kocpyov) in response to the general 
accusative tendency. Cf. xaraypwpuevor in the same verse. The 
accusative with xpdaoua: appears in later writers.® 

It remains in this connection to call special attention to the in- 
transitive verbs which have the accus. by reason of a preposition 
in composition. This applies to intrans. verbs and trans. verbs 
also which in simplex used some other case. ’Ava furnishes one 
example in dva-0a4\\w (Ph. 4:10) if 76 dpovety there is the object 
of the verb after the transitive use in the LXX (Ezek. 17: 24). 
But most probably this is the accusative of general reference. 
’AmeArifw (Lu. 6 : 35) is indeed transitive with accusative, but so 
is édrif~w (1 Cor. 18:7; 2 Cor. 1:18, etc.) sometimes. Here are 
some examples of 61a: 76 wé\ayos dvatdevoavtes (Ac. 27: 5), dceroped- 
ovro Tas modes (Ac. 16:4), dteAOav tHv Maxedoviay (Ac. 19 : 21; ef. 
ace. in Lu. 19:1 and gen. éxeivns in 19:4). In Heb. 11 : 29 (6:€By- 
cav THY Oddaccay ws dra Enpads vis) Blass? notes both accusative and 
genitive (with 6:4). Even évepyéw has the accusative in 1 Cor. 
12:6, 11. As examples of xara observe xareBapnoa buds (2 Cor. 12: 


1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 486. ° Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 89. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 64. 6 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 78. 
3 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p.80. 7 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 89. 

4 Joh saan. 410: 








an 
| 


THE CASES (IITQ=EIS) A7T7 


16), buds xaraBpaBeverw (Col. 2:18), xarnywvicavro Bacwdelas (Heb. 
11:33). Note also xatacodicdpevos 76 yevos (Ac. 7:19). Cf. xara- 
xpwuevor in 1 Cor. 7:31, but instrumental in 1 Cor. 9:18. For 
rapa note mapaBaivere tiv evrodnv (Mt. 15:3) and szapépyecbe 
tyv kpiow (Lu. 11:42; cf. 15:29 and Mk. 6:48). TIlepi furnishes 
several examples like ddeAdnv yuvatka mepiayew (1 Cor. 9:5; ef. 
Mt. 9:35, etc.), but intransitive in Mt. 4:23. This verb, ayw, 
however, is both transitive (Mt. 21:7) and intransitive (Mk. 1: 
38) in the simple form. Tleprepxduevar has the accusative in 1 


Tim. 5 : 13, but elsewhere intransitive. So repréornoay airév in Ac. 


25:7, but intransitive (aeprecré7a) in Jo. 11:42. In Mk. 6:55 
we find zepédpayov odAnv THY xwpav. With mpo one notes mpoayw 
(Mt. 14:22, rpoayew atrév), mponpxero atro’s (Lu. 22 : 47), with 
which compare zpoe\eboerar evwriov a’rod (Lu. 1:17). In Ac. 12: 
10 both érépxouar and mpoépxouac are used with the accusative. 
IIpoodwvéew, like rpooxvvéew, has either the accusative (Lu. 6 : 13) 


or the dative (Mt. 11:16). If 6 eds be accepted in Ro. 8 : 28 


(ravra cuvepyet 6 beds), Which is more than doubtful, then cuvepye? 
would be transitive (cf. instr. in Jas. 2:22). For izép observe 
Urepextelvouey eavtovs (2 Cor. 10:14) and 7 imepeyouca ravta vodv 
(Ph. 4:7). With t76 we can mention troperw (1 Cor. 13: 7, but 
see pevw itself), brerevVoapyev THY Kpnrnv (Ac. 27:7) and vyctoy 6€ Te 
brodpauovtes (Ac. 27:16). Thus it will be seen that in the N. T. 
the accusative with transitive verbs, both simple and compound, 
follows the increase in the use of the accusative in line with the 
current vernacular. ( 

Sometimes indeed the object of the verb is not expressed, but 
really implied, and the verb is transitive. Thus zpocexere éavrots 
(Lu. 17: 3) implies rov voty. Cf. also rpocéxyere aro tv Wevdorpodn- 
tov (Mt. 7: 15) and éréxwv rads (Lu. 14: 7); xara xehadis éxwv (1 
Cor. 11:4). In ériOfoerai cor (Ac. 18 : 10) xetpas must be supplied, 
and with éérpiBov (Ac. 15 : 35) ypovor is needed. 

(h) THE Cognatse Accusative. It may be either that of in- 
ner content, éxapynoav xapav (Mt. 2:10), objective result auapra- 
vovta auapriav (1 Jo. 5:16), dvddocortes dudaxds (Lu. 2 : 8), or even 
a kindred word in idea but a different root, as dapnoerar ddlyas 
(rAnyas, Lu. 12:48). Considerable freedom must thus be given 
the term “‘cognate”’ as to both form and idea. The real cognate 
accusative is a form of the Figura Etymologica as applied to either 
internal or external object. The quasi-cognate is due to analogy 
where the idea, not the form, is cognate.! The cognate is not very 

1 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 304. 


478 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


common in the papyri,! but in the Hebrew the idiom is very fre- 
quent.2 It is perfectly good Greek to have?’ this “playing with 
paronymous terms,” as a passage from Plato’s Protagoras 326 D 
illustrates, tbroypapavres ypaupas TH Ypadids ovTw TO Ypaywaretov. Cf. 
tis Toatve. moiuvyv (1 Cor.9:7). So also in Lu. 8: 5, é&qOev 6 
oreipwv Tod oretpar Tov oropov. Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of Philol., 
Xxxili, 4, p. 488) objects properly to Cauer’s crediting, in his 
Grammatica Militans, ‘the division of the accusative into the 
object affected and the object effected” to Kern, since Gilder- 
sleeve himself was using it as far back as 1867. In modern English 
this repetition of the same root is condemned, but it was not so 
in Greek. Conybeare and Stock‘ observe that the Hebrew and 
the Greek coincide on this point, and hence the excess of such 
accusatives in the LXX in various applications. And the N. T., 
here unlike the papyri, shows an abundance of the cognate ac- 
cusatives. 

The accusative of the inner content may be illustrated by 77 
dixaiay Kplow Kpivete (Jo. 7: 24), tov PoBov a’t&v uy poBnOjre (1 Pet. 
3:14), abser tiv avb—now 70d Oeod (Col. 2:19), iva orpare’y tiv Kady 
otpatetay (1 Tim. 1:18), dywvifou rov xaddov ay&va (1 Tim. 6: 12), 
@uoNoynoas THY Kadjv duoroylay (2b.), Babuaca idwv aithy Oadua peya 
(Rev. 17:6). Cf. Rev. 16:9. In Mk. 10: 38, 76 Bamricua 6 eyo 
Barrifouar, and Jo. 17: 26, ) ayarn jv jyarnods pe (cf. Eph. 2: 4), 
the relative shows this use of the accusative. In Jo. 17 : 26 and 
Eph. 2:4 (jv ayarnoevy quads) the cognate accusative of the inner 
content is used along with the accusative of the person also. 
Indeed in Eph. 4 : 1, rAs kAqoews ais ExdnOnre, the relative has been 
attracted from the cognate accusative. The modern Greek keeps 
this use of the accusative. 

Some neuter adjectives are used to express this accusative, but 
far less frequently than in the ancient Greek.6 Thus, zeros 
avro totro (Ph. 1: 6), ravra ioxbw (Ph. 4:13), vnorebovow muxvé (Lu. 
5:33), wavta éyxpareberar (1 Cor. 9 : 25), perhaps even zpirov todo 
€pxouar (2 Cor. 13:1), under diaxpivduevos (Jas. 1:6), oddey boré- 
pynoa (2 Cor. 12:11). Cf. the interrogative ri torepS (Mt. 19: 20), 


1 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. But note ¢nuelay e&nuwodynrv, B.U. 146 
(ii/ill), rpooxvvety 76 mpooxivnua Letr. 70, 79, 92 (i/B.c.). 

2 C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 56. 

SLD bose dle ai olitiy 

5 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 76, finds no instance of such a construction with 
dyare in ane. Gk. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 91. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 329. 





THE CASES (IITQ=EIS) A79 


the relative 6 yap aréfavey and 6 6é (7 (Ro. 6:10). Cf. also 8 viv 
€@ év capxi (Gal. 2 : 20) which may be equal to ‘in that,’ adverbial 
accusative.t In 2 Cor. 12:13 the accusative relative follows the 
nominative interrogative ri €or 6 HoowOnre. This neuter accusa- 
tive of the adjective easily glides into the purely adverbial accu- 
sative, like ravta maow apéeocxw (1 Cor. 10:33), ravra pov péurnobe 
MieGor. 12). 

As a further example of the more objective result one may note 
nxuarwrevoey aixuarwotay (ph. 4:8, LXX), but Winer? rightly 
shows that this type is chiefly represented in the N. T. by the rela- 
tive. So pwaprupia iv paptupel (Jo. 5 : 32), duabqxn iv duaOhoouar (Heb. 
8:10), Bracdnuiar doa Edy BAaodnunowow (Mk. 3 : 28), érayyeria Hv 
érnyyetdato (1 Jo. 2 : 25). 

The cognate accusative of the outward object (result also) calls 
for little discussion. Besides @uAdccovres dudaxds (Lu. 2:8) ob- 
Serve @xoddounoev thy oixiavy (Mt. 7: 24), dnoare decuas (Mt. 13 : 30, 
but NBC have é«is). 

The analogous cognate accusative is seen in such constructions 
as un hoBobmevar undeulay rronow (1 Pet. 3:6), Bidcar xpovov (1 Pet. 
4:2), dapnoerat woddas (OAlyas) in Lu. 12:47 (48), AdOov Huepas 
odov (Lu. 2:44), éropetvero tiv ddd aitod (Ac. 8:39), and the rela- 
tive also as in dpxov dv duooey (Lu. 1:73). Cf. the instrumental 
dpkw wpooev (Ac. 2:30), ete. 

(2) DousLE AcCUSATIVE. Some verbs may have two accu- 
satives. Indeed, if one count space and time, three accusa- 
tives are possible? In Mk. 10:18 (ri pe Nevers ayabov;) we have 
three accusatives, one being predicate. In the Sanskrit it is very 
common to have two accusatives with one verb. When one 
recalls that the accusative is the old and normal case with transi- 
tive verbs, it is not surprising that some verbs use two accusatives, 
just as many transitive verbs have an accusative and a dative, 
an accusative and an ablative, an accusative and an intrumental, 
an accusative and a genitive. This double accusative is common 
in Homer’ and a “multiplicity of accusatives is a characteristic 
of Pindar’s style.”’*® It is a common idiom in the papyri also.’ It 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 91. 8 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 82. 

a Weal p.i2e0, 4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 90. 

5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 97. 

6 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 306. 

7 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., p. 13 f.; Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 436. 
He cites ye éreicato bBpw tiv dvwratnv, B.U. 242 (ii/A.D.). For the Attic inscr. 
see Meisterh., p. 204. 


480 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is not unknown in Latin (cf. doceo) and English (teach). It is 
very common in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 36), going 
beyond the ancient idiom. Middleton! holds that the double ac- 
cusative is due to analogy, since, in a number of examples, alterna- 
tive constructions occur like accusative and ablative with airéw 
(Ac. 3:2) and ddarpéouae (Lu. 16:3). Cf. two accusatives with 
aveldivov in Mt. 27 : 44. 

Perhaps the simplest kind of a double accusative is what is called 
the predicate accusative, really a sort of apposition. Thus ov«ére 
duds Neyw dovdrovs (Jo. 15:15). This appositional feature is seen 
also in the passive of those verbs where a double nominative oc- 
curs. For other examples with verbs of saying see \eyw (Mk. 10: 
18) and efzov in Jo. 10 : 35 (éxetvous ete Oeovs), ete. Similar to this 
is Kadéw (kadécers.To dvoua ad’Tod ‘Iwavynv, Lu. 1 : 13; cf. Incody verse 
31; éxadovv a’to — Zaxapiav, 1: 59). We happen to have the pas- 
sive of this very construction in Lu. 2:21 (Ann To dvoua atrod 
"Incods). Cf. further Mt. 22:43. Observe also év kal wvouacer 
Ilérpov (Lu. 6:14). ‘Opuodtoyew appears with the double accusative 
in Jo. 9 : 22; 1 Jo. 4:2; 2 Jo. 7 and curiously nowhere else outside 
of John’s writings. ‘Hyéowa likewise has two accusatives as in 
Tavra Hynuae ¢nuiay (Ph. 3:7). See 2 Pet. 3:15; Heb. 11: 26. 
Blass? observes that vouifw and tro\auBavw do not have the dou- 
ble accusative in the N. T. Tlovoduac in the same sense does occur, 
as rovoduar THY WuxAv Tiwiav (Ac. 20 : 24), and very frequently in the 
active, aS ovets ceavrov Oeov (Jo. 10:33). Cf. further for zovew 
Mt. 47919347419 46Jo, Se 116 1519 es fee pheeeels 
Rev. 21:5. Closely allied to this use of zrovéw is Exw (efxov "Iwavnv 
irnpernv, Ac. 13: 5) and note Heb. 12:9; Ph. 2:29. "Eye we rapy- 
tnuevov (Lu. 14 : 18) is to be observed also. Cf. also ceaurov rapexo- 
pevos TUTov (Tit. 2:7). Aau8avw is so used in Jas. 5: 10, trddayyua 
AaBere — tovs mpopyjras. TlOnuc may be exemplified by buds 76 
mvedua TO &ytov CeTo érioxorous (Ac. 20:28). Cf. Heb. 1:2 (€7- 
xev) and Ro. 3 : 25, dv. apoefero 6 eds tXacrhpiov. Kabiornuc shows 
several examples like ris ye xatéornoey xpirnv (Lu. 12:14). Cf. 
also Ac. 7: 10; Heb. 7:28. In Gal. 2:18 we have zapaBarnv éuav- 
Tov auviaTavw. ’Amodeixvume Shows an example in 1 Cor. 4:9 and 
mpoopifw in Ro. 8:29. For further verbs with two accusatives, not 
to weary one, see wepiayw (1 Cor. 9 : 5), txavow (2 Cor. 3 : 6), éxdeyo- 
par (Jas. 2 : 5), tWow (Ac. 5; 31). 

This second accusative may be either substantive, adjective or 
participle. As specimens of the adjective take 6 zoujoas ye byth 

1 Anal, in Synt., p. 25. 4 Gr. OL Naile GE nee 


Jae ioe 


THE CASES (IITQZEI>) 481 


(Jo. 5:11), rods rovobrous évrious Exere (Ph. 2:29). In 1 Cor.4:9 
indeed the adjective makes three accusatives and with ws four, 6 
Geds uas Tovs amoaTONoUs écxaTous aTédertev Ws EHavarious (so W. H.). 
As an example of the participle see xaréornoev aitov tyobpevov (Ac. 
7:10). Cf. 2 Tim. 2:8. Sometimes ws occurs with the second 
accusative, as In ws rpodnrny atrov efyov (Mt. 14:5). Cf. 21:26. 
In 2 Th. 3:15 note pw ws exOpov ayetabe, dda vovberetTE ws dbEA- 
gov. In 1 Cor. 4:1 observe also quads NoyifécOw avOpwros ws br7- 
péras Xpiorod. In 2 Cor. 10: 2 we have as with the participle, rods 
Aoyifouevous Huds ws KaTa oapka wepitatodytas. In 2 Cor. 6:4 as 
Geod diaxovar is not exactly what ws dcaxdvovs would be. Cf. ws with 
the predicate nominative in Ro. 8 : 36 (LXX). 

Sometimes efvar is used as the copula before such a predicate 
accusative where the sense is not greatly altered by its absence or 
presence. As a matter of fact with efvac we have indirect dis- 
course with the accusative and infinitive. So droxpivopévous éavrods 
dtxatous etvar (Lu. 20: 20); Mk. 1:17=Mt. 4:19. Cf. cvverrnoare 
éautovs ayvovs evar (2 Cor. 7:11), Noyifecbe Eavrods etvar vexpods 
(Ro. 6:11), but ADEFG do not have efva. In Ph. 3:7 we do 
not have evar, while in verse 8 we do after jyodpar. 

The predicate accusative with eis used to be explained as an un- 
doubted Hebraism.t But Moulton? is only willing to admit it is 
a secondary Hebraism since the papyri show a few examples like 
éoxov map’ buav eis da(verov) orepuata, K.P. 46 (ii/A.D.), ‘a recurrent 
formula,” a probable vernacular “extension of eis expressing des- 
tination.”’ Moulton pertinently remarks that “as a loan”’ (as or 
just the accusative in apposition) and “for a loan”’ (eis) ‘do not 
differ except in grammar.” But certainly the great frequency of 
els in the LX X as compared with even the vernacular xo.w7 is due 
to the Hebrew 9 which it so often translates.? Cf. daceré wou TH 
qatoa TavTny eis yuvatka (Gen. 34:12). Cf. the similar use of efs and 
the accusative instead of the predicate nominative (Aoyifouar eis 
Ro. 2 : 26, etc.). Winer‘ shows parallels for this predicate accu- 
sative from the late Greek writers. The N. T. exhibits this ac- 
cusative in eis rpodnrny airov etxov (Mt. 21 : 46), aveOpevaro abrov 


1 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 332, 378, who says that it is absent in mod. 
Gk. But mod. Gk. does use ya instead of pred. acc., as €xw rods Bpaxous yud 
xpéBBart (Thumb, Handb., p. 36). Cf. also W.-Th., p. 228; Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
3K, De 9o: 2. Prol., p.ii2: 

$C. and S., Sel. from the Sept., p. 81f. Cf. also W.-Th., p. 228. 

4 Ib. In the mod. Gk. the acc. of the thing to some extent takes the place 
of the dat, or abl. (Thumb, Handb., p. 37). 


482 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


éauTy eis viov (Ac. 7:21), édaBere Tov vouov eis duatayas ayyedwy (Ac. 
7:53), qyepev tov Aaveld abrots eis Baortéa (Ac. 13 : 22), TeOexa ce 
eis Pas Cvav (Ac. 18:47, LX X). When all ds said, one must ad- 
mit some Hebrew influence here because of its frequency. Ph. 
4:16 is not a case in point. See further under eis. 

But there is another kind of double accusative besides the pred- 
icate accusative. It is usually described as the accusative of the 
person and of the thing. This in a general way is true of this 
group of double accusatives. Some of these were also cognate 
accusatives, as In KataxXlvate abrovs kAuclas (Lu. 9 : 14) and, accord- 
ing to some MSS., dnoare ara decuas (Mt. 13 : 30), Hv nyarnods pe 
(Jo. 17 : 26; cf. also Eph. 2 : 4), both of the outer and the inner ob- 
ject. Cf. the passive 6 éyw Barrifoua (Mk. 10: 38) which really 
implies two accusatives in the active. Further examples of this 
cognate accusative of the inner object with the negative pronoun 
may be seen in ovdev we jduxnoate (Gal. 4 : 12; cf. 5:2), undev Bda- 
yay (Lu. 4:35). See also Ac. 25:10. In Mt. 27: 44 the second 
accusative is likewise a pronoun, 70 avro wveléifov a’tov, while in 
Mk. 6 : 34 it is an adjective, d:dacKev adtovs wodda. 

Indeed 6:dacxw is Just one of the verbs that can easily have two 
accusatives (asking and teaching). Cf. also buds duddéer tava (Jo. 
14:26. In Ac. 21:21 we have a normal example, arocraciav 61- 
dackes 476 Mwvaéws tovs — ’Iovéatovs. In Heb. 5: 12 we note three 
accusatives, but one is the accusative of general reference with 
the infinitive, rod dudacxew buds Twa Ta oTorxeta. Cf. Mt. 15:9 
where one accusative is predicate. In Rev. 2 : 14 édi5acxev 7G Ba- 
hax we have the dative, a construction entirely possible in the ab- 
stract,! but elsewhere absent in the concrete. The number of 
verbs like 6.dac0xw which may have two accusatives is not consider- 
able. They include verbs like airéw in Mt. 7:9, dv aitnoe: 6 vids 
avtod aprov, but not Mt. 6:8 where tuds is merely accusative of 
general reference with the infinitive, though we do meet it with 
airew in Mk. 6:22 f.; Jo. 16:23; 1 Pet. 3:15. But instead of an 
accusative of the person we may have the ablative with a76 as in 
Mt. 20: 20 BD (against zapa), airotca mt am’ a’rod, and in 1 Jo. 5: 
15, or the ablative with rapa as in Jo. 4: 9, rap’ €uod ety airets, and 
the middle yrjcaro in Ac. 9:2. ’Epwraw likewise has two accu- 
satives in Mt. 21:24 (€pwrjow buds Kaya Noyov &va); Mk. 4: 10; 
Jo. 16:23. ’Avayuiuvnoxw in both active and middle is used only 
with the accusative in the N. T. (ucurnoxoua only with the geni- 
tive save adverbial accusative in 1 Cor. 11:2), and two accusa- 

1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 80. 


THE CASES (IITOQZEIS) 483 


tives occur in 1 Cor. 4:17, ds buds avayynce ras ddobs wou, and in. 2 
Tim. 1 : 6 (ce dvafwrupetv, both in the accusative). With brouprh- 
oxw the genitive occurs once in the passive (Lu. 22 : 61), the accu- 
sative elsewhere, and two accusatives in Jo. 14 : 26, brourjce byas 
mavra, and in Tit. 3:1 (avrods broraccecbar). In 1 Cor. 14: 6 ob- 
serve Ti buds apednow. In 2 Pet. 1:12 wept robrwv occurs rather 
than a second accusative. Evayyedifoua: usually has accusative 
of the thing and dative of the person, as in Eph. 2 : 17; 3 : 8, ete. 
But in Ac. 13 : 32 the accusative of person! and thing is found, and 
the same thing is true in Ac. 14:15 (tuds — émcorpéderv), taking 
object-sentence as ‘“‘thing.’”’ Indeed in Gal. 1 : 9 (ei ris buds ebay- 
yediferar map’ 6 mapeAaGere) the same thing exists, for while the 
antecedent of 6 would be zapa rotro, 7 is really implied also, rt 
Tapa TOUTO 0. 

Another group of verbs in the ancient Greek with two accusa- 
tives is that of depriving, etc. Here indeed the ablative may take 
the place of one accusative, as in 1 Tim. 6 : 5 with the passive of 
aroorepew the ablative is retained (ris adnOeias). But in the N. T. 
neither azoorepéw, Nor addarpéew, NOY KpirTw has two accusatives. 
Kither the ablative alone occurs or with a6 (Lu. 16:3; Lu. 19: 
42; Rev. 6:16). With ¢vddccecbar (Ac. 21: 25) abrots is the ac- 
cusative of general reference (so-called ‘‘subject’’) of the infini- 
tive. 

But verbs of clothing or unclothing, anointing, ete., do have 
two accusatives, though not always. Thus é£édvcav abroy ri 
xAaptda (Mt. 27: 31; cf. Mk. 15:20; Lu. 15: 22), e&édvoar at- 
Tov Ta tuatia avtod (Mt. 27:31; cf. Mk. 15: 20). But dudrévvvpe 
does not have two accusatives nor zepitiOnu (Mt. 27:28). In 
Lu. 23:11 some MSS. give two accusatives with zepiBadwv, 
but NBLT omit airov. In Jo. 19:2 the text is beyond dispute 
iuatiov topdupoby mepieBadrov adrov. Cf. wepiBadretrar év (Rev. 3: 5). 
Moreover xpiw has two accusatives in Heb. 1:9 (évpicer ce 6 beds 
é\aov), a quotation from the LXX. In Rev. 3:18 xoddovpror is 
not the object of éyxptoa, but of ayopaca. ’Areidw is not used 
with two accusatives, but has the thing in the instrumental case 
(Mk. 6:13). II\npow does not indeed have two accusatives in the 
N. T., but the passive with accusative in Ph. 1:11 and Col. 1:9 
really involves the idiom. 

The following causatiwe verbs have two accusatives. ‘Opxitw 
ce Tov Oedv (Mk. 5: 7) is a case in point (cf. €£opxéw in Herod.). See 

1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 78 f., argues Berane tena against the idea 
that ebayyerivoua has two accs. 


484 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


also Ac. 19:13 and one example of évopxitw in 1 Th. 5: 27. 
The idea is really to “cause to swear by.”’ In Jas. 5 : 12 (ouvtere 
UNTe TOV ovpavoy uNTE THY Yhv uNTe adov TLva Spxov) we have two con- 
structions, one ‘‘swear by,” the other the cognate accusative. So 
dtapaptipoua in 2 Tim. 4:1 f. Cf. P.O. 79 Gi/A.d.) duriw Abroxparopa 
Kaicapa Map|[ko|v Avpnrvov — adO4 efy[ac] ra rpo-. Tlorifw is a good 
example of the causative sense. Thus 6s ay rorion buds mornptov 
téaros (Mk. 9:41). Cf. Mt..10: 42; 1°Cor. 3:2. In Ro. 127320 
Ywuitw has the accusative of the person, in 1 Cor. 13:3 the ac- 
cusative of the thing (cf. Jer. 23 : 15 for double accusative with 
both these verbs). In Lu. 11: 46 we have goprifere rods avOpa- 
qous poptia ducBactaxta. Cf. nrAadTTwoas a’Ttov Bpaxv Te in Heb. 2:7 
(LXX). 

Finally some words of doing good or ill have two accusatives. 
Thus punéév BX\aWav adrov (Lu. 4 : 85) where the pronoun is really a 
cognate accusative, as is the case with buds ovdev wdednoer (Gal. 5: 
2). Cf. Ac. 25:10 ’Iovéaious otdév nédixnxa. In Mt. 27: 22 we read 
tt ovv roinow "Incoty. Cf. also Mk. 15: 12, though D has 7@ Baovde? 
(Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 91). Elsewhere in the N. T. we meet 
the dative of the person as in Mt. 21:40; Ac..9:13. See wepi av 
alrny rerounxacw, P. Grenf. 1, 73 (late ili/A.D.), where ay is attracted 
from a=‘of what they have done to her.’ Cf. undév rpagys ceavtd 
kaxov (Ac. 16:28). In Mk. 7:12 the dative of the person is in 
keeping with ancient Greek usage. In Mt. 17:12 & airé may 
be more exactly ‘in his case’ (ND do not have é&), but note eis 
judas in Jo. 15:21 and the likeness of this to the modern Greek 
use of eis with accusative as the usual dative. Blass (7b., p. 92) 
compares also the use of & éuot (Mk. 14:6) and eis eve (Mt. 26: 
10) with épyafoua: and observes that épyafoua in Attic had some- 
times two accusatives. One may compare again the expression Ti 
apa 6 Llerpos eyevero (Ac. 12:18). Aéyw and efzov indeed have two 
accusatives in the N. T., but in Jo. 1:15 the margin (W. H., 
R. V.) really has this idiom. Cf. also Ac. 23: 5. 

(j) Witn PasstveE VerBs. Indeed the accusative may be 
found with verbs in the passive voice. Draeger! calls the accusa- 
tive with passive verbs in Latin ‘‘ein Gracismus.”’ This accusa- 
tive may be of several kinds. See cognate accusative in Mt. 2: 
10, Exapnoav xapav. It occurs with the so-called passive deponents 
like aexpiOny (ovdev amexpiOn, Mk. 15:5). Cf. ovd€v arexpivato (Mt. 
27 : 12), ov amexpifn dNoyov (Mt. 15:23). As further instances 
note areotpadnody we (2 Tim. 1:15), &rparhoovtat tov vidv you (Mt. 

+a Hist.oynt.) p.ic02. 





THE CASES (IITQ=EIS) A85 


21:37), éracxvv09 we (Mk. 8:38), doBnOire abrots (Mt. 10 : 26). 
Cf. Mt. 14:5; 2 Tim 1:16. To all intents and purposes these 
‘“‘deponent”’ forms are not regarded as passives. This use of 
the passive is common in the xowy. Cf. Volker, Synt. Spec., p. 15. 

But the true passive of many verbs retains the accusative of the 
thing. This is true of verbs that have two accusatives in the ac- 
tive. So qv Katnxnuevos THY dddv Tod Kupiov (Ac. 18 : 25), ds eéudax- 
Onre (2 Th. 2:15), ovx evdedupevoy evduxwa yayou (Mt. 22::11 and 
ef. Mk. 1:6; Rev. 1:18; 15:6; 19: 14), évedidtcKero ropdipapr 
(Lu. 16 : 19), éxavyaric@noay kadua peya (Rev. 16:9), dapnoerat rod- 
Aas (wAnyas, Lu. 12:47, ddiyas, 48), 76 Barrticua 6 Barrifoua Bar- 
ricbqvac (Mk. 10: 38, two examples), év mrvedua éroricOnuev (1 Cor. 
12:13), wereioucba Ta Kpeiccova (Heb. 6:9), wetAnpwuevor Kaprov 
dtxacoobvys (Ph. 1:11; Col. 1:9 twa mrAnpwOijte tiv exiyrwow and 
ef. Ex. 31 : 3, évérAnoa airov rvedyua codias) and compare 2 Tim. 1 : 5 
for genitive (iva yapas tANPwI), (nuwOjvac tiv Wux7v aitod (Mk. 8: 
36= Mt. 16:26). Cf. also Ph. 3:8; Heb. 10:22. See 6 éav d€ éuod 
adernO7s (Mt. 15:5); Ti whednOnoerar (Mt. 16 : 26); Bpaxyd re rap’ 
ayyedous AaTTwuEvov (Heb. 2:9) with active (two accs.) in Heb. 
2:7. Once more observe dérxobuevor prcOov ddcxias (2 Pet. 2:13). 
The predicate accusative, it should be said, becomes the nomina- 
tive in the passive, as in abrol viol Oe00 KAnOnoovra (Mt. 5:9). Cf. 
epee .lOs2elime) ot1: 

Some verbs which have only one accusative in the active or 
middle yet retain the accusative of the thing in the passive with 
the person in the nominative. This is a freedom not possessed by 
the Latin. The person in the active was generally in the dative. 
Thus Paul a number of times uses moretouar (ricrevbjvat 76 edbay- 
yettov 1 Th. 2:4; émtoretOy 76 paptipwov 2 Th. 1:10; cf. also 1 
Gor. 9:17; Gal) 2:7; Ro.38:2;1Tim.1:11). Then again zepn 
Baddoua is frequently so employed, as repiBeBdAnuevos owdova (Mk. 
14: 51; cf: 16 : 5; and especially in Rev.,.as 7:9, 18; 10:1; 11:3; 
eel elf 74-218); 16;:19 313). “This is not the middle as Blass! 
has it, though the future middle does occur in Rev. 3 : 5 with @, 
and the aorist middle with the accusative in Rev. 19:8. In Rev. 
4:4 we have zepiBeBAnuévovs iuarios (loc.), and margin (W. H.) & 
iu. Once more zepixeuar is used as the passive of zepiTiOnue with 
the accusative of the thing, though the verb itself means to ‘lie 
around’ instead of ‘be encompassed with.’ So riv advow zepi- 
Kenpat (Ac. 28: 20). Cf. also Heb. 5:2, but in Lu. 17:2 we have 
mept repeated. 

TECGTPOIeN ole Gk... p..93; 


486 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


There are once more still looser accusatives with passive verbs, 
partly by analogy and partly merely an extension of the principle 
illustrated already. Thus karnxotpevos tov doyov (Gal. 6 : 6) does 
not really differ from ds é6:daxO@ynre above. In dedeuevos trols 16- 
das Kal Tas xetpas (Jo. 11:44) we see a close parallel to zepiBeBdr- 
pevos above. Note active in Mt. 22:18. In dvefOappevwy rov vodv 
(1 Tim. 6:5), pepavricpévor tas Kapdias (Heb. 10 : 22), AeAovepevor 
To cua (10: 22) the accusative seems to be rather remote and 
to come close to the accusative of general reference, but not 
quite, for the force of the verb is still felt. This is still true of 
THY av’THY elkova peTauoppovmeba (2 Cor. 3:18) and perhaps even of 
Thy avTny avtimcbiay mratbvOnre (2 Cor. 6:18). In Ac. 21:3 a&- 
adavaytes, not avadaverres, is the correct text, as Blass! observes. 

The impersonal verbal in —réov occurs only once in the N. T. 
(Lu. 5:38) and as in the ancient Greek it is used with the ac- 
cusative, otvoy véov eis aoxovs Kavos BAntéov. This verbal is more 
usually transitive than the personal form in —réos, which is not 
found in the N. T. 

(k) Toe ADVERBIAL AcCUSATIVE. It is not very common in 
the N. T. except in the case of pure adverbs. The adverbial accusa- 
tive is really nothing more than a loose use of the accusative with 
intransitive verbs, with substantives or adjectives. It is rare in 
Homer? and increases steadily till it becomes very common, though 
perhaps never quite so abundant as in the Sanskrit, where a veri- 
table host of such accusatives occur.’ It is a perfectly normal 
development of the case, for extension is its root-idea. This ac- 
cusative is sometimes called the accusative of general reference. 
As an example of such an accusative with an intransitive verb 
note kafiorarat Ta mpds Tov Oeov (Heb. 5:1). See also avérecayr ot 
dvdpes Tov apiWuov ws mevrakioxirdio. (Jo. 6 :10),4 tov tpdmroyv éxmop- 
veboacar (Jude 7), dv tpdrov bps éerrovvayer (Mt. 23:37) and 2 
Tim. 3 : 8 (6y rporov). Cf. dvelyeoOE wou uxpov re (2 Cor. 11:1). In 
Ro. 15 : 17 the whole verbal phrase is concerned with ra zpos Oe6r, 
but see Ro. 12:18, 76 é tudv pera rdvtwv avOpwrwv eipnvebovtes, 
where 76 €& tudv is ace. In Ro. 1:15 76 car’ &ué may be nom. 
In Heb. 2:17 this adv. ace. occurs with the adj. as in muorés 
apxLepevs TA Tpds TOV Beov. So also with a subst. as in 6 Xpuords 7d 
kata capxa (Ro. 9:5). The Text. Recept. in Ac. 18 :3 had oxnvo- 
moos THY TEexvnv, but W. H. read oxnvoro.wi rH Texvn. Indeed the 


43 Gir Of UN ial Cake ne: 2 Giles, Man., etc., p. 309. 


3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 91, 93. 
4 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 75. So 2 Mace. 8 : 16. 


| 


THE CASES (IITQZEIS) 487 


instrumental is usual in the N. T. in such instances,! as the fol- 
lowing examples: Zupodowwixicoa 7H yever (Mk. 7: 26), Kirpios 76 
vyeve. (Ac. 4:36), mavri tporw (Ph. 1:18), 7 rpoowrw (Gal. 1: 22). 
But, on the other hand, observe rotvoua ‘Iwond (Mt. 27 : 57), 
but elsewhere in the N. T. we have ovouare (Ac. 18:2). In Ro. 
16:19 some MSS. have 76 éd’ tutv. The phrase 76 xaé’ eis (Ro. 
12: 5) is accusative, even though eis itself is nominative in form. 
In 1 Cor. 11:18 see also pépos te mictebw. Perhaps thus is to 
be explained the accusative with the interjection in Rev. 8:13 
oval tovs Katotxodyras. Cf. o’at and nominative (or vocative) in Is. 
1:4. There is only one instance of an accusative with an adverb 
of swearing in the N. T. and that is in 1 Cor. 15: 31, vy ray bye- 
tépay kavxnow. In Mk. 6:39 cuyurdcia cuprocca may be looked 
at as nominative (cf. rpactai in verse 40) or accusative (cf. Lu. 9: 
14). Brugmann? considers kai roiro (1 Cor. 6:6, 8) nominative 
rather than accusative, but that seems hardly possible with airo 
tovro (2 Pet. 1:5), and kai rotro may be accusative also (Ph. 1: 
29, etc.). Cf. also rodro wev — rodro 6€ (Heb. 10:33). In Ac. 15: 
11; 27:25 we have xaé’ dv rporov. In Ph. 4:10 (daveOarere 76 brrép 
éuod dpovetv) the infinitive is probably the accusative of general 
reference. Cf. tov mddav roveits ard cxod\aTov, B.U. 380 (i1i/A.D.). 

There are indeed other expressions that come more closely to 
the pure adverb. Such, for instance, are 70 kad’ jnuepay (Lu. 11:3; 
19:47; Ac. 17:11), rav apxnv (Jo. 8:25), 7d Aourév (Mk. 14:41; 
Ph. 3:1; Heb. 10:13, etc.), 76 rpdrepov (Jo. 6: 62, etc.), 7d mparor 
(Jo. 10:40; 12:16); 76 wdetorov (1 Cor. 14:27), ra wodda (Ro. 
15:22, MSS. zodddxs), 7a vov (Ac. 17: 30), 7d viv Exov (Ac. 24: 25), 
7o tédos (1 Pet. 3:8). In the case of 76 Aowov (1 Cor. 7 : 29) 
it may be either accusative or nominative. In 2 Cor. 6:13 rq 
dvriucbiay is considered adverbial accusative by some, as is wavra 
with dpéoxw (1 Cor. 10:33) and with péurynobe (11:2). Observe 
also 76 atré (Ph. 2:18; Mt. 27:44). Cf. ovdév xpeiav exw (Rev. 
3:17), and the common use of zi in the sense of ‘why’ as in Mt. 
17:10 (dca ri in verse 19). This phase of the adverbial accusa- 
tive is common in the papyri.? 

But the most numerous group of adverbial accusatives is found 
in the adverbs themselves. The accusative is not the only case 


used for adverbs, but it is a very common one. In Homer? in- 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p.117. Cf. Landgraf, Der Accus. der Beziehung 
nach Adj., p. 376, Archiv fiir lat. Lex. und Gr., vol. X. 

2 Griech. Gr., p. 378. 3 Volker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., pp. 10-13. 

4 Giles, Man., etc., p. 309. 


488 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


deed adverbial accusatives of substantives are almost absent. 
But the N. T. shows a few in harmony with the development of 
the language. Thus dxunv (Mt. 15:16), dwpeav (Mt. 10: 8), xapuw 
as a preposition (Eph. 3:1, etc.). But adjectives in the accusa- 
tive were numerous in Homer? both in the singular and the plural. 
They occur in the positive, comparative and occasionally the su- 
perlative. As examples of the positive singular may be taken zroAv 
(2 Cor. 8 : 22), ddtyov (Mk. 6:31), yeocov (Ph. 2:15), raxb (Mt. 
5:25), Norov (1 Cor. 1:16, ete. Cf. -B.U., iv, 1079, 6). Indeed 
the participle zvxdv (1 Cor. 16:6) is used as an adv. acc. (see 
Acc. Absolute). Asan example of the plural positive note zodva 
in Ro. 16:6, though this may be construed as cognate acc. with 
éxoriacev. Cf. Jas. 3:2; 1 Cor. 16:12,19. For the comparative 
singular note waddov Kpetocov (Ph. 1 : 23), crovdardrepoy (2 Cor. 8: 
22), debrepov (1 Cor. 12: 28), reptacdrepov (Mk. 7: 36), BéedAriov (2 
Tim. 1 : 18), €\arrov (1 Tim. 5 : 9), torepov (Mt. 22 : 27), raxecov (Jo. 
13:27), ete. Cf. word orovdatorepov (2 Cor. 8: 22) with roAAG pad- 
ov (Ph. 1: 23), the instrumental and usual idiom in the N. T. 
In the superlative it is usually the plural form like jéce7a (2 Cor. 


12:9), uartora (Ac. 20 : 38), taxvorTa (Ac. 17:15), ete. But note 


mpa@rov (1 Cor. 12: 28), tpirov (1b.). The later Greek continued to 
exhibit a wealth of adverbs in the accusative.’ 

(1) THe AccusaTIVE By ANTIPTosIs.2 It is not in reality a 
special use of the accusative, but merely a shifting of the noun or 
pronoun out of its usual order and into the government of the 
other preceding clause, and thus it becomes accusative whereas it 
would otherwise be nominative. Soin Mk. 1 : 24, oféa ce ris ef (cf. 
Lu. 4: 34), Lu. 19 : 3, iéety Incody ris éorw. But in Mt. 15:14 we 
have a kind of prolepsis (not the technical sort) without any 
change of case, tuddAos TudAdv Edy ddnyf. In the case of un riva ov 
améotavka mpos buds, du’ ad’rod érAeovextynoa buds; (2 Cor. 12: 17) the 
ria is left to one side and anacoluthon takes place and the sen- 
tence is concluded by 60’ airod. 


(m) THe AccuUSATIVE BY INVERSE ATTRACTION. Thus -ép- 


kov dv Gpooev (Lu. 1: 73), tov &prov dv kAGuev (1 Cor. 10:16). Cf. 
76 wornpiov (1 Cor. 10:15). In Mk. 3:16 but for the parenthesis 


(kal ér€Onxev dvoua DViuwrr) Ilérpov we should seem to have the dative 


and the accusative in apposition. 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 93. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 348 f.; Delbriick, 


Vergl. Synt., III, p. 625 f. 
a Jann,;, Lust, Ghar pod ls 
* Farrar, .Gk. Synt., p. 85. 








THE CASES (IITQSEIZ) 489 


(n) THe ACCUSATIVE WITH THE INFINITIVE. The grammars 
generally speak of the accusative as the subject of the infinitive. 
I confess that to me this seems a grammatical misnomer. The in- 
finitive clause in indirect discourse does correspond to a finite 
clause in English, and a clause with 67 and the indicative may 
often be used as well as the infinitive clause. But it is not tech- 
nically scientific to read back into the Greek infinitive clause the 
syntax of English nor even of the 67 clause in Greek. Besides, 
not only is the infinitive a verbal substantive! and in a case like 
the verbal adjective (the participle), but being non-finite (in-fini- 
tive) like the participle (partaking of both verb and noun), it can 
have no subject in the grammatical sense. No one thinks of call- 
ing the accusative the “subject” of the participle. Take éws dy 
ldwoww Tov viov Tod avOpwmov épxouevoy (Mt. 16:28). Here the ac- 
cusative is the object of téwow and the participle is descriptive of 
viov. Now with the infinitive in indirect discourse it is as a rule 
the infinitive, not the substantive, that is the object of the verb. 
No further case is needed with the infinitive, if the pronoun or 
substantive be the same as the subject of the principal verb. 
Thus et tis doxynyuovety — vouife (1 Cor. 7:36). If such a word is 
used, it may be in the pred. nom. in apposition with the subject 
of the verb, as ¢acxovtes efvar codoi (Ro. 1 : 22), or the accusative 
may be used. This accusative may be with a verb that can have 
two accusatives, as in éyw éuavrov ov oyifouar KatreAndevae (Ph. 
3:13) or the accusative of general reference as in wérolds Te ceav- 
tov ddnyov elvar tupddv (Ro. 2:19). This latter usage is the ex- 
planation of the accusative with the infinitive in the instances 
where the word used with the infinitive is other than the subject 
of the principal verb. Typical examples are seen in of d€éyovow 
abvrov (Av (Lu. 24: 23), vouitovres abrov reOvnxevar (Ac. 14:19), Bob- 
houar tpocevxecOar Tos dvdpas (1 Tim. 2:8). In these examples the 
infinitive is the object of the verb and the affirmation is made as 
far forth as the word in the accusative. They affirm living as to 
him; considering having died or death as to him; and wish pray- 
ing as to the men. This is the psychology of this accusative with 
the infinitive. The fact that later grammarians call it the “sub- 
ject”’ of the infinitive cuts no figure in the matter of the origin of 
the usage. Clyde? has interpreted the matter correctly. He sees 
that ‘‘grammarians framed this rule in ignorance of the etymology 

-1 For inf. as subject and as object. see ch. on Verbal Nouns. 


2 Gk. Synt., p. 139 f. Cf. also Donaldson’s Gk. Gr., § 584, and Green’s 
Handb. to N. T..Gk. Gr:, p. 232. 


490 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of infinitives,”’ and that ‘‘since the infinitive was originally a case, 
the accusative could not originally have been its subject.” This 
descriptive accusative or accusative of definition (general refer- 
ence) has a very wide range in Greek, as seen above, and is the 
true historical explanation of the accusative with the infinitive 
(other than the accusative which may be the object of the infini- 
tive itself). When the infinitive is used with the accusative, it in- 
dicates the agent who has to do with the action by the accusative, 
since the infinitive can have no subject in the technical sense. 
This use of the accusative with the infinitive is common also when 
the infinitive is in a prepositional clause like év 7@ elcayayety rods 
yovets TO tadlov “Incody (Lu. 2:27). Here the matter becomes 
clearer for the reason that the article 7G cannot be slurred over 
and it becomes imperative to explain one of the accusatives as 
that of general reference. The context makes it clear that 76 aa0- 
diov is the object of eicayayetv, while zovs yovets is the accusative of 
general reference. Many examples of this sort occur. Cf. Mt. 
13:4. In Mt. 26 : 32, wera 76 evepOfvai we, note the accusative pe 
rather than nothing or avrés or éuavrov. Cf. also Ac. 23:15. The 
article may be so used without a preposition, and either the nomi- 
native appear, as déouar 76 wu) Tapay Oappjoa (2 Cor. 10: 2), or the 
accusative, as TG un ebpety we Titov (2 Cor. 2:13). Then again the 
accusative may be used with the infinitive in such constructions 
as Kahov éoTiv Huds @de etvar (Mt. 17:4). Note here the infinitive 
as subject, as the infinitive as object occurs in 2 Cor. 10:2. There 
is one example of three accusatives with the infinitive in Heb. 
5: 12 (radu xpelav Exere Tod diddoxew buds Twa Ta oTorxeta). Here 
we have a verb that is used with two accusatives, and tua is the 
accusative of general reference. Cf. the three accusatives in Lu. 
11:11. This subject will call for further discussion in the chap- 
ters on Indirect Discourse and Verbal Nouns. There was a con- 
stant tendency in the later Greek to exchange this use of the 
infinitive and accusative for the érv clause. 

(0) THe AccusativE ABsoLuTe. The absolute use of the ac- 
cusative is rare in the N. T. as compared with the earlier 
Greek.? Usually the genitive occurs with the participle and sub- 
stantive when used absolutely. In 1 Cor. 16 : 6 rvxév is really the 
accusative absolute though used as an adverb. The most certain 
example in the N. T. is in Ac. 26:3 yrworny dvra ce. In 1 Tim. 
2:6 76 paptipioy Katpots idious is in the accusative without any 

1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 484 f. 
2 It is rare also in the pap. Vdélker, Pap. Gr. Synt. Spec., p. 18. 





THE CASES (IITQZEI2) 491 


immediate connection unless it is in apposition with the preceding 
clause! (Ellicott im loco) or is loosely united with dois. As to 76 
adivatov Tod vououv (Ro. 8: 3) we have either the nominativus pen- 
dens, the accusative in apposition with the object of the sentence, 
the accusative of general reference or an instance of anacoluthon2 
In Lu. 24: 47 the Text. Recept. reads adpéauevov, which would be 
anacoluthon, but W. H. rightly have -vo. Twice é£6v occurs in 
the N. T., once with qv (Mt. 12:4) and once alone, a@ ovk éfov (2 
Cor. 12 : 4), but in both instances in the nominative. In Ph.1:7 
judas dvras the buds is repeated and is not accusative absolute. A 
subordinate sentence may also be in the accusative of general ref- 
erence. Thus 70 ei dtvn (Mk. 9 : 23), 76 Tis ay ein peifwv abtoy (Lu. 
9:46). See further chapter on Verbal Nouns. 

(p) THe ACCUSATIVE WITH PREPOSITIONS. Only a general 
remark is needed here, since each preposition will be discussed 
later in detail. In general one may note that the accusative is 
the most frequent case with prepositions.*? Indeed in modern 
Greek these all have the accusative. IIpos in the N. T. has abla- 
tive 1, locative 6, accusative 679 times.4 Here the preposition, 
like all prepositions, is merely an adverb that is used to express 
more exactly the idea of the case. The preposition does not tech- 
nically govern a case. The accusative with the preposition has, 
of course, its usual force, extension. The following prepositions 
occur in the N. T. with the accusative, one example being given 
in each instance. ’Ava péoov (Mk. 7:31), dca Tov doBov (Jo. 7: 18), 
eis THY TOA (Mt. 26:18), eat trav yav (Mt. 15 : 35), kara Tov voor 
(Lu. 2 : 22), wera juépas pets (Lu. 2 : 46), rapa rv ddov (Mt. 20 : 30), 
mept atrov (Mt. 8:18), mpos airov (Mt. 8:5), trép doddov (Phil. 
16), id tov podvov (Mt. 5:15). Of these es is, of course, by far 
the most frequent and has only the accusative. Avda, werd, rept, 
imep, tro have the genitive-ablative more than the accusative, 
while ézi, kata, mpos have the accusative more often. Tor exact 
figures see Moulton, Prol., pp. 105-107. In the chapter on Prepo- 
sitions there will be further discussion of the matter. 

VIII. The Genitive (True) Case ( yeviky TTHCts). 

(a) Two Cases wiTtH ONE Form. It is now generally ac- 
cepted by the comparative grammars that in Greek two cases 
appear under the form of the genitive: the genitive proper and the 


1 For acc. in apposition with sentence in pap. see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, 
p. 152, 7d wu) dv, T.P. 1 (ii/B.c.). 

2 Green, Handb., etc., p. 234. 

3 Giles, Man., etc., p. 311. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 106, 


492 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ablative.! It is a syncretistic form. The matter has already had 
some discussion in this grammar under Declensions and calls for 
little remark here. Moulton is not too hard on Winer when he 
calls it. ‘‘an utterly obsolete procedure”’ to speak of the genitive 
as “unquestionably the whence-case.”* Winer is followed by 
Green.’ Now the ablative is the whence-case, but the genitive is 
a different case. Delbriick‘ gives an interesting sketch of the fate 
of the ablative case in the Indo-Germanic languages. In the 
Sanskrit singular the two cases (gen. and abl.) have the same 
form, except I.-G. —o (Sans. —a) stems (Sans. gen. —asya, abl. —ad). 
In the Balto-Slavic tongues ablative and genitive have the same 
endings. In the Italic languages, ablative, locative, instrumental 
(and partly dative) have the same form. Indeed in the Thessa- 
lian dialect as in the Latin some forms of the genitive and locative 
coincide (like domi). Dionysius Thrax® had the idea that both 
cases flourished under one form in Greek, for he describes this case 
as 7 yevuKn KTnTLK) Kal tatpikn. ‘Thompson® indeed recognises the 
two cases, but thinks it is not possible to group the uses of the 
form under these two divisions because some suit either case. 
There is a “debatable land” as Giles’ observes, but this applies to 
only a very small part of the examples and is very natural indeed. 
As a matter of fact it is not possible to give a really scientific ex- 
planation of the usage in Greek from any other standpoint. The 
ablative will therefore be treated as a separate case and the true 
genitive discussed now. 

(b) Name Incorrect. The genitive case has the wrong name. 
The Latin genitivus is a translation of yerynrixn (more like the ab- 
lative in idea). It is 7 yevexyn rrdcrs. The name yevixn comes from 
yevos (genus), ‘kind,’ and corresponds to the Latin generalis.’ Pris- 
cian® so calls it (generalis casus). It is a pity that one still has 
to call it “genitive.” 


1 Delbriick, Grundl. der griech. Synt., IV, p. 37; Giles, Man., p. 319. Cf. 
Hadley, Ess. Philol., etc., p. 46 f. 

2 W.-Th., p. 184; Moulton, Prol., p. 72. But W.-Sch., p. 259, does not 
make this error. 


3 Handb., etc., p. 207. 4 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 200. 
5 Bekker, Anec. Graeca, 1816, Vol. II, p. 636. 
6 Gk. Synt., 1883, p. 59. 7 Man., p. 313. 


8 Cf. Max Miller, Lect., I, pp. 103-105; Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 70. 

9 Lib. V, de Casu. See Meister, Der synt. Gebrauch des Genit. in den 
‘kretischen Dial.-Inschr. Indoger. Forsch., XVIII, pp. 183-204. Cf. also 
Ruttgers, De accus., gen., dat. usu in inser, archaicis cretensibus. Diss. Bonn, 
47 p. 





THE CASES (IITQZEIS) 493 


(c) THe Speciryine Case. It is this and no other. The idea 
of the genitive case is at bottom simple. The genitive shows 
duaipeory and something eiéixdv. It is the case of genus (yéos) 
or kind. For a very full discussion of the genitive see Del- 
brick, Vergl. Synt., III, pp. 307-860. The genitive does indeed 
resemble the adjective, but it is not adjectival in origin,! 
though the source of the genitive ending is unknown. The ad- 
jectival possessive pronoun (like éués) is a mere variation of the 
genitive case (€uod) and the two may be in apposition with one 
another, as 7H éuj xecpt Iatdov (2 Th. 3:17). But the function 
of the case is largely adjectival as in juépa tapackevys (Lu. 23 : 
54), though the adjective and the genitive are not exactly parallel, 
for with two substantives each idea stands out with more sharp- 
ness, as in év xawvornte Cwys (Ro. 6:4) and él rdovrov adndornre (1 
Tim. 6:17).2 It is the specifying case, then, the case of appurte- 
nance.? In the Sanskrit Whitney? finds the genitive adjectival in 
idea and defining the noun more nearly. So also Kiihner-Gerth® 
who find it qualitative with nouns or verbs. But Delbriick,® 
followed by Brugmann,’ makes the verb the starting-point for ex- 
plaining the genitive. One hesitates to part company with Del- 
briick and Brugmann, but the older view that it was first used 
with nouns seems here to have the best of it. It may be remarked 
that the genitive is the most persistent of all the cases in retaining 
its forms, as is seen in the English s. Indeed in the modern Greek 
the form shares with the accusative the result of the loss of the 
dative, so that we often meet a construction like atrod 76 eira (‘I 
told him so’).® One other remark is called for concerning the 
meaning of the genitive in Greek. It is that the case does not of 
itself mean all that one finds in translation. The case adheres to 
its technical root-idea. The resultant idea will naturally vary 
greatly according as the root-conception of the case is applied to 
different words and different contexts. But the varying element 
is not the case, but the words and the context. The error must 
not be made of mistaking the translation of the resultant whole 


1 Giles, Man., etc., p. 311. 3 Hadley, Ess. Philol. and Crit., p. 48. 

2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 236. 4 Sans. Gr., p. 98 f. 

be le paca lanci..Vvtonro, Hom.:Gr.,ip. 102. 

6 Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 185 f., 307-3880. 

7 Griech. Gr., p. 385. 

8 Giles, Man., etc., p. 315. Cf. Donaldson, Gk. Gr., pp. 464 ff. 

9 In late Gk. the true gen. survives while the abl. fades further away. 
Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 333. 


494 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


for the case itself. Thus in Mt. 1:12 we have peroxeciay BaBvAd- 
vos. It is translated ‘removal to Babylon.’ Now the genitive 
does not mean ‘to,’ but that is the correct translation of the 
total idea obtained by knowledge of the O. T. What the geni- 
tive says is that it is a ‘Babylon-removal.’ That is all. So in 
Mt. 12:31, 9 70d rvebparos Bdacdnuia, it is the ‘Spirit-blasphemy.’ 
From the context we know that it is blasphemy against the 
Spirit, though the genitive does not mean ‘against.’ When a 
case has so many possible combinations in detail it is difficult to 
make a satisfactory grouping of the various resultant usages. A 
very simple and obvious one is here followed. But one must 
always bear in mind that these divisions are merely our modern 
conveniences and were not needed by the Greeks themselves. 
At every stage one needs to recall the root-idea of the case (genus 
or kind) and find in that and the environment and history the 
explanation. i 
(d) THe Loca Use. This is normally the first to begin with. 
In Greek literature it appears mainly in poetry! and in adverbs of 
place like avrod, ov, 10d, dou, duouv, Tavytaxov. But it is possible that 
these are locatives like &\\o&% in a shortened form.” But on the 
other hand in Homer the genitive undoubtedly? appears in local 
relations with the archaic genitive in —oo, though even in Homer 
the examples are chiefly stereotyped ones. There are in the N. T. 
only these examples in Luke and Acts. In Lu. 5:19 pu ebpovtes 
Tolas eioeveyKwow avtov and 19 :4 éxeivns Hueddrev drepxecbar we have 
two undoubted examples. Blass‘ indeed calls these “incorrect” 
on the ground that “classical Greek’? would not have used the 
genitive thus. But it is sufficient reply to say that Luke was not 
writing classical Greek. Certainly Xenophon might have used 
toia, éxelvn (as D has in Lu. 19:4). Moulton® finds often in the 
papyri vorov, A1Bos, though in Rev. 21:18 we have the ablative® 
amo vorov. In Ac. 19:26 we have a very striking example that 
the commentaries have failed to notice as Moulton’ observes. It 
1S ov. uovov ’"Edéoou adda oxEdov Taons THs ’Acias 6 Ilad\os welcas peTe- 
otnoe ikavov dxov. Moulton on the whole agrees with Hackett 
that the genitive here is dependent on 6yAov. In Homer one has 
a parallel like otx "Apyeos jev, but Moulton finds none in the ver- 
nacular xown. Still, since Luke did use éxeivns and zoias, it does 


1. Farrar, Gk. Synts, pe 7o:8 Ct K-G. Tp. S848 
2 Delbriick, Vergl. Gr., I, p. 359. 5 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 437. 

’ Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 104. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 73. 

4 


Greot Na tGk pr.u- 7 Tb. 











———“(COC:;~‘C‘;C:S 


rie « 


THE CASES (I'TQ=Ers) 495 


not seem difficult to believe that he was ready to employ the geni- 
tive of place in Acts. 

There is another passage in Luke also (Lu. 16 : 24) where the 
genitive of place occurs, tva Ban 70 a&kpov rod daxriXov abrod béarTos. 
Here téaros emphasizes the kind of material which the speaker 
clearly has in mind. WN has téa7r. One may note in this connec- 
tion the Homeric idiom ovecOar rotayoto, ‘to bathe in the river.’ 
Cf. also the classic zod yjs. Somewhat similar also is # dsacropa 
Tov “EXAnvwv (Jo. 7:35) and 650s eOvav (Mt. 10:5), which are ob- 
jective genitives but of place also. Cf. & Tapod rijs Kuttxtas (Acts 
22:3) which is described by Blass-Debrunner, p. 101, as parti- 
tive genitive. 

(e) THe TemporaL Use. It is common enough. This is a 
very old use of the genitive... This is the true genitive.2 The 
accusative when used of time expresses duration over the period, 
the locative regards the period as a point even if it is of some 
length (cf. xacpots tdious, 1 Tim.6: 15), while the genitive implies noth- 
ing* as to duration. In Mt. 24 : 20 this distinction can be seen 
in yetuavos kal caBBaTw, one the case of genus, the other a point of 
time. Brugmann? indeed regards the genitive of time as a devel- 
opment of the partitive genitive, but this seems hardly necessary. 
Moulton,°® on the other hand, connects it with the genitive of pos- 
session and finds it very frequently in the papyri, like érous B, 
‘in the second year.’ So rod dvros unvos, F.P. 124 (ii/a.p.). On 
the difference between the genitive and the accusative of time 
see fuépas kal vuxtos (Lu. 18:7) and vixra kai juépay (Lu. 2 : 37), 
the genitive the time within which (kind of time), the accusative 
the time during which (all through). Cf. also vuxrds 76 mpdrov 
(Jo. 19:39). See also rod Nourod (Gal. 6: 17) and 76 Norév (Heb. 
10:13). Once more observe pecorixriov } adextopodwrias (Mk. 13 : 
35) where some MSS. have pecovuxtiov. The accusative here is 
more like the adverb dyé just preceding. Turther examples of 
the genitive may be seen in péons vuxros (Mt. 25 : 6), dpOpou Babéos 
(Lu. 24:1). For adverbs in expressions of time, see vu, (h). 

(f) Wrra Sussrantives. This is the chief use of the case. 
The accusative indeed is chiefly connected with the verb, while 
the genitive is mainly related to substantives.® 

1. The Possessive’ Genitive. In simple point of fact it is not 


1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 356. Cf. Sans., Whitney’s Sans. Gr., p. 100. 
2 Delbriick, Grundl., ete., IV, p. 45. © Prol., p. 73. 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 105. 6 Giles, Man., etc., p. 311. 

4 Griech. Gr., p. 389. 7 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 344. 


496 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


necessary to see any particular inner connection between the 
many uses of the genitive with substantives other than the com- 
mon root-idea of the case. For convenience it suits us to group 
these usages, but one must think that the Greeks themselves 
looked at the whole matter much more simply. After all it is the 
context that varies rather than the genitive.1 The resultant idea 
is therefore a matter of exegesis rather than due to any particular 
label to be attached.2. The most obvious illustrations like raraéas 
TOV dovdoy TOD apxEepews Adetrevy aWToD 76 wriov (Mt. 26 : 51) call for 
little remark. It is the high-priest’s servant, not another’s, and 
it is the servant’s ear, not another’s. The possessive pronouns, 
especially éuds in John’s Gospel, were used to some extent in the 
N. T., but usually the genitive of the personal pronoun is found. 
In Jo. 7:16 they occur side by side. Cf. rH éuq xerpi Lavdov 
((iCorezl6e 21% 

2. Attributive Genitive. Like an adjective the genitive may 
be either attributive or predicate. This is sometimes called the 
genitive of quality. But the name helps little, as all genitives 
have this idea. The sense of attribute is indeed the usual 
one with the genitive, as Ilad\os dotd\os “Incod Xpicrod (Ro. 
1:1). Thus observe the descriptive genitive in Mt. 18:9 eis 
Thy yeevvay Tod tupds, Ro. 6:6 76 cGua Tis auaptias, TO cua THs 
Tavewwoews (and rhs dd&ns, Ph. 8:21), 76 cua ths capkds (Col. 1: 
22), Bamricwa petavoias (Mk. 1 : 4), quépas dddv (Lu. 2 : 44), 6 olxové- 
Hos Ths aduxias (Lu. 16:8). And even expressions like viol dwros 
(1 Th. 5: 5) are shown by the inscriptions and coins (Deissmann, 
Bib. Stud., p. 165) to be not mere Hebraisms, though far more fre- 
quent in the LXX than in the N. T. because of the Hebrew. 
Other examples are ddyous ths xapitos (Lu. 4 : 22), cxedos Exdoyis 
(Ac. 9:15), oxebn opyijs (Ro. 9 : 22), xpiris rhs aduxtas (Lu. 18 : 6), 
ma0n atisias (Ro. 1:26), vids ris ayarns (Col. 1:18), vouov ris 
éXevepias and axpoarijs éreAnopuorys (Jas. 1: 25), arabyacua ths dks 
(Heb. 1 : 3), xapdia amvorias (Heb. 3 : 12), piga mexpias (Heb. 12 : 15), 
4} wANY} TOD Bavarov (Rev. 13:3), where the descriptive attribu- 
tive genitive expresses quality like an adjective indeed, but with 
more sharpness and distinctness. Cf. again é kawédrnre fwhs (Ro. 
6 : 4) and émi wdovrov dénddrnre (1 Tim. 6:17). In Heb. 1:3, 76 
pnuatt THs duvduews adrov, the second genitive is technically de- 


1 Giles, Man., etc., p. 312. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 72. Blass, also (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95) thinks that 
the exact shade of the gen. idea is often a matter of theological, not gram- 
matical interpretation. 








DTH: CASHS (ITOSEID) 5 rt? A 497 


pendent on dSurduews. Cf. 2 Th. 1:7. One may note Winer 
(Winer-Thayer, p. 237) who says that in ra phuara rhs Cwihs Tabrns 
(Ac. 5:20) the demonstrative goes in sense with phuara. This 
point (cf. p. 706) applies to 6 dyes rijs cwrnplas rabrns (Ac. 13 : 26) 
and ék tod gwpatos tod Oavarov toiTou (Ro. 7:24). Besides viol 
gwrds above observe a similar idiom in réxva dwrds (Eph. 5:8), 
texva opyfs (Eph. 2:8), réxva braxofs (1 Pet. 1:14), réxva xardpas 
(2 Pet. 2:14), viol ameBias (Eph. 2:2), 6 vids ris amwdelas (2 Th. 
2:3). Cf. also of viol rod vuuddvos (Mt. 9:15); 6 vids THs ayarns 
avtod (Col. 1:18), 6 &vOpwaos THs dvouias (2 Th. 2:3). 

One may instance further the use of jueoa dpyfjs (Ro. 2:5), 
nuepa owrnpias (2 Cor. 6:2 quot. from O. T.), juépa érroxorgs (1 
Pet. 2:12), juépa dvadelfews (Lu. 1: 80) where the LXX may be 
appealed to for abundant illustration. 

The genitive of place or country is descriptive also. Thus Na- 
Caper THs Tadvdaias (Mk. 1:9), Tapod ris Kedcxias (Ac. 22:38), ares 
éotly mpwrn peploos THs Maxedovias rods (Ac. 16:12), ete. This geni- 
tive of quality or descriptive genitive is largely extended in the 
LXX by reason of translation (Thackeray, p. 23). 

3. The Predicate Genitive. While having the copula efva:, yi- 
vecOat, etc., in reality! it is to be explained as a genitive with sub- 
stantives. It is not the copula that affects the case of the genitive 
at all. It is just the possessive genitive in the predicate instead 
of being an attribute. Often the substantive or pronoun is re- 
peated in sense before the predicate genitive. Thus otx éorw axa- 
tactacias 6 Beds (1 Cor. 14:33). Cf. quets otk eopéev brooroAjs — 
add\Aa miorews (Heb. 10:39), raca radeia ot doxe? xapas efvar (Heb. 
12:11). So fy ydp érav dwdexa (Mk. 5:42). So Lu. 2:42. Cf. 
also éav twas ebpn THs 6600 dvtas (Ac. 9 : 2), and indeed éyévero yrw- 
uns (Ac. 20 : 3) is to be explained the same way. There is as 
much latitude in the predicate genitive as in the attributive 
possessive genitive. We have viol gwrds éore kal viol quépas (1 Th. 
5:5) and otk éopeév vuxros o0S€ oxdrovs (1 Th. 5:6) and jyépas doves 
(verse 8).2 We may continue the illustrations like éyw eius Ilatdou 
(1 Cor. 1:12), ob éoré éavrév (1 Cor. 6 : 19), rod Oeod ob eivi (Ac. 
27:23), mavta tuav éorly (1 Cor. 3:21), obx tbuav eoriy yraevae 
(Ac. 1:7), va Hudv yévnrat 4 KAnpovouia (Lu. 20:14), rivos abrav 
éorar yuh (Mk. 12 : 23), rerelwy early } oreped tpodn (Heb. 5: 14), 
Xpiot0d efvar (2 Cor. 10:7), dv éariv Diyedos kat ‘Eppyoyerns (2 Tim. 
1:15), ta 4 brepBor} THs Svvdyews F Tod (2 Cor. 4:7), and finally, 

1 W.-Th., p. 195. Is no distinct type, Giles, Man., p. 317. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 96. 


498 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


though by no means all that can be adduced, Gy éorw otx 6 — 
xoopos (1 Pet. 3:3). These passages not only illustrate the va- 
riety of the predicate genitive, but show that this is essentially a 
substantival genitive (cf. predicate nominative) and not a verbal 
genitive. As an example of the objective genitive in the predi- 
cate take cxavéadov ef Euod (Mt. 16:23). In the modern Greek 
the predicate genitive has been still further extended (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 35). 

4. Apposition or Definition. This is a very simple use of the 
case, but is not an extremely common idiom in the N. T., since the 
two substantives can easily be put in the same case. In the 
modern Greek mere apposition rules (Thumb, Handb., p. 33). 
But some interesting examples occur.! It is a well-known idiom 
in Homer and certainly needs no appeal to the Hebrew for justi- 
fication.2 Kiihner-Gerth® may also be consulted for other poetical 
examples. In the N. T. we note zddes Lodduwy cat Toudppas (2 
Pet. 2:6) which Blass compares with ’IX\iov 7o\w of Homer and 
observes‘ that wd\ews Ovareipwy (Ac. 16:14) is merely the geni- 
tive of rods Ovarerpa (cf. wore "I6ma7n in Ac. 11:5). In 2 Cor. 
11:32 the adjective is used as rv rodw Aapyackynvdrv, while in 
Rev. 18: 10 we have true apposition. One may note further rod 
vaov Tov cwuatos al’tod (Jo. 2: 21), Tov dppaBdva Tod rvebuatos (2 Cor. 
5:5), onuetov repitouys (Ro. 4:11, AC zepitounv), ro onyetov ris 
lacews (Ac. 4: 22), 4 xoiunots rod Urvov (Jo. 11:18), Owpaxa ricrews 
kal ayarns (1 Th. 5:8), 76 épyov rhs micrews (1 Th. 1:3), & 
T@ NOYW THS adnOelas Tod evayyedtov (Col. 1:5), 4% avtarddocts THs 
KAnpovoulas (Col. 3:24), & Cbun xaxias (1 Cor. 5:8), % dcp ris 
yracews a’tod (2 Cor. 2:14), 7 rpocdopa rév évev (Ro. 15 : 16), 76 
pecoToxov Tod dpayyod (Kph. 2 : 14), 6 Pewédvos Tay arooTdd\wv (Eph. 
2:20), Oeuédvos peravoias (Heb. 6:1), 76 ardxpiua rod Bavarov (2 
Cor. 1:9), 6 éurdoxis tprxdv — xoouos (1 Pet. 3:3), 6 crépavos ris 
. Swys (Rev. 2: 10), 6 crédavos rhs ddEns (1 Pet. 5:4), 6 rhs Suxacoobyns 
aorépavos (2 Tim. 4:8), 9 éop7} Trav atbvyov (Lu. 22:1), 4 éopr} rod 
macxa (Jo. 13:1), 9 oikia rod oxnvovs (2 Cor. 5:1), 7 aap? rod rveb- 
patos (Ro. 8: 23), tiv érayyeNiav Tod mvebuatos (Ac. 2: 33), vouos ml- 
otews (Ro. 3: 27). These are by no means all, but they illustrate at 
least the freedom of the N. T. in the use of the genitive of defini- 
tion or of apposition. It is, of course, possible, as Moulton (Prol., 
p. 74) suggests, that the vernacular has preserved the poetical 

1 Cf. Jann., Hist: Gk. Gr., p. 335. 


2 Moulton, Prol., p. 73 f. $ II, p. 264. 
4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 98. Cf. also W.-Sch., p. 266 f. 


THE CASES (IITQZEIS) 499 


idiom in this as in so many other matters. Poetry often expresses 
better than prose the language of the people. In Eph. 4:9 els 7a 
KaTwTEpa mépn THS yas We probably have not this usage, but the 
ablative after the comparative. Cf. Ellicott in loco. In Jo. 21: 
8 76 dixtvov T&v ixPbwy the genitive merely gives the content (cf. 
material and quantity as opposed to quality). Cf. also 4\é8acrpov 
pipov (Mk. 14:3) and kepauov téatos (Mk. 14:18), ayédn yolpav 
(Mt. 8 : 30) and éxarov Barovs édaiov (Lu. 16 : 6). 

5. The Subjective Genitive. It can be distinguished from the 
objective use only by the context.. Sometimes the matter is net 
clear. This genitive is the common possessive genitive looked at 
from another angle. In itself the genitive is neither subjective 
nor objective, but lends itself readily to either point of view. The 
subjective genitive can indeed be applied to the merely possessive 
genitive noted above.! Take Ro. 1: 17 where é:xacoctvn Oeod means 
the righteousness which God has and wishes to bestow on us. A 
typical example is found in 2 Cor. 5: 14, 7 yap ayarn Tod Xpiotod 
ouvexe. nuas. Here it is unquestionably the love that Christ has for 
sinners and so for Paul that is the constraining influence in his life. 
In Ro. 8 : 39 the matter is explained indeed by the phrase azo ris 
ayarns Tod Oeod THs ev XpicTG Incod. Abbott? is apparently right in 
finding only a couple of passages in the N. T. where ayarn is used 
with the objective genitive (2 Th. 2:10, 7 ay. ris adnOeias; Lu. 
11:42, rapepxecbe THY Kpiow Kal THY ayarny TOD Beod). Jo. 5:42 rH 
ayarnv Tod Oeod ovk exere €v Eavtots might be either subjective or ob- 
jective, but see Ro. 5:5. In Ph. 4:7 7 elpnvn 70d Oe0d is probably 
subjective and so ‘the peace that God has and gives,’ but the 
meaning is richer than any phrase, as Simcox® well observes. Cf. 
Col. 3:15. In Ro. 15:8, iép adnfeias cod, we seem to have the sub- 
jective genitive. Note also dixaoobvn riorews (Ro. 4 : 13), which is 
explained as subjective by Paul in the phrase 7 dcxaoobvn &k ricTeEws 
(Ro. 10:6). In 1 Tim. 4:1, didackadiats dauoviwy, we have again 
the subjective genitive. Some passages are open to doubt, as 
evayyeALov Ths xapttos ToD Oeod (Ac. 20 : 24), ebayyedvov THs Bactdelas 
(Mt. 4 : 23). 

6. The Objective Genitive. It is quite frequent in the N. T.,* 
especially when it is vanishing in the later Greek.> The adnominal 
genitive preserves a remnant of the old objective genitive in mod- 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 333. 

2 Joh. Gr., pp. 84 ff. Abbott gives a very just discussion of the matter. 
3 Lang. of the N. T., p. 87. 

4 Green, Handb., etc., p. 219. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 334. 


500 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 34). Here again we must appeal 
to the root-idea of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The 
resultant idea is due to the context and one must not suppose 
that the Greek genitive means all the different English preposi- 
tions used to translate the resultant idea. Thus in Mk. 11: 22 
éxere TioTw Oeod we rightly translate ‘have faith in God,’ though 
the genitive does not mean ‘in,’ but only the God kind of faith. 
Cf. Ro. 3:22. Take Mt. 12:31, 4 6€ rod rvebuaros Bracdquia, 
where the context makes it clear that it is blasphemy ‘against’ 
the Holy Spirit. Another striking example is Ac. 4:9, émi evep- 
yecia avOpwmrov acbevods, where the good deed is done ‘to’ a sick 
man. In Jo. 7:13, dca rov PoBov rdv ‘Iovéaiwv, it is fear ‘towards’ 
or ‘in reference to’ the Jews, while Jo. 17: 2, é£ovcia racns capkés, 
means authority ‘over’ all flesh (cf. é£ovciay rvevudtwr axabaptwr, 
Mt. 10:1, and ris tudv efovcias, 1 Cor. 9:12). In 1 Cor. 10:6, 
Turo. Hua@v, we have types ‘for’ us. In Jo. 18:29 we have accu- 
sation ‘against’ this man, xarnyopiay tod avOpwrov, etc. Each ex- 
ample calls for separate treatment. So 76 onuetov ’Iwva (Lu. 11: 
29) may be the sign shown in Jonah, while vouos 70d avdpds (Ro. 
7:2) is the law ‘about’ the husband (cf. 6 véuos 70d Xerpod, Lev. 
14:2). In 1 Pet. 2:19, dca cuveidnow Oeod, it is a good conscience 
‘toward’ God, while & rf mpocevy# Tod Oeod (Lu. 6 : 12) we have 
prayer ‘to’ God. ‘O ¢jXos Tod oixov cov (Jo. 2:17) is zeal ‘con- 
cerning’ thy house. See Ro. 10:2; cf. also Heb. 11: 26, rov dve- 
duspov TOO Xpiorod. In Col. 2:18, Opnoxeia rv ayyédwv, it 1s worship 
‘paid to’ angels, while eis r7y taraxovjy Tod Xpiorod (2 Cor. 10: 5) is 
obedience ‘to’ Christ. But see per contra brakon riotews (Ro. 1: 5) 
which is subjective genitive. In 1 Cor. 1:6, uapripiov rod Xprcrod, 
we have again witness ‘concerning’ Christ. Cf. also 6 \édyos 6 
Tov otavpod (1 Cor. 1:18) and dkoai wodéuwy (Mt. 24: 6). So in 
1 Cor. 8:7 4 cuvelénots Tod eidwAov 1S consciousness ‘about’ the 
idol, not the idol’s consciousness. See also the two objective 
uses of ayarn in 2 Th. 2:10 and Lu. 11:42 and possibly also 
Jor’ S42; 2 4Th.3 os J oeize brine Rowdy oteitherwillamake 
good sense. The phrase $éf80s #eod (Ro. 3:18) is objective, 
and note also 2 Cor. 5:11 (rov 68ov rod kvpiov). Eph. 5:21 
is objective. See also xal’ brouoviy epyou ayabod (Ro. 2:7), ‘in’ a 
good work, and els dcxatwow fwhs (Ro. 5:18), ‘to’ life. Cf. dvacra- 
ow Cwijs — kpicews (Jo. 5: 29). Indeed one may go on and include 
those genitives of “looser relation”’ usually set off to themselves. 
They are really just the objective genitive. So as to 650s evar 
(Mt. 10:5), way ‘to’ the Gentiles; 65d» @adacons (Mt. 4 : 15), way 


THE CASES (IITQSEIZ) 501 


‘by’ the sea; rv dtacropay trav ‘ENAqvwr (Jo. 7:35), dispersion 
‘among’ the Greeks; mpdBata cdhayijs (Ro. 8:36), ‘doomed to’ 
slaughter; 6tpa t&v rpoBarwy (Jo. 10:7), door ‘to’ the sheep; pe- 
touecia BaBvdAdvos (Mt. 1:11 f.), and even aodt’rpwors tov rapaBa- 
cewv (Heb. 9:15), though this last may be regarded as an ablative. 
But Barricpav didaxnv (Heb. 6 : 2) is objective genitive. Note also 
Tpomis amockiacua (Jas. 1:17), a shadow ‘cast by’ turning, and 
mioTe adnoeias (2 Th. 2:13), faith in the truth. In Heb. 10 : 24, 
mapokvapuov ayarns Kal kaddv épywv there is little cause for com- 
ment. The same remark applies to xivévvoc rotayav, Anorev (2 
Cor. 11:26). In Jo. 19:14 } rapacxev} rod racxa probably al- 
ready means the day ‘before’ the Sabbath (Friday). Cf. 4 zapa- 
Born Tod o7elpovtos (Mt. 13:18). Cf. also the genitive of price, 
xotwé citov dnvapiov (Rev. 6:6), ‘for’ a penny; davréddXayua Tis 
yuxis atrod (Mt. 16:26), exchange ‘for’ his soul. Cf. Lu. 10: 
36. Enough has been said to show how carefully the genitive 
must be interpreted and what great latitude was used in connec- 
tion with it. Deissmann (St. Paul, pp. 140 f.) thinks that Paul’s 
use of the genitive is “very peculiar” and transcends all rules 
about subjective and objective. He even suggests ‘‘mystic geni- 
tive” for Paul. 

7. Genitive of Relationship. For lack of-a better name this 
use of the genitive is called ‘‘ genitive of membership’’? or ‘of re- 
lationship.”’* In reality it is merely the possessive genitive of a 
special application. The substantive is not used because the con- 
text makes it clear. Thus Mapia 7 IaxwSov (Lu. 24:10) is James’ 
Mary; whether mother, wife, daughter or sister, the context must 
decide. In this instance it is James’ mother. Cf. Mk. 16:1. 
Mk. 15:47 gives us Mapia } ’Iwofros, while in 15:40 we have both 
James and Joses. In Mt. 27:56 as in Mk. 15:40 we have the 
full construction with yufrnp. But in Jo. 19:25 Mapia 7 70d 
KaAw7a it is the wife (yuvy) that is meant. So in Mt. 1: 6 é ris rod 
Ovpiov. In Lu. 6:16 and Ac. 1:13 we have ‘Iovéas IaxwBov, which 
probably means the brother (adeA¢és) of Jude in view of Jude 1 
(adeAdos "IaxwBov) rather than son. But vids is the word usually 
to be supplied, as in ’IdxwBov rov rod ZeBedaiov (Mt. 4: 21), rov ’Iot- 
dav Lipwros (Jo. 6:71), Divwv "Iwavov (Jo. 21:15 ff.), Aaveld ov 
70d ’lecoai (Ac. 13: 22). See also Ac. 20:4, Lwmrarpos Ivppov. Ce. 
Lu. 3:2 where vids is used, as vioi generally is for ‘sons of Zebe- 
dee’ (Mk. 10:35). In Jo. 21:2 we have oi rod ZeBedaiov so used. 


1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 92. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N.cT. Gk.,p..95. 3 W.-Th., p. 190. 


502 A GRAMMAR: OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


But sometimes the article refers to the family in general as 
in tro trav Xddns (1 Cor. 1:11). Cf. of rept abrov (Lu. 22 : 49). 
In Mk. 5:35, aro 70d dpxicvvaywyov, it is possible that ofxos is 
to be supplied, since the man himself (verse 22) has already 
come.! In Ac. 2:27, 31, W. H. read eis a6», while some MSS. 
have es adov (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 895) and the MSs. 
vary also in Ps. 16:10 (LXX). Cf. & 74 Géy in Lu. 16:23. It 
is more likely that in Lu. 2:49, & rots ro warpés, we have the 
idea of ‘house’ rather than that of ‘business.’ Cf. eis 7a téva 
(Jo. 19:27) and eis ra ida and of tdvor in Jo. 1:11. See & rots 
KAavé(tov), P.O. 523 (ii/a.p.), for ‘house’ of. It is a classic idiom. 
Cf. Lysias els ra Tod ddeAdod. These constructions are all in har- 
mony with the ancient Greek idiom.? In an example like 70 ris 
aAnOods mapomutas (2 Pet. 2 : 22) it is not the genitive that calls for 
remark so much as the article without any substantive. The 
discussion belongs to the chapter on the Article. 

8. Partitive Genitive. Here a part of the whole is given. See 
év rovrwy (Mt. 6:29), 7d dékatov ris modews (Rev. 11:18), ews 
juloovs THs Baowdelas (Mk. 6:23), Hurccv karpod (Rev. 12:14), ra 
Hutowd pov Tav brapxovTwy (Lu. 19:8), 76 repiacedov Tay KNacpaTwr 
(Mt. 15:37), 76 tpirov rhs yas (Rev. 8:7). See further ev rap 
pedav cov (Mt. 5:29), riva rv rpodyntav (Acts 7:52), rods trwxods 
Tov ayiwy (Rom. 15:26), of Aurel rv avOpmruv (Lu. 18:11), 
pupades puprddwy Kal xudrades xiAcddwy (Rev. 5:11), Ta utovd pov 
Tav brapxovTwy (Lu. 19:8) and the curious ra aira tdév rabnuatwr 
(1 Pet. 5:9). For the blending of the partitive genitive with 
the ablative and é and for further discussion see rx, (c). In the 
N. T. the partitive relation is usually more sharply defined by 
prepositions (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 102). Cf. Ac. 21 : 16, 
auviov Tav pabntav, where the partitive genitive is alone. 

9. The Position of the Gentwe. In general one may note 
that the genitive usually comes after the limiting substantive, as 
Thy yeevvay Tod wupos (Mt. 5 : 22), but the genitive comes first if it 
is emphatic like ‘E\Aqvwv rodvd rARO0s (Ac. 14:1) or if there is 
sharp contrast like rov cvotpatiwtrny pov, budv 6€ amoato\ov (Ph. 
2:25). In Eph. 6:9 both genitives precede, kat aitav kal tudv 6 
kvpuos. If the article is used with both words we may have the 
usual order, as 7)v ravor\iay Tod Geod (Eph. 6:11), or less often the 
classic idiom, as rév rijs riatews apxnyov (Heb. 12:2). Sometimes 
indeed the article may be repeated, as 6 \dyos 6 Tod cravpod (1 Cor. 


1 Green, Handb., etc., p. 213. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95 f. 


ry ee ar A 





THE CASES (ITOZEI=) 503 


1:18). Avrod usually comes after the noun in the Synopties, as 
Tv adwva abrod (Lu. 3:17), but John sometimes puts airod first? 
(1: 27; 9: 6; cf. cov in 9:10, cov of 66adyoi). Sometimes a word 
intervenes between the substantive and the genitive as in jyeda 
réxva pice opyis (Eph. 2:3). Cf. also Ph. 2:10; Ro. 9 : 21, ete. 
But note eis adXevpouv cara tpia (Mt. 13 : 33). 

10. Concatenation of Genitives. Two or more genitives may 
be used together. This is, of course, common in the earlier Greek. 
Paul in particular is fond of piling up genitives. Take 1 Th. 
1:3 as a typical example, pvnuovebovtes tury rod Epyou ris TlaTews 
Kal Tov KOmou THS ayaTns Kal THS UTouoVAS THs ENTlOos TOD KUploV HUdV 
‘Incod Xpicrod. Here we have practically all the points, viz., two 
simple genitives, two in apposition, three together, one of the per- 
son and the other of the thing. A very simple case is found in 
Ro. 8: 21, ray edevdepiav rhs d0éns Tv Texvwv Tod Oeod, and in verse 23 
THY aToNUTPwWoLY TOD Gwparos Hudv. Cf. also Jo. 6:1; 2 Cor. 4:4; 
Eph. 1:6; 4:18; Col. 1:13, etc. In Rev. 16:19 we have four 
genitives, 7d mornpiov tod olvov tod Ovuod Tis opyfs a’rod, and five. 
occur in Rev. 19 : 15, counting the appositives, rv Anvoy rod otvov 
Tov Ouuod THs OpyHs TOV Beod Tov TavToKpaTtopos. Blass?® calls this ‘‘a 
really burdensome accumulation of words,” but surely the sense 
is clear enough. The governing genitive comes before the de- 
pendent genitive in regular order here. But in 2 Pet. 3:2 this 
smooth order is not observed, yet all five can be readily under- 
stood: t16 trav ayiwy rpodnta&v kal tis Tay arocTO\wy budv evToNAs 
Tov kupiov. Cf. Ph. 2:30 also. In 2 Cor. 3:18, a6 xupiov rvebyaros, 
it is not clear whether xvpiov is genitive or is the ablative in apposi- 
tion with avebyaros. In Jas. 2:1 it is difficult to put into brief 
compass the Greek idiom, rv riotw Tod Kupiov Huey ’Incod Xpiorod 
ths d0&ns. Here ’In. Xp. is in apposition with xvpiov. Kvupiov has 
nuav and is itself the objective genitive with riorw, while 7s ddéns 
is probably in apposition with ’In. Xp. (see Mayor 7n loco). 

(g) THe GENITIVE witH ApsEcTIVES. Giles* observes how natu- 
ral it is for adjectives to take the genitive, since many of them are 
developed from substantives in apposition. Adjectives of fulness 
can logically take either the genitive or the instrumental. Giles® 
explains how with the Latin plenus, by analogy to vacuus, the ab- 
lative is used and also because the ablative and instrumental forms 


1 Cf. Green, Handb., etc., p. 215. 

2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 90. BGP! Ole ale, Cris: Dane. 
4 Man., etc., p. 316. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 353 f. 

“Al b} 


504 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


are the same in Latin. Indeed even in the case of the participle 
we have the genitive when the participle is regarded no longer as 
an adjective, but as a substantive, as 7a iadpxovrTa wou (1 Cor. 138: 
3). Cf. Lu. 12 : 33; Lu. 2 : 27, 76 eiftopevov Tod vouov; and Ph. 3: 8, 
TO UTepexov THs yuaoews. The adjective itself is so used in 1 Cor. 
10: 33, 76 euavtod cbudopov. Cf. 1 Cor. 7:35. But different is cvp- 
Lopdhous Tis elkovos Tod viod a’rod (Ro. 8:29). Here we have the 
true adjective, but the genitive is due to the principle just stated. 
In ovvepyos, Ro. 16:21, we have the substantive also. The case 
with verbals in —ros may be considered genitive, but see the ab- 
lative also. Thus of ayarnroi deod (Ro. 1:7), yervnrot yuvarx@yv (Lu. 
7 : 28), éxXexrol Jeod (Ro. 8 : 33), KAnrol “Incod (Ro. 1:6). In dcdak- 
tol beod (Jo. 6:45), ovk & didakrots avOpwrivns codias Noyous (1 Cor. 
2:13) one may question if we do not have the ablative. But in 
evdoynuevor ToD marpos (Mt. 25 : 34) the genitive is likely the case. 
There is only one adjective in —.xés in the N. T. which has the 
genitive, kpitixds évOvunoewy (Heb. 4:12). “Aégwos is very common 
with the genitive in the N. T., as aéov ris ueravoias (Mt. 3:8). But 
avaéios probably has abl. because of a— privative, as davaéoi éore 
Kpitnpiwv édaxtotwv (1 Cor. 6:2). Delbriick! confesses his inability 
to explain this genitive, though Blass? considers it genitive of price. 
The figure of weighing or scales seems to be involved in the word. 
In 1 Cor. 9 : 21 (€voyuos Xpiorod) we have a very “bold use” of the 
genitive® due to the substantive idea involved (vouos). But prob- 
ably in Heb. 3: 12, xapdia rovnpa amcortias, the genitive is dependent 
on kapdia, not zovnpa. "Evoxos brings up an unusual genitive in Mt. 
26 : 66 évoxos Oavarov, and Mk. 3 : 29 (correct text) évoxés éoriv aiw- 
viov auaptnuatos. Moulton‘ considers this genitive ‘‘aberrant”’ 
and still more é&voxos xkpicews in Syrian class of MSS. in Mk. 3 : 29. 
In 1 Cor. 11 : 27, &oxos éorar Tod cwHpyaros, we have the usage of the 
pre-Syrian classes in Mk. 3 : 29 and not the idiom in Mt. 26 : 66. 
The usual construction appears also as in &voyos éorar TH Kpioe (Mt. 
5:21 f.) and even éoxos eis tiv yéevvay (ib.). In the instance 
of xowwwvos the construction is also interesting. In 2 Cor. 1:7 we 
have kowwvol éore TSv rabyuarwv, but it is debatable if the adjec- 
tive has not here become a substantive as with xovvwvds euds (2 Cor. 
8: 23; cf. cuvepyos in same verse). Ko.wvds has also the dative, as 
Kowwvol TH Liwwre (Lu. 5:10). See cvvxowwvos adrod (1 Cor. 9 : 25) 
and in Ph. 1:7 two genitives, cvveowwvobs wou ths xapitos. But in 
Rev. 1:9 we have é with locative. Note also peorot troxpicews 


1 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 254. * Ib. 
2 Gre ol Niebe Giese OG: 4 Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 152. 


THE CASES (ITOSEI=) 505 


(Mt. 23 : 28) and wAnpns xapitos (Jo. 1:14)... The case of péroxos 
in Heb. 3:1 (kAjcews Eroupaviov péroxor) is similar to that of Koww- 
vos above, though more decidedly adjectival. Cf. uéoos budv (Jo. 
1:26). In Jo. 8:55 W.H. read dpouos iuiv, though NCLX have 
judy, a construction sometimes found in ancient Greek.? One 
may note also in 1 Pet. 5:9, ra aira r&v rabnuatwv, which is per- 
haps to be understood as the same ‘“‘kinds’’ of sufferings, rather 
than the same sufferings. 

(h) THe GENITIVE WITH ADVERBS AND Prepositions. At 
bottom there is little difference between the adverb and the geni- 
tive and the preposition and the genitive. The preposition is an 
adverb that is used with a case for clearer expression. The adverb 
is still an adverb when used with a case and called a preposition. 
Some adverbs indeed are only used as prepositions, but this is in 
the later stages of the language. ’Aéiws, like the adjective &£uos, 
occurs with the genitive, as d&lws rod ebayyediov (Ph. 1: 27; cf. 
Ro. 16:2). The genitive is not persistent with some of the ad- 
verbs and prepositions in late Greek.* It is more especially with 
adverbs of time that the genitive is found.’ Thus ézaé rod énav- 
tod (Heb. 9:7), dis rod caBBarov (Lu. 18 : 12), éwraxis THs Huépas 
~ (Lu. 17:4). Giles® indeed observes that it is only the genitive 
of place that uses prepositions. Here only specimens without 
discussion can be given. Thus dytixpus Xiov (Ac. 20:15), arévavre 
tod tadov (Mt. 27:61), davri xapitos (Jo. 1:16), a&xpe Karpod (Lu. 
4:18), dua mapaBorjs (Lu. 8:4), éyyts cov (Ro. 10:8), &arte rod 
Beod (Lu. 1:8), evavriov rod Oeod (Lu. 1:6), &vexey éuod (Mt. 5:11), 
évros tbua@v (Lu. 17: 21), &amiov kvpiov (Lu. 1 : 15), éravw bpovs (Mt. 
5:14), érl ras yas (Rev. 6:10), gow ris atdAqs (Mk. 15 : 16), ws 
nuav (Ac. 9 : 38), Kata Tod *Inood (Mt. 26:59), karévaryre tuav (Mk. 
11:2), xarevwmroy ths doEns (Ju. 24), Kikrw Tod Apovov (Rev. 4: 6), 
meécov yeveas oxoiuas (Ph. 2:15), wed’ qudv (Mt. 1: 23), weratd. cod 
(Mt. 18:15), expe ris cnuepov (Mt. 11 : 23), rapardnovov Pavarov 
(Ph. 2 : 27), rAnciov rod ywpiov (Jo. 4: 5), repi rod dwrds (Jo. 1:8), 
tovtou xapw (Eph. 3:1). “Eyurpoodev, dricbev, mpd, rpos, b7ép, etc., 
all have the ablative. Cf. 76 écwOev tudv (Lu. 11:39) where écwber 
may be looked at more as a noun. ’Ev ywéow has almost the force 
of a preposition with the genitive (tjudv, for instance, 1 Th. 2:7). 

(2) THe GENITIVE wiTH VERBS. As already remarked, Del- 


1 Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 338), after the analogy of the Lat. and the Gk. 
kevos, évdens, etc., considers it the abl. that we have with rdjpns. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106. 4 Giles, Man., p. 318. 

Sy Jann. cust. Gke Orin pi007. 5 Ib., p. 319. 


506 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


briick! begins his discussion of the genitive with the verb. In Lu. 
5:19, rolas elcevéyxwou, the genitive is not due to the verb and is a 
rather loose almost adverbial phrase. 

1. Very Common. In Greek the genitive with verbs cuts a 
larger figure than in Latin.? Broadus used to say that the genitive 
with verbs means ‘this and no other,’ while the accusative with 
verbs means ‘this and no more.’ Probably therefore the genitive 
with verbs is a variation from the accusative with verbs, the 
original and normal case with verbs. This point may be illus- 
trated by dxovere adtod (Mk. 9:7) and jKovcev tov doracpov (Lu. 1: 
41). Some verbs yield themselves naturally to the idea of the 
genitive, while others use the accusative. Others again use now 
one, now the other. The predicate genitive is passed by here, 
having been discussed under Substantives. 

2. Fading Distinction from Accusative. But it must not be 
assumed that it is wholly a matter of indifference whether the ac- 
cusative or the genitive is used with a verb, though the accusative 
in the later Greek constantly made inroads on the genitive. Even 
in the old Greek much freedom existed. In the modern Greek the 
genitive with verbs occurs only in some dialects (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 35). Cf. uvnuovevere tis yuvarkos Awr (Lu. 17: 32), but pvnuo- — 
vevete Tovs Twevte &prous (Mt. 16:9). In ravra pov peuvynobe (1 Cor. 
11:2) both cases occur. This is all in accord with classical usage. 
So also éridabecfar Tod Epyou tuav (Heb. 6:10), but ra per dricw 
értAavOavouevos (Ph. 3:18); yeboerai pov rod deixvov (Lu. 14 : 24), 
but éyeboato 76 bdwp (Jo. 2:9); yeuovow doréwy (Mt. 23 : 27), but 
even yeuovra ovouata BrAacdnuias (Rev. 17:3). But it is perfectly 
proper to appeal to the distinction in the cases in the apparent 
contradiction between dxobovres pev THs dwvqs (Ac. 9:7) and ri 6eé 
pavnv ovk hKovoav (22:9). The accusative (case of extent) accents 
the intellectual apprehension of the sound, while the genitive (spe- 
cifying case) calls attention to the sound of the voice without 
accenting the sense. The word dxotw itself has two senses which 
fall in well with this case-distinction, one ‘to hear,’ the other ‘to 
understand.’ Cf. ob otk jKovoay (Ro. 10:14) and py otk AKovear 
(Ro. 10:18). And yet the genitive can be used where the sense 
is meant, though not stressed, as jjxovoa dwris (Ac. 22:7), but 
qxovcey gwrnv (Ac. 9:4; and 26:14).2 But see further under 3. 


1 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 308. 2 Giles, Man., p. 315. 

3 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., pp. 87 ff., has an extensive discussion of the 
gen. and acc. with dxotw, but seems to miss the point after all. They heard the 
sound but not the words. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 103, admits this classic 
distinction sometimes in the N. T. 





THE CASES (IITOQSEIS) 507 


3. Verbs of Sensation. One of the chief classes of verbs that 
may be used with the genitive is verbs of sensation. One seems 
compelled to make some division in the verbs used with the gen- 
itive for the sake of intelligible discussion. Yet as a matter of 
fact each class and each verb indeed relates itself to the root-idea 
of the genitive. That is the thing to keep in mind and not a mere 
artificial grouping of the verbs. Analogy was at work, of course, 
but the verbs after all were separate units and had independent 
development. These groupings of the grammarians are mere 
matters of convenience. And it is a delicate matter that varies 
somewhat with the writer, this use of the genitive. By sensation we 
refer to verbs that mean to hear, smell, taste, touch, though verbs 
of seeing have the accusative. The most common verb of hearing 
is axovw, about which some remarks have already been made. It 
is not necessary to give an exhaustive list of the instances of dxotw. 
A typical one is jKovcev cvpdwvrias kal xopGv (Lu. 15 : 25). The gen- 
itive is used either with things, as in this illustration, or with per- 
sons, as in a’rod axovere (Lu. 9:35). For accusative with persons 
see Eph. 4:21. Besides the use of the accusative with this verb, 
both with the classic distinction as above and without, there may 
also be the accusative and the ablative as in Ac. 1:4 Av neovcareé 
pov. Then again the verb itself is used in the sense of hear, to un- 
derstand, and even to obey (hearken). The sense of hearken is 
often in John’s Gospel with the genitive, as otk jKovoay abra&v ra 
mpoBata (Jo. 10:8). Cf. Rev. 3:20, etc. The apparent double 
genitive in the last passage rijs ¢wrjs wou is not to be attributed to 
“the verb, for wou is merely possessive. Cf. Ac. 22:1. Blass! makes 
careful distinction between the usages in the various N. T. writers, 
but that is not to be pushed too far. In 2 Cor. 6:2 (LXX, Is. 49: 
8) we have émrjxovod cov, but iraxolbw uses the dative (Mt. 8 : 27). 
But we have érnxpodvro airav ot décuoe (Ac. 16 : 25) in the sense of 
hearken. No verb of smelling is used with the genitive in the 
N. T., but éurvéwy dreds kal hovov (Ac. 9 : 1) is certainly analogous. 
as Blass? observes, who refers to the LXX for parallels (Josh. 
10:40, ray éurvéoy fwis), for both genitive and accusative. Cf. 
Johannessohn, Der Gebr., p. 36. Thus ov pi yebonrar Bavarov (Jo. 
8:52), but in Heb. 6:4f. we have the genitive and accusative 
right together, a matter hardly accidental,* yevoayéevous ris dwpeds, 
 -yevoapevous Oeod pijua. But Blass* considers the accusative here, 
as in Jo. 2:9, merely a colloquialism in harmony with the general 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 108. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 66. 
2¥ib, ; “Gr, of N.'T. Gk., p. 101. 


508 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tendency to retain the accusative (see 2 above). Other verbs of 
tasting are kopecbevres Tpopfs (Ac. 27: 38) and robrous xopracat aptwr 
(Mk. 8:4). Cf. also peredauBavor rpopis (Ac. 2:46) and rpocedaBovro 
tpodas (Ac. 27:36). Auaw and mevaw use only the accusative 
(Matt. 5:6). The verbs of touching can be briefly disposed of. 
Thus jaro rév iuatiwy (Mk. 5 : 30) and often in the Gospels. So 
Kav Onpiov Oiyn Tod dpovs (Heb. 12 : 20), but YyrAadaw has only the 
accusative (Ac. 17:27). Perhaps the other verbs of taking hold 
of and seizing may as well be mentioned, for it is less than a step 
from the idea of touch. Thus €évés avOeEerar (Lu. 16 : 13); 7a Exoueva 
Ths owrnplas (Heb. 6 : 9); avredaBero “Icpand ratdos adrod (Lu. 1 : 54) 
and of rijs evepyecias avTiAauBavouevor (1 Tim. 6 : 2); éredaBero abtod 
(Mt. 14:31), and émiAaBouevos tis xetpds Tod tuPdA0d (Mk. 8: 23), 
where the part taken hold of is indicated; éxparnoev rijs xetpos 
avrjs (Mt. 9 : 25), where the part is again in genitive, but the whole 
is in the accusative in kparjoas Tov "Iwavnv (Mt. 14 : 3); midoas ad- 
Tov Ths xepos (Ac. 3:7), where the whole is in the accusative and 
the part in the genitive. Blass! notes that this last (muafw) is a 
“vulgar” word. But here, as usual, the N. T. is in harmony with 
the vernacular. The papyri? show éxoua: with the genitive as 
well as dvriAauBavouar. So éxdpuevrds pou, P. Par. 51 (B.c. 160). Besides 
Mk. 8 : 23 (above) the double genitive (whole and part) may be 
seen in Lu. 20: 20, tva ériAaBwvrar aitod doyovu (cf. also verse 26), 
though here airod is probably dependent on doyov. 

4. Verbs of Emotion. These naturally have the genitive, such 
as to desire, care for, neglect, have compassion, spare, bear with, 
aim after, obtain, remember, forget, enjoy, etc. ’Emiuyew has 
the genitive in Ac. 20: 33, dpyupiov # xpuciov 7 iwatiouod ovdevos, 
but the accusative probably in Mt. 5: 28 (text uncertain, but 
LXX has accusative, Ex. 20:17). ’Opéyoua also has the genitive, 
as in Heb. 11: 16, xpetrrovos dpeyovra. Cf. 1 Tim. 3: 1, where both 
opeyerac and émcOuyet are used with the genitive. Cf. also dyerpo- 
pevor tua@v (1 Th. 2:8). The verbs of concern are fairly numerous 
and uniform. Thus dvexduevor d\AnAwy (Col. 3:13) in the N. T. 
as in the older Greek. So pi) auedee tod év col xapicuaros (1 Tim. 
4:14), uy odcywper wadetas kvpiov (Heb. 12:5). But these three 
verbs may have the ablative. ’Avexoua: here is ‘hold oneself back 
from.’ Like the earlier Greek also is érewednOn adrod (Lu. 10 : 34) 
and yu Tav Body peter TS Oe; (1 Cor. 9:9). Blass? considers ovéév 
tovrwyv TS Taddiwve Euedev (Ac. 18:17) the personal construction, 


1 GrsofiN 20 GEip.sLole 
2 Moulton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 437. * Gr. of N. T. Gks p. 104. 


ee ee Se 


THE CASES (IITOSEIS) 509 


as often in the classical Greek. But already in the Attic inscrip- 
tions (Meisterhans, p. 211) we have émiedéowac with the dative. 
So, too, rept appears with the genitive in Jo. 10 : 13, etc. Consider 
further rap idiwy kal wadora oikeiwy ob rpovoel (1 Tim. 5:8) and iva 
gppovrifwow Kkaddv épywv (Tit. 3:8). In Mt. 6:34 we have pepu- 
pvnoe avtyjs, though some MSS. read 7a é€aurfs. Once again take 
To idiov ok édeicato (Ro. 8:32). These all are in regular order. 
In Mt. 18 : 27708 dovdov is more likely dependent on 6 xipios rather 
than on omdayxvicbeis. Verbs of obtaining are illustrated by 
€\axe TOD Ouwadoa (Lu. 1:9), not mere ‘‘appearance,’’! though the 
accusative is elsewhere found in the N. T. as in Ac. 1:17 (ef. 
classic frequency of the accusative). On the other hand rvyxydvw 
always has the genitive in the N.T., as rod aldvos éxeivov tuxetv (Lu. 
20:35). But with émtvyxavw we have érervxov éxayyedtav (Heb. 
11:33) and rtofro otk érérvxev (Ro. 11:7). Moulton (Cl. Rev., 
p. 437, Dec., 1901) notes genitive and accusative with érituxovtes — 
Ths ‘Pwyatwy rorureias Kal érvyauiay, B.U. 113 (ii/a.p.). In general 
the papyri confirm the N. T. use of these verbs. Verbs of remem- 
bering and forgetting call for little remark. Thus pryoAvar dcaOqKns 
(Lu. 1 : 72), uvnuovebere rod Adyou (Jo. 15 : 20). Meurnoxouan always 
has the genitive and pvnuovebw usually. But dvauiuvnockw (act., 
mid. and pass.) always has the accusative in the N. T. Cf. 
aveuvnobn To phua (Mk. 14 : 72), whereas ancient Greek usually had 
the genitive. With trouimrvjckw the usage is divided again, as the 
accusative is alone used in the active (Jo. 14 : 26), but the genitive 
in the passive (deponent), as baeuvncOn Tod pnuaros (Lu. 22:61; 
ef. Mk. 14:72 above). ’EmAarOdvowar again has usually the gen- 
itive, as dudokevias ur) ErcdavOdvecbe (Heb. 13 : 2), but the accusative 
once (Ph. 3:18) and & in Heb. 13:2 according to classic idiom. 
Cf. Oxy. P. IV, 744, 11 and 12 (i/a.p.). We once also have édéAnobe 
Ths Tapaxdnoews (Heb. 12:5). Of verbs of enjoying we have only 
éyw cou dvaiunv (Phil. 20). ’Azodatw does not occur in the N. T., 
and neither ayadAcaw nor xalpw is used with the genitive, but only 
absolutely, with the instrumental, or with prepositions. Aic@avopat 
appears only once (Lu. 9 : 45) and with accusative. 

5. Verbs of Sharing, Partaking and Filling. Indeed, verbs of 
sharing can be looked at as taking the partitive genitive. Thus 
with peréxev we have rparéfns (1 Cor. 10:21), & Tod évds aprov 
(verse 17, clearly ablative) and xapite (verse 30, associative in- 
strumental by analogy of cvvKowwvew). Cf. Kexouvwvnkev aiwaros kal 
capkos (Heb. 2 : 14), though elsewhere in the N. T. the associative 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 102. 


510 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


instrumental occurs with persons. Meradidwue has only the ac- 
cusative and instrumental. As to peradauBavw and mpocdapBarvw 
it is more doubtful if it is not ablative rather than genitive. 
Cf. rx, (f), 7, for discussion. The partitive idea is divided be- 
tween the genitive and the ablative. In the N. T. prepositions 
are chiefly used and with the ablative. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p- 102) finds in the partitive idea the explanation of the local and 
temporal use of the genitive, but not rightly. The true genitive is 
found with verbs of filling like érAnaOn 4 rodts THs cvyxboews (Ac. 19: 
29), rerAnpaxate THY Lepovcadnu THs didaxjs buav (Ac. 5: 28), yeuioare 
ras bdplas tdatos (Jo. 2:7), tepracevovtar &prwv (Lu. 15 : 17), &verdn- 
cev ayabév (Lu. 1:53). In Latin words of filling (plenus, etc.) use 
the ablative or instrumental, as the Greek has the ablative with 
words of lacking (berepodyrar tHs ddEns (Ro. 3:23). By analogy 
therefore we find éx and the ablative with rAnpow, as érAnpwbn ex 
Ths oouns (Jo. 12:3) and yeuifw, as eyeuoer abrov éx ToD Tupos (Rev. 
8:5). For the instrumental with the passive see Ro. 1 : 29, ete. 
Indeed the accusative is seen in Ph. 1: 11 and Rev. 17:3 and some 
MSS. in Ac. 2 : 28. 

6. Verbs of Ruling. These probably have the true genitive, 
though verbs of excelling use the ablative. Thus in Mk. 10:42 
we have three such verbs in one sentence, of doxodyres apyev Tov 
cOvav Kataxuptevovotv avta@v Kal of weyador a’ta@v kateEovotafovaow avTav. 
Other examples are avOurarevovros according to some MSS. in Ac. 
18:12, aidevrety avipos (1 Tim. 2:12), Baordeber tis “Lovdaias (Mt. 
2:22 SB; elsewhere ézi), qyeuovevovtos THs Dupias (Lu. 2 : 2), xv- 
plrevouev Kuav THs TlaTews (2 Cor. 1: 24), xatadvvacretovow twav (Jas. 
2:6), terpaapxodvtos ths “Irovpaias (Lu. 3:1). These verbs all 
have a distinct substantive-affinity like ‘be ruler of,’ etc. See fur- 
ther Lu. 22:25 for xvpretw and éfovorafw, Mt. 16:18 for xaricxiw. 

7. Verbs of Buying, Selling, Being Worthy of. It is not per- 
fectly clear what the origin of this usage is. The use of & 
dyvapiov with ovudwrycas (Mt. 20:2) may be noted, but in 
verse 13 dyvaplov cvvedwryncas. Cf. also nyopacay é& aitadv (Mt. 
27:7) with rpabjvat wod\d\od (Mt. 26:9). ’Ayopatw is used also 
with & (Rev. 5:9). So again one may note éxrjcato xwpiov ék 
pucbod rhs dduclas (Ac. 1:18. Cf. Lu. 16:9, & 708 paywra) with 
pc00d ékextOnoay (Ju. 11). Cf. bra with mepiroréowar (Ac. 20: 28). 
These examples show that it was easy to go from the genitive to 
é€ and the ablative. Consider also @vncaro tiufqs apyupiov (Ac. 7: 
16), docapiov mwdetrar (Mt. 10: 29), rocobrov amédocbe (Ac. 5:8), Ayo- 

1 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 340. 


a ee — 


THE CASES (IITO=EIz) oegeya 


pacOnre trujs (1 Cor. 6:20). In Mk. 14:5, rpafjvar érdvw dnvaptov 
tp.axooiwyv, the adverb éravw has no effect on the case as is shown 
by @¢0n éravw mevtaxocios adedpots (1 Cor. 15: 6). Blass! compares 
the use of é« in the Attic inscriptions with rpaéjvac. And Monro 
(Homeric Grammar, p. 109) considers this the ablative, which is 
certainly possible. But on the other hand the undoubted genitive 
with aéiow suggests the idea of exchange or barter as the true ori- 
gin and thus a real genitive. ’Adddoow is not so used itself, but 
buying and selling easily fall in with the notion of worth. Thus 
wa twas adéiwon THs KAnoews (2 Th. 1:11), catratwOjvac rhs Bacidelas 
(Zeit oe ia disO le bimwousl/5>Heb: 3°: 3;.10 :29. On the 
whole one is inclined to this explanation of the usage and to treat 
it as a true genitive. Cf. Rev. 6 : 6 for the genitive of price without 
a verb. But the use of a76 with verbs of buying and selling goes 
back in single instances to the Attic time (Radermacher, N. T. 
Gr., p. 91). So orédavoy diddvres ard TevtnKovta xpvoav, Inscr. of 
Maen., 16, 29. 

8. Verbs of Accusing and Condemning. Blass? observes that 
the old Greek usage of the genitive of the thing has well-nigh 
vanished in the N. T. We do have éyxadetoOar cracews (Ac. 19 : 40), 
but zepi with the genitive is the usual construction in the N. T. 
both with éyxadéw (Ac. 23 : 29), xpivw (Ac. 23 : 6), and even xarnyo- 
pew (Ac. 24:13). However, in the case of xatnyopew we do find ay 
in Lu. 23:14 and Ac. 25:11, but in each instance the genitive 
seems to be due to attraction to the case of the suppressed ante- 
cedent rovrwv. Cf. Ac. 24:13 for epi. Still the point is not ab- 
solutely certain and ay could be due to xatnyopéew. At any rate 
KaTnyopew 1s also used with the genitive of the person as in iva xarn- 
yopnowow attod (Mt. 12:10). Cf. also Mk. 15:3 where we have 
genitive and accusative, katnydpovy aitod to\Ad. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 235) notes that D often has accusative with xarnyopew as with 
aKOUW, KpaTew. 

9. Genitive Due to Prepositions in Composition. Some verbs 
have the genitive because of the preposition in composition which 
gives a distinct change in idea to the verb. The preposition is 
often repeated with the noun. Asa matter of fact the only? prep- 
osition that seems to figure thus in the N. T. is xara which is used 
with a number of verbs with the genitive. Not all the xara com- 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 105. He cites Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 173. 

2 Ib,,-p. 104. 3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106. 

4 Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 341) comments on the blending of meaning be- 
tween prep. and verb in the later Gk. 


512 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pounds use the genitive. Cf. the accusative case and note as illus- 
trations of the accusative in the N. T. xataywvifouar, kataBpaBebw, 
KaTaduatw, KaTakpivw, Katacodifouat. It may be that some of the 
verbs already instanced as using the genitive may owe it to xara 
in composition, like xatnyopew (Mt. 12:10). But the point seems 
to be reasonably plain as to xateyedwr adtod (Mt. 9 : 24), éay xara- 
ywookn huov 4 kapdia (1 Jo. 3:20, and note verse 21), though 
huov might go with xapdia), Kataxavxarar edeos Kpicews (Jas. 2 : 13), 
Katadadetre GAANAWY (Jas. 4:11), cov katayaprupotow (Mt. 27 : 13), 
Karevapknoa nuov (2 Cor. 12:18), xatacrpnvdcwow tod Xpicrod 
(1 Tim. 5:11), aicxtvns xatadpovnoas (Heb. 12: 2), xarexeev abrod 
Ths kepadyjs (Mk. 14:38); but in Mt. 26:7 the text of W. H. has 
éri with genitive as some MSS. in Mk. 

10. Attraction of the Relative. A word only is needed about 
the attraction of the relative, a matter treated properly in the 
chapter on Pronouns, which see. Here it may only be noted that 
the genitive (as of other oblique cases) of the relative sometimes 
appears with a verb when the case is due, not to the verb, but to 
the antecedent. Thus we note zepl ravtTwy av éroinoey (Lu. 3: 19), 
an idiom common in Luke, but rare elsewhere, as dcrépwr ods 
eloes (Rev. 1: 20). 

(j) THe GENITIVE OF THE INFINITIVE. This is more properly 
an instance of the genitive of substantives as it is the substantival 
aspect of the infinitive that is in the case. The full discussion of 
the matter belongs to the chapter on Verbal Nouns. Here it may 
simply be remarked that the infinitive with 70d is not unknown to 
ancient Greek, though nothing like so common as in the LXX 
as the translation of the Hebrew infinitive construct. But the 
Hebrew infinitive is not an exact analogy as it does not have the 
article! But Thucydides had already shown a fondness for this 
idiom which is thoroughly Greek. As an example from the LXX — 
take rod éfedeoOar (Dan. 6:14). For the N. T. note é&7\Oev 6 
oreipwv Tov orelpev (Mt. 13:3). The substantival nature of this 
infinitive with rod is well shown in karpés Tod apEacba (1 Pet. 4:17). 
But in general rod with the infinitive has as wide an extension of 
meaning in the vernacular xowy as the genitive absolute.2 The 
details come later. 

(k) Tue GENITIVE. ABsoLUTE. It may indeed be ablative 
absolute as Farrar* holds, following the analogy of the Latin. 
But, as Giles* observes, the Latin absolute is very likely instru- 


1 C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 59. 3? Gk. Synt.,p. 76: 
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 4 Man., etc., p. 339 f. 


THE CASES (IITQZEI>) 513 


mental or locative. The various languages differ greatly, however, 
in the use of the absolute cases, nearly all having a turn in one 
language or another. Cf. dative in Anglo-Saxon. Since the San- 
skrit uses genitive as well as instrumental and locative (usual 
construction), Giles considers the Greek genitive absolute a true 
genitive. In this he is perhaps correct. But Brugmann (Griech. 
Gr., p. 523) discusses the genitive absolute separately from both 
genitive and ablative. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p.4387. Mullach? 
observes that the genitive absolute is a mark of the higher style 
and was not much used in the vernacular. Jebb? remarks that in 
the modern Greek the genitive absolute is more commonly para- 
phrased in harmony with the general disuse of the participle. 
However, in the vernacular xow7 “the rapid extension of the geni- 
tive absolute is a very obvious feature,’’* and the N. T. is in line 
with the papyri on this point also as in most other matters of 
grammar. Moulton observes further that ‘in the papyri it may 
often be seen forming a string of statements, without a finite verb 
for several lines,” which is rather more than can be said of the 
N. T. It naturally occurs in the N. T. chiefly in the historical 
books. Abbott? has felt that Mark uses the genitive absolute 
“somewhat monotonously to introduce the circumstances of a 
new narrative,” and he finds it common in Matthew in temporal 
clauses. John, he observes, has the construction nowhere in re- 
cording Christ’s words, though he elsewhere® ‘‘employs it with 
more elasticity of meaning than is found in the Triple Tradition.”’ 
The LXX shows many examples of the genitive absolute and with 
abundant freedom also. The normal usage in the older Greek is 
to have a genitive absolute when a participle occurs with a noun 
that is disconnected from the rest of the sentence as in avaxwpnodr- 
tov abtrav. (Mt. 2:13). Ci. 2 Cor. 2:12.. But the older Greek 
did not always conform to this norm, and variations appear 
also in the N. T. Thus sometimes the participle is found alone 
as in €\Movrwy (Mt. 17: 14) and eidvros (17: 26), a very frequent 
idiom in the papyri.? Cf. dvayrwo8twv B.U. 925 (ili/A.D.?), 
dndwhevtos B.U. 970 (ii/a.D.). The papyri also show é£6v70s instead 
of the old é£6v.8 Cf. obk é&dvros P.O. 275 (a.p. 66). Then again the 
genitive absolute occurs when as a matter of fact the noun or 
pronoun is not absolute and the participle might have merely 


1 Gr., p. 357. 5 Ib., p. 84. 
2 V. and D., Handb., p. 334. 6 C. and S., p. 58; Thack., p. 24. 
3 Moulton, Prol., p. 74. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 74. 


4 Joh. Gr., p. 83. 8 Ib. 


514 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


agreed in case with the word in question. The simplest example 
is the repetition of the pronoun in the same case as eiceOovros 
aTod els otkov ot pabynral avtod (Mk. 9 : 28). But more noticeable is 
an example like pi éxovros 6€ abrod arododvar éxedhevoey abrov (Mt. 
18 : 25), or tadra dé a’tod evOvunbevros — épavn ait (Mt. 1: 20), a 
usage more common apparently in the N. T. than in the papyri. 
But note pou xwédvvebcavtos eis Oddacoav Eowoe, B.U. 423 (ii/A.D.), 
where we is implied with éowce. One even notes the genitive ab- 
solute when the nominative is present as in wrnorevbetons THs unt pds 
avtod Mapias — ebpéOn (Mt. 1: 18). Moulton! notes ‘‘a violent use”’ 
of the genitive absolute in Heb. 8:9 from the LXX, where we 
have év juépa ériAaBouevov pov. Here the participle is treated al- 
most like the infinitive (as a substantive). Moulton regards it as 
due to the original Hebrew, and Westcott (in loco) cites & jpyEepa 
évretdamevou gov ait@ (Baruch 2:28). See further under Parti- 
ciples. 

IX. The Ablative (‘‘Ablatival Genitive”) Case (n ddatpetixy 
w@TooLS). The treatment of this case will be briefer, for it never had 
the manifold development of the Greek genitive. In the original 
speech the genitive and ablative had no distinctive endings save 
in the o stems in the singular.” See chapter VII, 11, (a), for discus- 
sion of form. 

(a) THE Name. But the name ablatiwvus is credited to Julius 
Cesar. Besides ada:perexy it is also called zarpixn. The name is 
quite appropriate. 

(6) THe Mranina. The ablative is then the ‘whence’ case, 
the case of origin, source, separation or departure. Some of the 
grammars use the expression ‘‘ablatival genitive.’”? That implies 
that the case is after all a kind of genitive. That is only true as 
to form, not as to sense, and causes some confusion. In Greek the 
ablative is not a live case in form, but in sense it is. 

(c) RARE witH SusstTantives. It is possible (though not 
probably correct) to regard écxaocbvn Oeod (Ro. 1 : 17) as ablative, 
6eod being the source of the righteousness. More likely are the 
following examples: tiv &xBacw ris avacrpodijs (Heb. 13 : 7), duacrond7) 
"Tovéaiov te kat “EXAnvos (Ro. 10 : 12), dcaxpiors kadod wai xaxod (Heb. 
5:14). See Monro, Homeric Grammar, p. 146. In 2 Pet.1:20 we 
have a clear case of the ablative in the predicate after the copula 
yiverat. Here érid’cews (‘disclosure’) is in the ablative. Cf. also 
700 beot in 2 Cor.4:7. One may note also éyévero yriuns (Ac. 20 : 


1 Prol., p. 74. 
2 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 193. *- Farrar Gk, synteipaal: 


a a " 


THE CASES (IITQZETS) 515 


3) as probably parallel. In Heb. 12:11 xapés and dbrns may be 
considered either true genitives or ablatives. Doubtful also are 
vrocroNjs and riarews in Heb. 10:39. But we have a clear abla- 
tive in Ac. 20 : 37 ixavos 6€ KAavOuds Evévero ravTwv. Moulton! notes 
the obvious fact that a6 and éx (with abl.) are freely used for the 
old “partitive genitive.” Delbriick? thinks the genitive of material 
originally abl. Cf. vu, (f), 8, for the true genitives in the parti- 
tive sense. This partitive gen. may be illustrated by & rotrwv 
(Mt. 6 : 29) which is to be compared with é é£ aivav (Mt. 10 : 29). 
In Jo. 3: 25 the use of é makes clear the ablative, éyévero (hrnots 
ex Tov pabnrav. Blass* rather needlessly explains this usage by 
appeal to the Hebrew 2. Note also ras é& tuav (Lu. 14 : 33). 
The matter may be further illustrated by ris atvaév (Lu. 7: 42) and 
tis €& tudv (Mt. 6:27). Indeed with ris, as Blass‘ observes, the 
N. T. nearly always uses é£ in such examples. He finds the oppo- 
site true of vis save in John. Thus twes rdv ypauparéwy (Mt. 12: 
38), but tives €€ a’rav (Lu. 11:15. Cf. Jo. 6:64). But azé is also 
found with ris (Mt. 27:21). One may note also zis év tutv (Jas. 
5:18). A classical but curious use of this idiom, like the parti- 
tive genitive (already noted), is as the subject or object. The 
explanation lies, of course, in the ellipsis. Thus ovvqdOov kal rap 
padnrav (Ac. 21:16) may be compared with efray ék r&v yabntav 
(Jo. 16:17), & rod dxdov cuveBiBacay (Ac. 19:33). Cf. Rev. 11: 
9. Take Mt. 23:34 as an example of the use as object, éé& 
av’T@v amoxtevette, EF a’T&v waotiywoete. Cf. especially &« T&v Téxvwr 
gov mepitatodytas (2 Jo. 4). In Ac. 15:2 we have the full ex- 
pression twas a&ddouvs é€ aitGv. Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 397) 
notes the syncretism between the ablative and the genitive with 
the superlative. See a like confusion in the predicate (Monro, 
Hom. Gr,, p. 148). W. Havers (UIndog. Forsch., XXXI, Bd. 1, 
Heft 3, 1912) “on the splitting of the genitive in Greek” sug- 
gests that the partitive genitive was originally independent and 
adverbial. 

(d) Toe ABLATIVE witH ApgEctivEes. The number is not 
large (cf. the Genitive with Adjectives). In Plato we have, for 
instance, ériorhuns Kevds, EelOepos aidods, but see Kiihner-Gerth?® for 
a full list in the ancient writers. Thus in the N. T. we find with 
preposition xafapds ard tod aluaros (Ac. 20 : 26), a clear ablative. 
Cf. also é\evOépa ad rod vouou (Ro. 7:3) and édetOepos &k TavTwy (1 

ePYOl, jp. (2. te also Monro, Hom.) Gr:,'p..109: 


2 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 340. Sarr Oi Nin Lear. peo Salb: 
5 J, p. 401. The adjs. with a— privative are regarded as usually with abl. 


516 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cor. 9:19). But the ablative occurs without prepositions. So 
tevor Tv SiabyxGv (Eph. 2:12). It is probably best to regard the 
verbal adjectives as having the ablative in these examples: ayarnrol 
deod (Ro. 1:7), yervnrots yuvarxov (Mt. 11:11), dcdaxrot Aeod (Jo. 
6 : 45), didaxrots rvebuaros (1 Cor. 2 : 13), xAnrot *Incod Xpiorod (Ro. 
1:6). One may also suggest here evAoynuevor tod matpos (Mt. 
25 : 34), but on the whole it is to be regarded as a true genitive. 
The ablative with adjectives with a— privative have ‘plentiful 
illustrations from papyri.’’! For instance akivéuvos ravtds Kiwdbvou 
Tb. P. 105 (ii1/B.c.), ris els Gravras evepyecias — aBonOnros B.U. 970 
(i/a.D.). In Mt. 27:24 we find dOGds eiue ard Tod aiuaros with 
amo. Cf. also door aro Tod Kécpou (Jas. 1:27). Thus we easily 
see the ablative in dxatardorovus auaptias (2 Pet. 2:14), avaéuos xpi- 
tnpiwy (1 Cor. 6 : 2), avouos Geod (1 Cor. 9 : 21), arecpos Aoyou (Heb. 
5:18), amelpactos xaxév (Jas. 1:18). 

Moreover, the ablative after the comparative is very common 
in the N. T., apparently more so than in the papyri. Let a few 
examples suffice: ioxupdrepds you (Mt. 3:11), wixpdotepov dv ravTwv 
Tov omepuatwy (Mk. 4:31), mdelovas trav mpwrav (Mt. 21:36), 
mrelov THs Tpodys (Lu. 12: 23), wovnpdtepa éavtod (Mt. 12 : 45), 
pelfav rod. xupiov. (Jo. 13::16). Cf, Jo. 21:15; 1. Cor: 10): 22: 
1 Tim. 5:8. Here the ablative idea of difference or distinction 
is very plain. The Latin also uses the ablative in this sense. 
Cf.. xnpa uw edartov érav éénxovtra (1 Tim. 5:9). In Jo. 5:36, 
Haprupiay peifw Tod ’Iwavov, it is not clear whether it is the witness 
borne by John or to him. In Ac. 4:19 6c0d after 7 is genitive, 
not ablative, due to dxote. The superlative may likewise have 
the ablative as in zp&rdés wou (Jo. 1:15), a usage found in the 
papyri.2. Abbott*® rather needlessly endeavours to explain zpézos 
as a substantive meaning ‘chief,’ like 76 rpwrw rhs vnoov (Ac. 28: 
7). Note also zoia éoriy éytod} tpwrn ravtwv (Mk. 12 : 28) where 
mavrwy is neuter plural (a possible partitive genitive). Cf. écxarTov 
mavrwv (1 Cor. 15:8). The positive repiocos may even have the 
ablative, as 76 repicoov totTtwy (Mt. 5:37). Cf. wdeiov with the 
verb qepicoebw and the ablative rdetov trav — Papicaiwy (Mt. 5: 
20). In Eph. 3:8, éuol 7G edaxrororépw Travtwyv ayiwv, the com- 
parative and the superlative are combined. 

(ec) THe ABLATIVE wiTH PREposiTIons. It is very common 
in the N. T. Thus dev ddyou (1 Pet. 8:1), adrévavte ravtwy (Ac. 


1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 74, 235; Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 152 f. 
2 Ib., 1901, p. 487, cod rp&rés eiur, L.P. w (ii/ili A.D.). 
8 Joh. Gr., p. 90. 





THE CASES (lITQ=EIS) 517 


3:16), ad THs Spas (Mt. 9:22), arep dxdov (Lu. 22:6), & Tod 
vdatos (Mk. 1 : 10), éx7ds adrod (Mt. 23 : 26; cf. &v7és in same verse), 
éumpoober ravrwv (Mt. 26 : 70), éréxeva BaBudavos (Ac. 7:43), téw rhs 
oixias (Mt. 10 : 14), é&wOev ris modews (Rev. 14: 20), dricbev rod ’Inood 
(Lu. 23: 26), driow you (Mt. 4:19), possibly dvé caBBarwv (Mt. 28: 
1), map’ airav (Mt. 2:4), mapexros NOvyou mopveias (Mt. 5: 32), répav 
Tod “lopdavov (Mt. 19:1), rdjv tod mdotiov (Ac. 27 : 22), mpd 70d 
macxa (Jo. 11:55), pds rhs tuerepas owrnpias (Ac. 27 : 34), brép 
mavrav (2 Cor. 5:15, true genitive according to some), brepdvw 
aurjs (Heb. 9:5), brepéxerva tudv (2 Cor. 10:16), trepexrepicood 
av (Eph. 3:20), tro xupiov (Mt. 1:22), iroxdtw trav rodav (Mk. 
6:11), xwpis rapaBorjs (Mt. 13 : 34). In the case of dvé caBBarwv 
(Mt. 28:1) ové means ‘late from’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 72). Cf. 
ove tis wpas, Par. P. 35, 37 (i1/B.c.), dWitepov ris Spas Th. P. 230 
(ii/B.c.) and évé rovrwy in Philostratus (Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 312). Cf. Blass-Debrunner, p. 101, for still other examples in 
late Greek. See also per’ odiyov rovrwy in Xen., Hellen., I, 1, 2. 
The list of such adverbs was growing constantly. This is a con- 
siderable list, but the ablative idea is patent in all with the no- 
tion of separation. An interesting example of the ablative is ri 
amo god éxayyediay (Ac. 23:21). In trép, rpd, rpds it is the com- 
parative idea that is involved and that implies separation. 
Hence it seems likely that iz6 is to be construed also with the 
ablative rather than the genitive, though this point is debatable. 
“Tn both Greek and Latin the ablative expresses the agent as 
the source of the action, almost invariably with prepositions” 
(Buckland Green, Notes on Greek and Latin Syntax, p. 32). There 
is some truth here. For the ablative with prepositions in Cypri- 
otic see Meister, Bd. II, p. 295. See chapter on Prepositions. <A 
number of adverbs are themselves in the ablative case, like xadés, 
ovTws (all adverbs in —ws), avw, ete. 

(f) THe ABLATIVE WITH VERBS. The ablative is not used so 
frequently with verbs as the accusative, genitive or dative, and 
yet it is by no means uncommon. Of course, wherever azo (cf. 
Ac. 5: 2), & (cf. Mk. 1: 10) and rapé (Mt. 2 : 4) are used with the 
ablative after a verb, these examples! are not considered, but they 
throw light on the use of the same case without the preposition. 
’A76 and éx have only the ablative. The ablative is so common 
with compound verbs like adiornum, amoorepew, etc., that no effort 
is made to separate the simple from the compound verbs. There 


1 Indeed, as Winer (W.-Th., p. 197) remarks, the prep. is most frequently 
employed. 


518 = A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


are examples where the ablative seems to be due purely to the 
preposition, as ris yaputos é£eréoate (Gal. 5:4); cf. same word in 
2 Pet. 3:17). But in many other instances the ablative idea in 
the verb is due to the effect of the preposition. 

1. Verbs of Departure and Removal. This is the simplest ablative 
with verbs. Take, for instance, ovk adicrato rod tepod (Lu. 2 : 37) 
where the ablative idea is perfectly plain. So also aroornaovrat 
tives THS TloTews (1 Tim. 4:1). The predicate ablative of source 
in 2 Pet. 1 : 20 (€m:Adcews) was noticed under the discussion of 
substantives. As a rule ao, éx or rapa will be found with the 
mere idea of departure. So xwpifw ard (1 Cor. 7:10). In Lu. 
7:6 améxw has azo, but ND have merely the ablative. 

Naturally verbs meaning to free from, to separate, to deprive of, 
to hinder from, etc., use the ablative. ’EXev0epow always has a7oé 
(Ro. 6:18), as cabapifw amo (1 Jo. 1:7), Adw azo (Lu. 13:16), Aobw aro 
(Ac. 16 : 33), AuTpow azo (Tit. 2:14), plouar aro (Mt. 6:18), carw 
amo (Ro. 5:9) and é& (Ro. 7:24). Cf. also peBiornue ex in Lu. 
16:4. But we have the ablative alone in arnddorpiwpevor Tis Cwijs 
(Eph. 4:18), areorepnuevwy ris adnbeias (1 Tim. 6:5), amodedvoae 
Ths aobevelas cov (Lu. 13:12), Kabapetobar tis peyadevotntos av’rijs 
(Ac. 19:27),! exparotyro rod uy éemryvOvac (Lu. 24:16), exwdvocev 
avrovs Tov BovAnuatos (Ac. 27:48). Cf. Lu. 10:42, airfs. This 
use of the mere ablative was not unknown to good prose in the 
ancient Greek. Moulton? finds it also in the papyri. Thus rotrwy 
adere L.Pb. (11/B.c.), adedéobar Gv eOwxay O.P. 237 (ii/A.D.). One 
may note here again éxrimrw with the ablative in Gal. 5:4 and 
2 Pet: 3:17. - Cf. ckwdbw a6 (Lu. 6 : 29). 

2. Verbs of Ceasing, Abstaining. So one may interpret ot Bpadiver 
kUptos THs éemayyedlas (2 Pet. 3:9), the marginal reading in W. H. 
(1 Pet. 4:1) réravra: auaprias, and amréxecbar eidwroOi7Twv (Ac. 15: 
28; cf. also 15 : 20; 1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Pet. 2:11), though azo also is 
used with améxoua (1 Th. 4:3; 5:22). One can only repeat that 
these divisions are purely arbitrary and merely for convenience. For 
éx with dvasatoyuar, ard with kataratw see Rev. 14:13; Heb. 4:4, 10. 

3. Verbs of Missing, Lacking, Despairing. Thus we note op 
tTwes aotoxnoavtes (1 Tim. 1: 6), Aeirerar codias (Jas. 1:5), tbotepody- 
tat THs Ooéns (Ro. 3 : 23), dowv xpnfer (Lu. 11:8), rpocdeduevds twos 
(Ac. 17: 25), e£aropnOjvar nuds Kat trod CHv (2 Cor. 1:8). Cf. rev 
avayKaiwy vorepetvy L.Pb. (ii/B.c.), rv deovtwy eydurety (ib.). Moul- 
ton, Cl. Rev., p. 487, Dec., 1901. 


1 An “impossible” reading to Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 106. 
2 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 437. 


eerie 





REQ eer 


ee ee re Ged 2 te en eee 


THE CASES (IITQ=EIS) 519 


4. Verbs of Differing, Excelling. Here the comparative idea is 
dominant. We observe 7oA@v orpoviiwy duadépere duets (Mt. 10:31), 
THY vmepBaddovoay THs yrocews ayarnv (Eph. 3:19), barepéxovras 
éautav (Ph. 2:3), borepnxévar r&v brepdav arooTodwy (2 Cor. 11:5; 
cf. use of to7epéw in sense of lack above. Here the comparative 
idea of tarepos is uppermost. 

5. Verbs of Asking and Hearing. These may also use the abla- 
tive. This is the usual construction with déoua, especially in Luke, 
as déouai cov (Lu. 8: 28). The person is in the ablative, but the 
thing will be in the accusative, as déouar 6€ 7d wt) Tapwv Oapphoae (2 
Cor. 10:2). So also note jy jxovoare you (Ac. 1:4), but both azé 
(Lu. 22:71) and zapa (Jo. 1:40), and é (2 Cor. 12 : 6) occur. 

6. Verbs with the Partitive Idea. Here a sharp difference exists 
between the accusative which presents the whole and the genitive 
or the ablative which accents a part. Thus in Rev. 2: 17 we have 
dwow ad’T@ Tod wavva Where the point lies in the idea of ‘‘some”’ of 
the manna, but B reads 76 and & é« rod. In the same verse note 
the accusative dwow aita Yidov Aevxnv. When the whole is ex- 
pressed in the N. T. the accusative is used. Thus dayetv eldwAdbuTa 
(Rev. 2:14), but éofier ard rap pixiwy (Mt. 15:27) and & 70d ap- 
tov éo@éerw (1 Cor. 11:28). Thus also rivwy otvoy (Lu. 7: 33), but 
mlere €& abtod (Mt. 26 : 27), ds av rin ex Tod Udaros (Jo. 4:14). Cf. 
also évéyxate a0 T&v dWapiwv (Jo. 21:10). Phrynichus says: émov 
olvov ’Arrixol, otvov “EXAnves — Epayov Kpéws ’ArTikol, Kpéas “EAnves. 
Cf. a6 Tod Kaprod dwoovow (Lu. 20:10), va AaBn ard Tdv Kaprav 
OVikv 12 2)2 )Cfe also) Jow4e13. 2Cf. Mt: 28): 1;Aci 21:16: 
See Moulton, Introduction to the Study of N. T. Gk., p. 72, 
where the ‘‘partitive gen.”’ is shown to be often ablative in idea. 
In modern Greek 476 is the regular construction for the partitive 
sense, aS dace ou ard rodro, ‘give me some of that’ (Moulton, 
Prol., p. 245). Prepositions a6 and é are thus uniformly used in 
the N. T. with this construction of the part (clearly ablative 
therefore) save in Rev. 2:17 above and in zpocedaSorto tpodijs 
(Ac. 27:36). In this last example the MSS. vary a good deal. 
MeradauBdrw (see (7), 3) may be abl. or gen. in peredauBavoy tpodijs 
(Ac. 2:46). Blass! notes that only Luke, Paul and the author 
of Hebrews, the more literary writers in the N. T., use the 
ablative (gen.) with peradauBavw and mpoc\auBavw. Examples like 
Ro. 9:16; Heb. 12:11 may be regarded as either ablative or 
genitive. | 

7. Attraction of the Relative. Thus é& rot datos ob eyw daow 

1 Gr.of N. T. Gk., p. 100. 


520 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ait@ (Jo. 4:14), ody exrds Neywv Gv TE of mpopHrar éAadnoay (Ac. 
26% 22)5 (Chebronouns: 

X. The Locative (‘‘Locatival Dative’) Case ( tok) TTHots). 

(a) Tot Name Locative. It is derived from the Latin locus! 
and is a ‘grammatical neologism,” but is modelled after vocative. 
Still Delbriick? prefers ‘local’ to locative and uses it. It is indeed 
a local case. It is worth noticing that in the Thessalian dialect 
the old genitive had this locative ending’ as did the Arkadian‘* 
also, though this -o. may have come from -oo. The Latin gram- 
marians took this: for the dative. We have remnants of the 
ending in English here, there, where. The modern grammars gen- 
erally recognise the distinction in the three cases (locative, instru- 
mental and dative), which have usually identical endings, though 
Blass® is correct in saying that it is not always possible to decide 
the case. However that uncertainty exists but seldom. Jannaris’ 
makes four cases, counting the associative as a separate case. 
Compare the blending in the Latin. 

(6) THe SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LocativE. It is indeed the 
simplest of cases in its etymological idea. It is the in case as 
Whitney ® finds it in the Sanskrit. It is location, a point within 
limits, the limits determined by the context, not by the case itself. 
The word itself is the main determining factor in the resultant 
sense, and each example has its own atmosphere. There is indeed 
variation in the resultant idea. Hence, besides in, we come to the 
ideas of on, at, amid, among, by, with. This development was not 
only in the early Greek® but in the still earlier Sanskrit. The use 
of the locative without év.is much more common in Homer than 
in the later Greek. In the modern Greek vernacular indeed the 
locative disappears along with the instrumental and dative before 
eis and the accusative. As to e it adds so little to the locative 
case that it is not surprising to find it so frequently used, especially 
as the locative, instrumental and dative all used the same endings. 
Thus we may compare 76 rAoapiw 7AAMov (Jo. 21:8) with & mrolw 
(Mt. 14:18), védare Barrifw (Lu. 3:16) with Barrifw & véare 
(Mt. 3:11), 7H eoxarn juépa (Jo. 6:40) with & rH ecxarn Huepa 
(Jo. 6:44). The tendency in the older Greek was constantly 
towards the use of éy, though the mere locative survived, es- 


1 Cf. Riem. et Goelzer, Synt., p. 196. 6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 109. 
2 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 182 f., following Gaedicke. 7 Hist. of Gk. Gr., p. 342. 

3 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., p. 307. 8 Sans. Gr., p. 101. 

4 Hoffmann, Gr. Dial., Bd. I, p. 303. 9 Giles, Man., etc., p. 329 f. 
5 


Riem. et Goelzer, Synt., p. 197. 








THE CASES (IITQ=EIS) 521 


pecially in some constructions. In Mt. 13:52 MSS. vary be- 
tween the mere locative 77 Bacreia and & with locative and els 
with accusative. 

(c) Puace. This was probably the original locative. Place of 
rest was put in the locative without a preposition. As already 
indicated, this usage abounds in Homer.! Some of these distinc- 
tively locative forms persisted in the Greek as in the Latin. Thus 
olxot, “louot, Mapabar., *AOnvnc, Ovipacr, humi, Corinthi, Romae 
(at). Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 226) thinks that xayai is dative. 
Indeed the locative forms and the dative forms used as locative, 
after the blending of the three case-forms into one, still occur in 
Pindar side by side.” The orators up to the time of Demosthenes 
use the mere locative frequently. The AXolic* has pécou=& péow 
(cf. otxoc and oixw). But the rule in Attic literary prose is to use a 
preposition with the locative of place. Thus é& ’A@jvas (1 Th. 
3:1), & otk (1 Cor. 11:34)=‘at home’ and usually & 76 otkw 
(Jo. 11:20). But observe Ayotats reprerecey (Lu. 10 : 30), where 
the resultant idea is ““among”’ and zepi is used with the verb in 
composition, but none the less it is the locative. Blass> indeed 
remarks that the ‘‘local dative’ does not occur in the N. T. He 
means the pure locative of place without a preposition, not con- 
sidering the adverb xix» (Mk. 3 : 34), and possibly yauat (Jo. 
18:6). We have indeed €répa 66 éxBarodoa (Jas. 2 : 25), possibly 
instrumental. Cf. the figurative usage in 2 Pet. 2:15, etc. Itis 
indeed a very short step to the figurative usage, ropevecOar rats 
ddots a’tav (Ac. 14 : 16), unde rots ecw mepirarety (Ac. 21 : 21), 
oTo.xovow Tots ixveow (Ro.4:12). I think that we have the pure 
locative also in 74 mdovapiw AAOov (Jo. 21:8), bdaTe Barrif~w (Lu. 
3:16), kaBapicas 7 NovTpS Tod vdaros (Eph. 5 : 26), 7S Ovoracrnpiw 
mapedpevovtes (1 Cor. 9:18). Cf. also éaéOnxav atrod rH Kedadf (Jo. 
19:2), ddtvatos rots mocivy (Ac. 14:8). Hence it is overstating 
it to assert that the locative of place without prepositions has 
entirely disappeared from the N. T. The scarcity of this usage 
in comparison with Homer is in perfect harmony with the lin- 
guistic development. Moulton® indeed finds the locative of place 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 100. Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 221; 
Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 403; K.-G., I, p. 441. 

2 Giles, Man., etc., p. 330. 

3 Main, Loc. Expr. in the Attic Orators (1892), p. 231. 

4 Meister, Dialec., Bd. II, p. 193. 5 Gr. of N.: Te Gk pv 119. 

6 Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153. Cf. also ib., 1901, p. 438, for ’EXevotn, Letr. 220 
(iv/A.D.). 


522 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in inscriptions as late as the sixth century a.p., B.C.H., 1908, 
p. 335, 7@ TUB. 

(d) Timm. It is expressed much more persistently with the 
mere locative. It has outlived the usage as to place and is “fairly 
frequent’’! in the N. T. Cf. Sanskrit, Latin, older Greek, Anglo- 
Saxon. Here, of course, time is regarded from the point of view of 
a point, not of duration (accusative). But the accusative is mak- 
ing inroads on the locative and is already used occasionally for 
a point of time. See Accusative. For papyri examples take ro?s 
madavots xpovos B.U. 903 (ii/A.D.) and vyevecios, yauos B.U. 1 
(ili/A.D.), Moulton, Cl. Rev., April, 1904, and Dec., 1901. See also 
TH avaBace, O.P. 742 (ii/B.c.). Observe the difference between the 
accusative (7d caB8Batov jobxacav) and the locative (rH 6€ md Tov 
caBBarwv j\Oav) and the genitive (épApov Balews) all in the same 
sentence (Lu. 24:1). The accusative is easily differentiated from 
both the locative and the genitive. As between the locative and 
the genitive the matter is not quite so clear. Brugmann? indeed 
thinks that originally there was little difference. The difference 
lies in the essential meaning of the two cases. The locative is a 
point and the genitive is the case of genus. Thus in Mt. 24 : 20 
we have tva uy yevntar ) duy? budv Xetuvos unde caBBarw. It is not 
mere hair-splitting to note that winter is here set over against sum- 
mer (time within which) and that Sabbath is the point of time. In 
practical result the difference is very slight, but it is hardly just to 
regard the two usages as without difference. Cf. vuxros (Mt. 25: 
6), vuxrt (Mk. 14 : 30), vixra (Ac. 26:7). Karp (Lu. 20:10) for 
‘in due time’ may be illustrated by 7@ déovre xarpG, O.P. IV, 729, 5, 
and 74 rijs émwpas Karp, 1b., 11. As further examples of the mere 
locative we may note the various instances of juépa. So rH Tpit 
juépa (Mt. 20:19), rH wad caBBarwv (Jo. 20:1), 7H rpwrn fueépa 
tov aviywv (Mk. 14:12), rH quéoa rH dydon (Ac. 7:8), TH eoxarn 
nuepa (Jo. 6:40), rota jueoa (Mt. 24 : 42), F Auéoa (Lu. 17: 29 f.), 
taxTh uépa (Ac. 12:21), TH quepa exeivn (Jo. 20:19), 7H Ertoton 
nuepa (Ac. 7:26), 7H Exouévn fuépa (Ac. 21:26), and even *yépa 
kal juépa (2 Cor. 4:16). The substantive is not expressed in 79 
éripwoxovon (Mt. 28:1) and 7H é&fs (Ac. 21:1)2 Cf. also onpepov 
tavTn TH vuxtt (Mk. 14 : 30), where the adverb is accusative, but 
the substantive locative. With some of these phrases é is also 


1 Blass, Gr. of Nic leGle pao, | 

2 Griech. Gr., p. 405. Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 223. | 

* Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 120, for careful discussion. Cf. Abbott, 
JONAS Dp ara 





THE CASES (IITQ=EI>) 523 


found as with ratry (Lu. 19 : 42), éxeivp (Lu. 6 : 23), dyddn (Lu. 1: 
59), wed (Lu. 20:1), éoxaryn (Jo. 6:44), with juépa and caBBarwv 
(Lu. 4 : 16), jyépa and genitive (Lu. 4 : 25), with ééfs (Lu. 7 : 11), 
where W. H. read in text & 76 rather than & 77. The MSS., 
especially D, vary a good deal. Nvxzi occurs without & (Lu. 
12 : 20) and with & (Mt. 26:31). So also we find caSBarw (Mt. 
24:20), caBBaow (Mk. 2 : 24), but also & with each (Mt. 12 : 2; 
Mk. 2:23). With &pa we have both dpa (Lu. 2:38) and & 
(Lu. 12:12). Once more ¢vdaxj occurs without & (Mt. 14 : 25) 
and with & (Lu. 12:38). With éros we have é& once (as Lu. 
3:1) and without & twice (Jo. 2:20; Ac. 13:20), but these 
two examples (éreow reocepaxovta, ws Erecw TeTpakoctos Kal revTh- 
xovra) are probably associative-instrumental.! Cf. rpoBeByxdras H6n 
tots é€reow, Tb.P.1 (ii/A.D.) with Lu. 1:7 &. Moulton observes that 
it is hard sometimes to draw the line between the locative and the 
instrumental (Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901). With éop74 again we note the 
mere locative (Lu. 2 : 41) or usually év (Jo. 2 : 23). See also xatpots 
idtous (1 Tim. 6 : 15), but usually & xaipd (Mt. 11: 25, ete.). Xpdvos 
has only é& (as Ac. 1 : 6) save the associative-instrumental usage 
like ixav@ xpovw (Ac. 8:11). Observe also rots yevecios atrod 
(Mk. 6:21). So again érépars yeveats (Eph. 3:5), but & in Mk. 
8:38. Nuvi (chiefly in Paul, as Ro. 3:21) is a locative form (cf. 
ovxt). Other locative adverbs to note are dei (2 Cor. 6:10), exe? 
(Mt. 6:21), wépvor (2 Cor. 8:10), rpwi (Mk. 16: 2). 

(e) LocativE witH ApsrectivEes. Thus we note of rrwyol 7d 
mvebwate (Mt. 5:3), xadapol 77 kapdia (5:8), adtvatos tots rool (Ac. 
14:8), orepeot rH miorer (1 Pet. 5:9), vwOpol ravs axoats (Heb. 5: 11), 
meptToun oxtranuepos (Ph. 3:5), édevOepor TH Sixacoc’vy (Ro. 6 : 20), 
tamewos TH Kapdia (Mt. 11:29), amepituntror Kapdiars (Ac. 7:51), 
ayia Kal owpate kal mvebpare (1 Cor. 7:34). Cf. Ro. 12: 10-138. 
In Blass-Debrunner, p. 118, these examples are treated as instru- 
mental. 

(f) LocatTivE witH VERBS. Cf. dedeuévos 7S mvebyare (Ac. 20: 
22), repiBeBAnyevous iuariors Nevxots (Rev. 4:4, marg. év). In Ro. 12: 
10-13 note the various examples of the locative with participles, 
though tats ypelats Kowvwvotytes is probably instrumental. Cf. also 
éoxoTwmevor TH dtavoia (Eph. 4 : 18), Cworonbels rvebpari (1 Pet. 3 : 18), 
oxnuat. evpdeis (Ph. 2:8). We seem to have the locative in 
_Katepyacato bytv (2 Cor. 7:11), but usually év appears in such 
examples as év éuoi (Gal. 1: 24). Further examples with verbs are 


1 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 405; Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., p. 225; Moulton, 
Prol., pe 10s 


524 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


rots @eow mepirarety (Ac. 21:21), ropevouern 7 PdOBw (Ac. 9: 31), 
Gray Teipacpots mwepiméonte mokidos (Jas. 1:2), Anorats meprerecey 
(Lu. 10:30), éorepeotvro 7H miore Kal émepicoevoy 7H apiOue@ (Ac. 
16:5), Kaunre tats puxats (Heb. 12:3), eupéeverr rH miorer (Ac. 
14 : 22), éripérwow 7H amroria (Ro. 11: 23; cf. 22), vxevtprcOjoovrat 
7H dia édaia (Ro. 11: 24), 7G o@ dvouare erpodnreboapev (Mt. 7: 22; 
cf. é£eBadouev also), féwy 7TH mvebuare (Ac. 18: 25; cf. Lu. 10:21 
and Mk. 5:29), rH O\tWer brouevovres (Ro. 12:12), and perhaps 
even Barrioe tuas mvetmate ayiw (Mk. 1:8). See Ac. 16:5. For 
the so-called instrumental use of é (like év waxaipn, Mt. 26 : 52) 
see the chapter on Prepositions (cf. also Instrumental Case). 
As a matter of fact é& always has the locative, and this use of év 
has the locative also. The activity of the verb is conceived as 
finding expression in the object mentioned. It is not a mere 
Hebraism, for the papyri have it as indeed the earlier Greek oc- 
casionally. But as a practical matter this use of é& with the 
locative was nearly equivalent to the instrumental case. The 
use of ouotoyew & (Mt. 10:32=Lu. 12:8) Moulton (Prol., p. 
104) considers a Semiticism due to the common Aramaic original. 
Cf. the usual dative (Heb. 138: 15). 

(g) THe LocativE witH Susstantives. Cf. Heb. 11: 12, 
Kalas Ta GoTpa TOD olpavod TG TANI. So in Col. 2:14, 76 kab’ judy 
xelpoypadov tots doyuaow, the adjective is used as a substantive. 
In 1 Cor. 14: 20 we have the locative with substantive, verb and 
adjective, pu madia yiverbe tats ppeciv, GAG TH Kakia vyTiatere, Tats 
6€ ppecty TéAELOL yivedOe. 

(h) THE LocatTivE witH Prepositions. Just because the 
prepositions that were used with the locative were only ‘‘ adverbial 
elements strengthening and directing its meaning’! they were 
very numerous. Originally nearly all the prepositions occurred 
with the locative. Thus in Homer and epic and lyric poetry gen- 
erally we meet with the locative with audi, ava, wera (Buck, Class. 
Phil. I1, 264), and when the so-called dative is found in Greek 
with &, éri, rapé, repli, pos, bd, it is really the locative case.2. But 
with a compound verb the case may not always be locative, as 
instance mpoxeiwevoy uty (Heb. 12:1). A number of the preposi- 
tions like audi, avri, ev (vi), ert, rept, mpds (arpori) are themselves 
in the locative case. Cf. the locative adverbs of time already 
mentioned and ’EBpatort (Jo. 5:2), ‘EAAnuori (Jo. 19: 20), xbxrw 
(Mk. 3 : 34), the conjunction kai, etc. There are only four prepo- 
sitions in the N. T. that use the locative. As examples note & 76 

1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 103, 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 101. 


a a ee ee 


THE CASES (IITQSEIS) 525 


Topdavn (Mt. 3:6), emt Pipas (Mt. 24:33), rapa 7G oravpS rod 
"Incod (Jo. 19:25), mpds 7G wvnueitw (Jo. 20:11). But of these 
apos has the locative only 6 times, apa 50, while éri has it 176 
times.! ’Ev, of course, having only the locative, is very common. 
One may note here é& mpwros (1 Cor. 15:3) almost like an 
adverb. 

({) THe PREGNANT CONSTRUCTION OF THE LocaTivE. It is 
common in the N. T. with &, as the accusative with els after verbs 
of motion or rest. This matter comes up for discussion again 
under the head of Prepositions, but a few words are perhaps needed 
here. The identity of é& and és in origin and early usage must be 
borne in mind when one approaches these two prepositions. Cf. 
6 eis Tov aypov in Mk. 18:16. On the other hand note 6 éuBdyas 
mer’ Euod TH xEtpa ev TS TpvBAiw (Mt. 26: 23). Here Mark (14: 20) 
has els ro rpuBAiov. This interchange of & and els is a feature of the 
LXX (Moulton, Prol., p. 245). Originally there was no difference, 
and finally év vanishes before es in modern Greek. Each writer 
looks at the matter in his own way. Cf. English vernacular, “come 
in the house,” “jump in the river,” etc. So also Mt. (3:6) has 
éBarrifovto év T@ ’lopddavy wotaua, while Mk. (1:9) reads éGarrio#y 
eis Tov "lopdavnv. Cf. év oikw éoriv, text of Mk. 2:1 and marg. eis 
otxoy éorwv. This same pregnant idiom appears with zapa as oradca 
éricw rapa Tovs 7odas a’Tod (Lu. 7:38). See also Mk. 4:1. Cf. 
again éu@davre eis 7d wAotoy (Mt. 8: 23). But observe the locative 
with & in composition (Ro. 11 : 24). With dvoua we have the mere 
locative (Mt. 7: 22), €v and the locative (Mt. 21 : 9), ézi and loca- 
tive (Mt. 18 : 5), ets and accusative (Mt. 10 : 41; 28: 19).2 Cf. also 
Mt. 12:41. 

XI. The Instrumental (“‘Instrumental Dative”) Case (jf 
Xpynotikh Tots). 

(a) THe Term INstRuMENTAL. As applied to case it is mod- 
ern and the adjective itself appears first in the fourteenth century.’ 
The Hindu grammarians, however, recognised this case.4 There 
are not wanting signs indeed that it survived in the Greek as a sep- 
arate case-form. Meister® concludes that in the Cyprian dialect 
the instrumental was still a separate case-form (a “living” case). 
He cites dpa, ebxwda, besides odv riya, and in Kihner-Gerth® we 
find otxor locative, oikw instrumental, and oikw dative. Other exam- 
ples are dua, dixa, taxa in later Greek, not to mention the many ad- 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 89. 


2) Blass, Gr. of N. TT. Gks p. 123 f. 5 Gk. Dial., II, p. 295. 
$ Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 207. 6 I, p. 405. 


526 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


verbs! in —a and —y (-a, —7) like xpudj, AaOpa, oryH, Bia, etc. This 
corresponds with the Sanskrit singular ending, and the plural bhis 
may be compared with the Homeric dx (dw), as Geddu, Oeddiv. But in 
Homer one must note that these endings for singular and plural 
are used for the locative, ablative, and possibly for the dative 
also. It is not always easy to draw the line of distinction between 
the locative and instrumental in Greek after the forms blended.’ 
Sometimes indeed a word will make good sense, though not the 
same sense, either as locative, dative or instrumental, as 77 de&a 
Tod Oeod tWwhels (Ac. 2: 33; cf. also 5:31). The grammars have 
no Greek term for the instrumental case, but I have ventured to 
call it xpnorixy rors. The increasing use of prepositions (é, 6:4, 
meta) makes the mere instrumental a disappearing case in the 
N. T. as compared with the earlier Greek,‘ but still it is far from 
dead. 

(b) Syncreristic? It is a matter of dispute as to whether this 
instrumental case is not itself a mixed case combining an old asso- 
ciative or comitative case with the later instrumental. Both of 
these ideas are present in the Sanskrit case (Whitney, Sanskrit 
Grammar, p. 93). On the whole, however, one is constrained to 
doubt the existence of this so-called comitative case. Most of the 
difference is due to the distinction between persons (association, 
accompaniment) and things (means, implement, instrument). 
Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, I, p. 231. Hence neither term covers 
exactly the whole situation. We have a similar combination in 
our English ‘with’? which is used in both senses. So also the 
Greek ovv (cf. Latin cwm) and even pera (€&n\aTe pera paxarpav 
kat EI\wv, Mk. 14:48). In Mk. 14: 48, per’ abrot — pera paxarpav, 
both senses occur together. But we may agree that the associa- 
tive was the original usage out of which the instrumental idea 
was easily and logically developed.> The comitative usage, for 
instance, is very common in Homer® and Herodotus.’ 

(c) Puace. There is no example of this usage in the N. T. 
except zavraxj (W. H. text, Ac. 21:28). In Jas. 2 : 25, érépa 656 


1 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 99. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 239. 

3 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 488. 

4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 116. The mod. Gk., of course, does not use 
the instr. case at all, but only ye (wera). Cf. Thumb, Hanae papas: 

5 Giles, Man., p. 334. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 428. 

6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 99. 

7 Helbing, Uber fer Gebrauch des echten und sociativen Dativs bei Herod., 
p. 58 f. 





THE CASES (IITOZEIZ) 527 


éxBadodoa, we probably -have the locative, though the instr. is: 
possible. 

(d) Time. But we do find examples of the associative-instru-_ 
mental used with expressions of time. This is indeed a very old 
use of the instrumental, as Brugmann! and Delbriick? show. The 
Sanskrit had it also as the time ‘‘by the lapse of which anything 
is brought about.’”* The singular, like xpévw tkavg (Lu. 8 : 27; 
Ac. 8: 11), finds parallel in the papyri,’ as is seen also in Pindar, 
Euripides, Aristophanes, Thucydides.’ For the papyri note zroAXots 
xpovors N.P. 50 (iii/a.D.), xpovm A.P. 77 (ii/a.p.). Cf. Polybius 
Xxx, 12, moddots xpovors (Moulton, Prol., p. 76). There is no 
doubt about the plural instrumental in Ro. 16 : 25, xpdvors aiwviors, 
a parallel to which Moulton® finds in the epistolary formula in 
the papyri, éppdcbai ce edxouar roddols xpovors. He rightly doubts 
the necessity of appealing to the Latin as W. Schulze’ does for the 
explanation of the use of the plural, since the classical 7d xpovw 
- could easily give the impulse. 

In Jo. 2 : 20, reccepaxovta kal €& Ereow oixodoundyn, we have the in- 
strumental also, though, of course, this might be looked at as a 
locative, the whole period regarded as a point of time. In an ex- 
ample like zoAXots xpovors cuvnpraKer adtov (Lu. 8 : 29) we probably 
have the instrumental also, though here the locative would give a 
good idea, ‘on many occasions’ (‘oftentimes’ Rev. V.), whereas 
the marg. (‘of a long time’) gives the instrumental idea. For the 
instrumental idea Moulton® cites from Letronne (p. 220, fourth 
century A.D.) modXots totepov xpovors. See also ws éreoe TeTpakociors 
kal wevtnxovta (Ac. 13 : 20). Cf. also macats rats juépacs (Lu. 1 : 75), 
but marg. of W. H. has accusative. As Moulton® observes, only the 
context can decide which is locative and which instrumental in 
such examples and he suggests that this uncertainty had some- 
thing to do with the increasing use of év to make the locative clear 
and distinct from instrumental or dative. ‘Speakers of Greek were 
certainly beginning to feel that they could not trust the dative 
out alone, and we can understand the occasional employment of 
nursemaid év in places where she would have been better left at 


1 Griech. Gr., p. 410. 2 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 246. 

8 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 94. 

4 Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 438; 1904, p. 153; Prol., p. 75. 

5 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 246. ee Probe Da cps 

7 Gr. Lat., p. 14. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121, calls this “duration of 
time” “unclassical,’’ but incorrectly as is already shown. 

8 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 488. 9 Tb. 


528. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


home, or replaced by oiv.’’ Blass! comments on the frequency of 
the instrumental with expressions of time in Josephus with no 
perceptible difference between it and the accusative. One can 
hardly agree to Blass’? explanation of the instrumental of time 
that it is due to the disinclination of the writer to put another 
accusative beside the direct object of the verb. Certainly the 
accusative is the most frequent idiom in the N. T. for the idea of 
extension of time, as can be seen in Mk. 2:19; Lu. 13:8; Ac. 
13:18; Rev. 20:3, ete. In Jo. 14:9 W.H. have tocodrov xpovov 
in the text and put tocottw xpovw in the marg. In Lu. 8:27 some 
MSS. have instead of the instrumental xpovw tkavé the ablative éx 
(a0) ypovey tkavaerv. 

(e) THe AgssoctaTIvE IpEA. The idea of association alone is 
responsible for a good many examples, chiefly with verbs, though 
adjectives are not wanting. Substantives cut no figure at all 
according to Blass,? for ris xowwvia pwrt mpos oxdros (2 Cor. 6 : 14) 
is an example of the pure dative (cf. also Lu. 5 : 10; 2 Cor. 6 : 16), 
and in Ro. 15 : 26 we have eis ro’s rrwxols and in 1 Jo. 1:38, 6, 7 
uel’ Hudv. But another example in 2 Cor. 6:14, ris pero? dixatootvy 
kal dvouia, comes much closer to the substantive use of the associa- 
tive-instrumental. But an undoubted example of a substantive 
followed by the associative-instrumental appears in els bravtnow 
T@ "Inood (Mt. 8 : 34). So es aravrnow juty (Ac. 28:15). Cf. also 
Jo. 12:13 (ai7g) and 1 Mace. 3:11 eis cuvavtnow ai7d. There 
is nothing in this construction out of harmony with the Greek 
idiom. The verb has the associative-instrumental. The geni- 
tive with this substantive occurs in Mt. 27: 32°(6 text) and 1 Th. 
4:17 (but 6 text has associative-instrumental). Cf. Moulton, 
Prol., p. 14. There is no doubt as to the adjectives ctupopdos 
and obudutos. Thus 76 cua obupopdov 7S compare (Ph. 3 : 21) and 
obupuTo. TH duormparte (Ro. 6 : 5), but cbupopdos has the genitive ris 
eixdvos in Ro. 8 : 29 like a substantive. The other compounds in 
ctv are treated as substantives* with the genitive, like cvvaryud- 
AwTos, suyyerns, guvepyos, alvTpodos, wéToxos (Heb. 1:9). But note 
évavtios avtots (Mk. 6: 48), brevayriov nuty (Col. 2:14). With verbs 
the associative-instrumental is very common in the N. T. as in 
the older Gk. The most important examples will be given in 
illustration. ’Axodovféw is a common instance, as 7KoAolOncav abT@ 
(Mk. 1:18). Cf. also cuvax. (Mk. 5:37). Rather oddly éroyar is 
not so used, but once we find ovveirero aité (Ac. 20:4). So 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 121. Cf. Schmidt, de Jos. elocut., p. 382 f. 
2° Ib. BNGrsoteNe Le Gkemacios asi br 





a —— 


THE CASES (IITQZEI>) 529 


duedeyero abrots (Ac. 20:7), though rpés (Mk. 9 : 34) also is used. 
Other compounds of 6.4 with this case are dvaddaynOec 7S ddEAPGO 
(Mt. 5:24), dreBAnOn airG (Lu. 16:1), 7G dtaBdr\w Sraxpirdpevos 
(Ju. 9), rots “lovdaiows Sduaxarndeyxero (Ac. 18:28). But closely 
allied to these words are karn\d\aynuev 7S Oe (Ro. 5:10), cou 
kpidnvar (Mt. 5 : 40), apire airg (Ac. 24:26), which last may have 
mpos and accusative (Lu. 24:14). Then again note érepofvyobvres 
(2 Cor. 6:14), rots mvevuarixots éxowvwvncay (Ro. 15 : 27), xo\dNGobar 
atrots (Ac. 5: 18), evrvyxaver 7G OeG (Ro. 11:2). Cf. further avdpi 
dederar (Ro. 7:2) and pemryperny mupi (Rev. 15:2). In Rev. 8:4 
we may (R. V. dative) have the associative-instrumental! ra‘?s 
mpocevxats with avéBn. Moulton cites amodwow co 76 WyroTa 
doPnconevw opwriw, B.U. 69 (ii/A.D.) ‘with your next wages’ (Cl. 
Rev., Dec., 1901). Cf. the old Greek atrots avipadow and the 
“military dative’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 61). The compounds with 
avy that use this case are numerous. Thus cvdAdaBeobar (Lu. 5 : 7), 
auuBovrevoas Tots ‘lovéaios (Jo. 18:14), though this might be a 
dative (cf. cupBaivw and cupudeper), cvvedwvnby butv (Ac. 5:9; cf. 
15. :15),? wea Pox ovvabdodvtes TH wioTe (Ph. 1:27, two examples 
probably of the instrumental, the first of manner), cvvynxodoife 
a’t@ (Mk. 14:51), af cvvavaBaoa atrd (Mk. 15:41), cvvavexewro 
TO "Inood (Mt. 9:10), uy cvvavapiyrvcba aitd (2 Th. 3:14), ovr- 
avaravowuar buiv (Ro. 15 : 32), cvrnvrncer aita (Lu. 9 : 37), wor our- 
avTraBnrac (Lu. 10:40; ef. Ro. 8 : 26), cuvarofavety cor (Mk. 14: 
31), od cuvarwdeTo Tots ameOnoacw (Heb. 11:31), cvvéBaddov aire 
(Ac. 17:18), tutv cvvBacitrebowuey (1 Cor. 4:8), cuvnyepOnte To 
XpiorS (Col. 3:1), cvveecndOev 7 ’Inood (Jo. 18 : 15), cvvetrero ab7a 
(Ac. 20 : 4), cuvnpye rots épyous (Jas. 2 : 22), cuvidOev abrots (Ac. 9: 
39), cvvecBier abrots (Lu. 15 : 2), cvvevdoxetre tots Epyous (Lu. 11 : 48), 
ovvevwxotuevor tuiv (2 Pet. 2:13), ovveiyero 7G oyw (Ac. 18: 5), 
ouvinoouey ate (Ro. 6:8), cuvénretvy atta (Mk. 8:11), cvvefwo- 
rolinoey TS Xpiote (Eph. 2:5), cvvpdouac 7S vouw (Ro. 7: 22), ovr- 
rapevtes at (Col. 2:12), cvverrdras ard (Lu. 9 : 32), cvyxabqpevor 
avrots (Ac. 26:30), cuvvkaxoré0noov 76 ebayyediw (2 Tim. 1:8), 
ovvkaxovxetobae 7S Aa (Heb. 11: 25), cwvcatarefeyevos 77} Bovdy (Lu. 
23:51), wh cvvKexepacpévous TH mlore Tots axovcacw (Heb. 4 : 2, two 
examples of the instrumental), cuvkowwvetre Tots Epyous (Eph. 5: 
11), ouvkpivovtes éavrods éavrots (2 Cor. 10:12), ovvAadodvytes 74 
"Inood (Mk. 9:4), cuvuaprupe? 7O rvebpate (Ro. 8 : 16), cvvodetovres 
ait® (Ac. 9:7), cuvopopotca rH ouvaywyf (Ac. 18:7), cvvrabjoa 


1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 75. 
2 Considered peculiar by Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 114. 


530 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tais dobevelars (Heb. 4:15), cuvrapdvres uty (Ac. 25': 24), ov- 
ereupauey adtots (2 Cor. 8:22), cuveropevovro ait (Lu. 7:11), 
cuvatavpwhévtos aiT@ (Jo. 19 : 32), cvvororxet 7H viv ’lepovoadny (Gal. 
4:25), wh) ovvoxnuatifecde TO aidve toiTtw (Ro. 12:2), cuvruxety 
att® (Lu. 8:19), cuvurexpiOnoay att (Gal. 2:18), cvvexatpov airy 
(Lu. 1:58), cuvxpdvrac Dayapeirars (Jo. 4:9), though xpdaouar uses 
the strict instrumental usually; a rather long list surely, but one 
not in vain, if one gets a just idea of the N. T. usage. Some of 
these verbs occur frequently and some have zpés or pera. 

(f) Wits Worps oF LIikENESS AND IpENTITY. We find this 
usage with several adjectives. Thus duos avOpwrw (Lu. 6 : 48) 
and always, save the accusative in Rev. 14:14 and in 1:18 
(true text). In Jo. 8:55 some MSS. actually have éuoos btuav 
instead of duty. Cf. our vulgar “the likes of you.”’ So also toous 
jucy (Mt. 20:12) and icdripov juty riorw (2 Pet. 1:1). ‘O adros 
with the instrumental is found once only, év kal 76 abro 7H EEvpnuevn 
(1 Cor. 11:5). In 1 Th. 2:14 we find ra atra xadws, and in Ph. 
1:30 rov airov ayGva oiov. Several verbs are used the same way. 
So éoxey avdpi (Jas. 1:23), rots adeddots duowwOjvac (Heb. 2:17), 
tapououatere Tadors (Mt. 23 : 27), érperev aitd (Heb. 2:10). Some 
MSS. have souoiws a’t# in Mt. 22:39. In Rev. 4:3 6poros dpacer 
Aw we have two instrumental examples. 

(g) Manner. It is expressed by the instrumental case. This, 
like the other uses of the case in the N. T., is in harmony with 
ancient usage,! not to say that of the xowy. Some N. T. adverbs 
illustrate this usage well, like énuocia (Ac. 16:37), eix@ (1 Cor. 
15°12), :ibia (1 Cor. 12: iL) expe pbs ot 2) Ade oan V1 panes ie 
mavouxel (Ac. 16:84), ravrdnbei (Lu. 23:18), ravrTn (Ac. 24:38), 
ae(j (Mk. 6:33), raya (Ro. 5:7). But the usage is abundant 
outside of adverbs, chiefly with verbs, but also with adjectives 
and even with substantives. Thus we find réxva dice: dpyjs (Eph. 
2:3) and Kirpws 7G yeve (Ac. 4 : 86; cf. also 18 : 2, dvouare ’Axbdar, 
Ilovrixov 7S yever). See also the participle 7 dvr (Ro. 7: 23). Ce. 
also ¢tce. in Gal. 2:15 and 74 rpoowrw in Gal. 1:22. Here are 
some of the chief examples with verbs: yapure weréexw (1 Cor. 10 : 30), 
Tpocevxouern axataxahitrw TH Kehady (1 Cor. 11:5), repirunfre 7 
ee (Ac. 15: 1), 7H rpobéce rpocuevery (Ac. 11:23), b74 ravi TpoTe, 
eire tpodace elite adnOela, Xpiotos KatayyeddNerar (Ph. 1:18, all 
three examples), dvaxexaduupery tpoowrw Katomrpifouevor (2 Cor. 
3:18). Blass notes also paricuacw atrov é\aBov (Mk. 14: 65) as a 
vulgarism which finds a parallel in a papyrus? of the first century 

1 K:-G;, 1) p.43o. 2 Blass, Gr. of N..T. Gk., p. 118. 


THE CASES (IITQSEIS) 531 


A.D., Kovdddrors EAaPev. Cf. 77H Bia, B.U. 45 (iii/a.p.). But often pera 
and the genitive (uera Bias, Ac. 5 : 26), év and the locative (é déxa 
xiao, Lu. 14: 31), xara and the accusative (Ac. 15:11) or 
the mere accusative (Mt. 23: 37) occur rather than the instru- 
mental. There is one usage in the N. T. that has caused some 
trouble. It is called! “Hebraic” by some of the grammarians. 
The instances are rather numerous in the N. T., though nothing 
like so common as in the LX X.? Conybeare and Stock quote Plato 
to show that it is, however, an idiom in accordance with the genius 
of the Greek language. Thus ddyw eye, detywr guyf, dboet 
mepuxucav, etc. They call it the ‘cognate dative.’”’? That will do if 
instrumental is inserted in the place of dative. Moulton? admits 
that this idiom, like BXérovres BXefere (Mt. 13:14), is an example 
of ‘‘translation Greek,’ but thinks that a phrase like é£oX\cpetoar 
oixk é&wACpevoay (Josh. 17:18) is much more like the Hebrew 
infinitive absolute which is reproduced by this Greek instru- 
mental or participle. Blass‘ insists that the classical parallels 
youm youetv, dvyn devyev are not true illustrations, but merely 
accidentally similar, an overrefinement in the great grammarian, 
I conceive. The Latin has the idiom also, like curro curriculo. 
Here are some of the important N.T. instances: axof daxovcere (Mt. 
13:14), avadeuate avebeuaticayey (Ac. 23:14), &umvios &urmacbh- 
govrat (Ac. 2:17), émOupia érebiunoa (Lu. 22 : 15), Oavarw rerevtarw 
(Mt. 15 : 4), dpxw dpooe (Ac. 2 : 30), e&eornoav éxotdcer peyadn (Mk. 
5 : 42), wapayyedia mapnyyeithapev (Ac. 5 : 28), rpocevxh rpoonbtéato 
(Jaseonilsevapaexcipen(JO,o0.29; ci..1 Pet: 1:8). Cf. also on- 
Hatvwy rolw Oavatw jhuedregv arobvncxev (Jo. 18:32) and onuaivwr 
tolw Oavatw dotace tov Oeov (Jo. 21: 19), where the idiom seems 
more normal. Blass® observes that this usage ‘‘intensifies the 
verb in so far as it indicates that the action is to be understood 
as taking place in the fullest sense.’ In Ro. 8 : 24 we more likely 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 75. 

2 C. and S., p. 60 f. 

3 Prol., p. 75f. Cf. @avov Oavarw in Homer. 

aeGroriN @ by Gki pe L19: 4 

5 Ib. Thack. (Jour. of Theol. Stu., July, 1908, p. 598 f.) shows that in 
the Pentateuch the Hebrew infinitive absolute was more frequently rendered 
by the instr. case, while in the Books of Samuel and Kings the participle 
is the more usual. In the LXX as a whole the two methods are about equal. 
On p. 601 he observes that the N. T. has no ex. of the part. so used except in 
O. T. quotations, while several instances of the instr. occur apart from quota- 
tions, as in Lu, 22:15; Jo. 3:29; Ac. 4:17; 5 : 28; 23 : 14; Jas.5:17. See 
also Thack., Gr., p. 48. 


532 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


have the means than the manner. Cf. apxetoOe rots d6Wwviors in 
Lu. 3:14. 

(h) Decree oF DirrErRENcE (Measure kin to idea of man- 
ner). The accusative is sometimes used here also with the com- 
parative, as woAd paddov (Heb. 12:9). But in Lu. 18:39 we have 
TOAA® wardov (cf. Mt. 6:30). Cf. roAdG wadrov, P. Par. 26 (11/B.c.). 
In Ph. 1:23 we find the instrumental with the double compara- 
tive 7oAAG waddov Kpetooov. In particular observe tocottw pwaddov 
bow Bdéemere (Heb. 10:25) which corresponds to the English idiom 
“the more, the less” in “the more one learns, the humbler he 
grows.” As a matter of fact the English ‘the’ here is instru- 
mental also, as is seen in the Anglo-Saxon dy. Cf. also rocobrw 
kpeittwv (Heb. 1:4). 

({) Cause. The instrumental may be used also to express the 
idea of cause, motive or occasion. This notion of ground wavers 
between the idea of association and means. Here are some illus- 
trations: éy@ 6€ Awd @de awod\dAvwar (Lu. 15:17), wa oravpd rod 
Xpiorod pr) duwKwvrac (Gal. 6 : 12), AdTy Katarob7 (2 Cor. 2:7), Tuvés 
dé 7H ouvnbeia EoOiovow (1 Cor. 8:7), od dtexpifn TH amuotia adda 
éveduvauwdn TH wiote (Ro. 4: 20), 77 amcoria é£exNacOnoar (Ro. 11: 20), 
prenOnre 7H TovTwy areBia (Ro. 11:30), 7G buerépw edéer tva Kal avrot 
vov édenOdow (11:31), uy Eevifecde 7H & duty Tupwoe (1 Pet. 4: 12), 
TovavTats yap Ovotats evaperretrac (Heb. 13 : 16), 74 ut} evpery we Titov 
(2 Cor. 2:18), ebdoxjoavres 7H dbuxig (2 Th. 2:12). In 1 Cor. 9: 
7 we have tis orpareverar idiors oWwviors rote; Cf. TH brepBodrAH (2 Cor. 
12:7). But some verbs in the N. T. prefer a preposition for this 
idea, but not with the instrumental case. Thus 7yadXiacev eri 
T@ Oe (Lu. 1:47), eerAnooovto éexl TH didaxq (Mt. 7:28), & col 
evdoxnoa (Mk. 1:11), evppativovto & Tots Epyos (Ac. 7:41). With 
Oavuatw we find ev (Lu. 1:21), éwi (Lu. 4: 22), repi (Lu. 2: 18), 
dua (Rev. 17: 7), not to mention ei (1 Jo. 3:18), dru (Lu. 11: 38).! 

(7) Means. But no usage of this case is more common than 
that of means. With things sometimes we call it means, with 
persons agent, though more often the agent is expressed by 
iro with genitive-ablative (cf. ab with the ablative in Latin). 
There is no essential difference in the root-idea. Donaldson (New 
Cratylus, p. 439) calls it the “implementive case.’’ This is, of 
course, an idiom found with verbs. Note especially ypdaouar (cf. 
Latin utor with instrumental, not ablative), 76 IlatAw xpnodpevos 
(Ac. 27:3), woAdAf mappnoia xpapca (2 Cor. 3:12), éav tis aird 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 118. Cf. for the pap. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
1901, p. 438. 


THE CASES (IITQSEIZ) 533 


voutuws xpqra (1 Tim. 1:8), in which examples we have both 
thing and person.! Cf. 1 Cor. 9:12, 15, etc. But see accusative 
in 1 Cor. 7:31. Among the many examples we can only select 
the most striking. Thus yy wore téwow rots 6¢0adpots (Mt. 13 : 15), 
éEEBarev Ta Trvebpata AOyw (Mt. 8:16), wédars Kal adboeor bebécOat 
(Mk. 5:4), Ywoxovres tats xepow (Lu. 6:1), rats Oprély ELEuaocev 
(Lu. 7:38), jredev 7S ptpw (b.), brvw (Lu. 9:32), didquare ma- 
padidws (Lu. 22:48), rats payloas é&eoraxévar abrots (Ac. 8:11), 
éxpicev atrov mvebpate kal duvape (Ac. 10:38), dvetrhev ’ldxwBov 
paxatipn (Ac. 12 : 2), dedauacrar 7H dice (Jas. 3:7), cvvarhyOn abrav 
7H vroxpice. (Gal. 2:13), rerAnpwyevovs aon dédikia, wovnpia, KTV. 
(Ro. 1:29), xdpiri eore cecwopevor (Eph. 2:5, 8), uw peOboxecbe 
oivw (Eph. 5:18), pepavticpevov atuare (Rev. 19 : 18), rvebuare (Ro. 
8 : 14), od POaprois, apyupiw 7} xpvoiw, EAvTpHONTE, GANG Tiwiw aiwaTe 
(1 Pet. 1:18f.), @ tus Hrrnra (2 Pet. 2:19), éodpayicOnte 7G 
avebpate (Eph. 1:18), rnAtixous duty ypdupaow eypava TH euh xeepl 
(Gal. 6:11, one dative and two instrumental cases). Cf. xara- 
Kpwovow aitov Oavatw (Mk. 10:33, but @avarov in D, and in Mt. 
20:18 & has eis Oavarov). See the frequent use of ricre in Heb. 
11, which is more than mere manner, though in verse 13 we 
have xara riorw. Moulton (Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901) cites dyA\woor 7 
Trolw ekepxer } Ovw, O.P. 112 (ili/iv a.v.). Cf. Jo. 19:40, dboviors 
meTa TOV apwuatwy for proximity of werd to the instrumental. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 76) notes “the remarkable instrumental in 
Ep. Diogn. 7, @ Tovs obpavods Exticev.”” Besides some examples are 
open to doubt. Thus xataxatoe rupli acBeorw (Mt. 3:12) may 
be either locative or instrumental. The same might be true of 
TO TAotapiw AAOov (Jo. 21:8) and éBarricey bdare (Ac. 1:5), though 
the locative is pretty clearly right here. Then again in Ac. 22: 
25, mpoerevvay tots tudow, we have either the instrumental or the 
dative. But in 2 Pet. 1:3 idta do kat aperq (marg. in W. H.) 
are clearly instrumental, not dative. In Ro. 8: 24, rH eAridu 
éawOnuev, we have either the modal instrumental or the instru- 
mental of means. Cf. also 1 Cor. 14:15. Blass? perhaps over- 
emphasizes the influence of the Heb. 2 on the N. T. Greek in what 
is called the instrumental use of e& (the case with & is always 
locative, historically considered). This is a classic idiom*® and 
the papyri give numerous illustrations‘ of it, though the Heb. 


1 In Herod. we find a double instr. with xpjc6a. Cf. Helbing, Der Instru- 
mental in Herod., 1900, p. 8. eC ET OLN S Waker Le ge 

3 K.-G., IL, p. 464f. 

4 Moulton, Prol., pp. 76, 104; Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153. 


534 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2 did make it more frequent in the LXX. Some of the uses 
of & and locative, like év waxaipy arododvra (Mt. 26 : 52), rodeunow 
év TH poudaia (Rev. 2:16), év dovw paxaipns aréOavov (Heb. 11: 37), 
are fairly equivalent to the pure instrumental case, as avet\ey pa- 
xaipn (Ac. 12: 2), recodvrar orouare paxaipns (Lu. 21: 24). But others 
without é in Blass’ list are more debatable and may be construed 
as merely locatives after all, as seen above. Besides the exam- 
ples already mentioned, wupt aducOnoerar (Mk. 9 : 49) may be com- 
pared with & rin a’ro apricere (9 : 50) and ev rim adtoOjoerar (Mt. 
5:13). See further Mt. 7:2 and é& paGdw Ow (1 Cor. 4: 21) 
which stands over against év ayarn mvebuati Te mpaiitytos. 

Some doubt remains as to whether the instrumental case is 
used for the agent. In the Sanskrit! the instrumental is a common 
idiom with a perfect passive verb or participle. But the Latin 
uses the dative in such an example as is seen by mzhi, not me. 
Most of the grammarians take the Greek passive perfect and verbal 
as the Latin with the dative.?- But Delbriick* recognises the doubt 
in the matter. The one example in the N. T. is in Lu. 23 : 15, 
ovdev &£vov Oavatov éotly merpayyuevoyv a’td. D here reads & aird and 
Blass‘ suggests that the right reading is without zerpayyevoy as in 
Ac. 25:5. It is possible also that in 2 Pet. 2:19, @ rus A7TyTaL, we 
have person, not thing, of whom (Am. St. V), not of what. Cf. 
also Jas. 3:7. One may mention here also as a possible instru- 
mental kayo ebpe0G bytv (2 Cor. 12 : 20), ws eyvwobn abrots (Lu. 24: 
35), adOn ayyeros (1 Tim. 3:16), but these are most probably 
true datives. The usual way of expressing the agent in the N. T. 
is bro for the direct agent and 6a for the intermediate agent, as 
in Mt. 1:22. But other prepositions are also used, like azo (Ac. 
2: 22), é (Jo:-1: 18), -€ (Col. 1:17), wapé (Jo. 1: 6), ete: See’ a 
real distinction between to and év in Ro. 12: 21. 

(k) With Preposirions. The Greek uses the instrumental 
with only two prepositions agua and civ, both with the comitative 
idea. In the Cypriotic Greek we have ovy riya, the distinctive 
instrumental ending. Cf. the Sanskrit sam with the instrumental 
and the Latin cum. There is only one instance of a&ua in the N. T. 
with the instrumental, aua atrots (Mt. 13:29), but note dua odv 
avrots (1 Th. 4:17; cf. also 5:10). tv appears chiefly in Luke’s 


1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 95. 

2 K.-G., I, p. 422; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 400 f.; Meisterh., p. 210, for inser. 
(Attic); Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 344; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 98 f., considers it a 
true dative. 3 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 300. But cf. pp. 184, 297. 

4°Grof Nod) Gk palo 


THE CASES (IITQ=EIS) | Doo 


writings, as ody atr# (Lu. 1:56). But in composition civ is very 
common, as has already been shown. So ouvyxaiperé pou (Ph. 
Brals): 

XII. The Dative (True) Case (7 S0TiKh Trédcts). 

(a) SyNcRETISM. That of the locative, instrumental and dative 
cases has not advanced so far in Greek as has that between 
the genitive and the ablative. Monro! thinks that “distinct 
forms for these three cases survived down to a comparatively 
late period in Greek itself.” He rightly conceives that it is not 
difficult, as a rule, to distinguish the three cases in usage. Brug- 
mann? gives various examples of how the three cases made contri- 
bution to the common endings for the final blending. 

(b) TH Decay or THE Dative. But in modern Greek this 
syncretistic combination has vanished in the vernacular. Moul- 
ton® can properly speak of the ‘decay of the dative,” a decay that 
applies for the modern Greek to the locative and instrumental also. 
In the Sanskrit (Lanman) the dative, after the ablative, was the 
most infrequent case. The modern Greek simply uses eis and 
accusative for the usual dative (and locative) ideas and pe (werd) 
with accusative for the instrumental. We see an approach to this 
use of eis in the N. T., éXenuocivas roujowy eis 7d €Bvos wou (Ac. 24 : 17), 
tiv Bovryv Tod beod AOETHoay eis Eavtols (Lu. 7:30). So eis buds (1 
Pet. 1:4). Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 213) is correct in refusing 
to consider eis with knptoow or ebayyedifouat (Mk. 13:10; Lu. 24: 
47; 1 Pet. 1 : 25) as at all out of the way. The pregnant idea is in 
Mk. 8:19 and Ro. 8:18. Eis is found also with évoxos (Mt. 5: 
22), e’eros (Lu 14 : 35), edxpnotos (2 Tim. 4: 11), but aPpediyos with 
apos (1 Tim.4:8). Only in the most illiterate papyri is the decay 
of the dative seen, as in rim Adyou, N.P. 47 (iii/a.p.), and in the 
late insers. like 6 BonOév tuav, J. H. S., XTX, 14. Cf. Moulton, Cl. 
Rev., Apr., 1904. Per contra note érmmedj6[nr |e 7B Tadiw, P. Oxy. 
744 (i/B.c.). Leaving out éy, the locative, instrumental and da- 
tive show a contraction in the N. T. as compared with the earlier 
Greek.4- But even in the N. T. “é& is considerably more than 
a match for eis,’ yet the vernacular revived and intensified the 
old identity of é and eis seen in the early dialects.> Hatzidakis® 
shows how this tendency increased in the later Greek till eis tri- 
umphed over & in the modern Greek. But even in the N. T. it 
is often impossible to insist on the idea of motion or extension in 

Pei omiarer padi i, 4 Jb. 


2 Griech. Gr., pp. 226 ff. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 122. 
SeErols ps 02, 6 Hinl., p. 210 f. 


536 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


els, aS 6 dp els Tov KOATOV (Jo. 1: 18), 6 eis Tov dypov (Mk. 13: 16). Cf. 
rots eis Tov otxov (Lu. 9:61). Moulton! cites from D é as equiva- 
lent to eis in Acts 7:12; 8:23. One may compare the disappear- 


ance of the locative with tz6 and the use of the accusative for both. 


motion and rest,? whereas in Appian and Herodian (Atticists) the 
locative is in the lead. Cf. the disappearance of the dative forms 
in English save in the pronouns him, whom, etc. Even Wyclif 
had ‘‘believe ye to the gospel”’ (Mk. 1:15). 

(c) THe IpEkA oF THE Dative. It is that of personal interest. 
It is sometimes used of things, but of things personified. Apol- 
lonios Dyscolos calls the dative the case of repiroinos. The accu- 
sative, genitive and dative are all cases of inner relations,°® but the 
dative has a distinctive personal touch not true of the others. The 
dative is not a local case. There was originally no idea of place 
in it.6 It is thus a purely grammatical case (rein grammatisch). 
Even épxouai cou (Rev. 2 : 16) is used of a person, not place. Cf. 
épxerai co. (Mt. 21:5, from the LXX) and édé wou, P. Par. 51 
(B.c. 160).. But in physical relations the dative approaches the 
accusative in idea.” Thus we find the dative of place in Heb. 12: 
22, mpoceAnd\0OaTte Liwy oper kal wore Oeod (Gyros (ef. 12:18) and 
éyyivovre 7H Aapaok@ (Ac. 22:6). Cf. iyyiocev ri widy (Lu. 7:12). 
It is not used for the notion of time. 

(dq) Tue Dative with SuspsTantives. I am not here insisting 
that the dative was used first with substantives rather than with 
verbs,® but only that the dative has often a looser relation to the 
verb than the accusative or the genitive.’ It is more common to 
have the verb without the dative than without the accusative or 
genitive (Brug., 7b.). This is seen also in the common use of the 
dative as the indirect object of verbs that have other cases and in 
the use of the dative with substantives somewhat after the manner 
of the genitive. Not all substantives admit of this idiom, it is 
true, but only those that convey distinctly personal relations. 
But some of these substantives are allied to verbs that use the 
dative. So edxapioridy 7 Oe (2 Cor. 9 : 12), OAtbuw 7H capki (1 Cor. 
7:28), aveow 7G mvebpatt pou (2 Cor. 2:18), oxddow 7H capki (2 Cor. 

1 Prol., p. 235. min doy cy ahdisy 

§ Cf. Helbing, Die Priip. bei Herod., p. 22. Cf. Moulton, Prol., pp. 63, 107. 

4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 98. 

5 Wundt, Volkerpsych., 1. Bd.,; Tl. II, p. 126. 

§ Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 185. But see E. W. Hopkins, Trans. Am. 
Hist. Assoc., XX XVII, pp. 87 ff. 

7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 95. 

8 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 277. ® Brug., Griech Gr., p. 399. 





THE CASES (TTO=EIL) 537 


12:7), avaravow rats poxats tudv (Mt. 11:29), ebwdla 7d 0B 
(2 Cor. 2:15), eis trapyy rots tevors (Mt. 27:7), rots amoAdupéevors 
pwpia (1 Cor. 1:18). Cf. Lu. 5:14. With some of these ex- 
amples verbs occur, but the dative is not here due to the verb. 
Some of them are in the predicate also, as xapis 7G 66 (Ro. 7: 
25), with which compare marg. e’xapic7S. See Lu. 10:5. Cf. 
trois aobeveow (1 Cor. 8:9). So in 1 Cor. 9:2, e& &drdous odk etul 
amoaToXos, a\Aa ye duty eiui, the dative is not due to eiui. Cf. in 
next verse 7 éu7) dmoXNoyia Tots éué avaxpivovow. Cf. also adrots in 
Ph. 1:28. So vouos éavrots (Ro. 2:14), euolt Oavaros (Ro. 7 : 13), 
and, not to multiply examples, rob76 you xapros épyou (Ph. 1 : 22), 
4 éxioracis wo. (2 Cor. 11:28). Cf. Ro. 1:14; 8:12. In 1 Cor. 
4:3 both the dative and eis and accusative occur, but properly so, 
éuol dé els EMaXLOTOV EoTLv. Cf.1 Cor. 14: 22 for the same thing. The 
dative due to attraction of the relative is seen in ois Lu. 9 : 43. 

(ce) Wira Apsectives. This dative occurs naturally. These 
adjectives and verbals, like the substantives, have a distinctly 
personal flavour. Here are the most striking examples: ares rH 
ovlpaviy omtacia (Ac. 26:19), apecra aitd (Jo. 8 : 29), apxerov 7@ 
padn7rh (Mt. 10:25), Gomdor cal duounro aitd (2 Pet. 3:14), 
aoteios TS OG (Ac. 7: 20), yowords 7TH apxepe? (Jo. 18:15), dodd\a 
Th axafapoia (Ro. 6:19), duvata 7B Oe (2 Cor. 10:4), cwrhp.os 
maow (Tit. 2:11), gudavA— uty (Ac. 10:40), Boxos éorar 7H ouve- 
dpiw (Mt. 5 : 22), 7rd evoxnuov Kal ebrapedpov TS Kupiw (1 Cor. 7: 35), 
ixavoyv T@ Towo’Tw (2 Cor. 2 : 6), Kadov coi éotiv (Mt. 18 : 8), povoyeriys 
Th mntpl (Lu. 7:12), vexpods 7H auaptia (Ro. 6:11), reorHv 7S Kvpiw 
(Ac. 16:15), rrwyxot’s 7G Koouw (Jas. 2:5), cwrnpios raow (Tit. 
2:11), 0... brpxoo (Ac. 7:39), dhavepov eyevero 7 Papaw (Ac. 
7:13), dvres attd ditor (Ac. 19:31), wderdiwa tots avOpwros (Tit. 
3:8). Wellhausen (Hinl., p. 33 f.) calls @oyos 7 “ungriechisch.”’ 
But note &oyxos éotw rots toous émcreliluos, P. Oxy. 275 (A.D. 66). 
The participle in Lu. 4:16 (Ac. 17: 2) almost deserves to be classed 
with the adjectives in this connection, 76 eiw6ds abra. 

(f) Wirth ADVERBS AND Prepositions. The dative is found 
a few times with adverbs. Thus as édciws Kal dixaiws kal dueuTTws 
vuty tots mustevovow eyernOnuey (1 Th. 2:10), oval 73 xoouw (Mt. 
18:7) and so frequently (but accusative in Rev. 8:13; 12:12). 
Blass! compares Latin vae mihi and vae me. Brugmann? indeed 
considers karat, mapat, madat, xauat all to be dative forms. But, 
while this is true, the dative is not used with prepositions in the 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p..112. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 153, finds &xodob@ws 
with dat. in pap. 2 Griech. Gr., pp. 226, 228. 


5388 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Sanskrit! and not certainly in the Greek.2 The locative is very 
common with prepositions, and the instrumental appears with two, 
but the dative is doubtful. In reality this statement must be 
modified a bit, for éyyis has the dative twice in the N. T. (Ac. 
9:38), 79 “loam; @ eyyts (Ac. 27:8), though the genitive is the 
usual case employed. Cf. éyyifw with dative, Ac. 9:3; 10:9; Jas. 
4:8. Brugmann?’ admits the dative with dvriov, &vavriov, tAnoiov 
in the older Greek, though no N. T. examples occur. Delbriick 
(Grundl., p. 130) finds the dative with ézi. 

(g) WitH Vmerss. Here the dative finds its most extensive use. 

1. Indirect Object. Perhaps the earliest use. Certainly it re- 
mains the one most commonly met. Indeed there are few transi- 
tive verbs that may not use this dative of the indirect object. In 
the passive of these verbs the dative is retained. Some representa- 
tive illustrations are here given. “Ades ait@ kal 76 iuariov (Mt. 5: 
AO), ades Huty ra dhecAnuata hudv (Mt. 6:12), avewyOnoay air (marg.) 
of ovpavot (Mt. 3:16), d&7€ 7d Gyov Tots kvolvy (Mt. 7:6), doOAvac 
tots mrwxots (Mk. 14:5), butv rpdrov ... amwéorecbey (Ac. 3 : 26), 
dmednowueda avtots unkete Nadetv (Ac. 4:17), & 6€ ypadw bytv (Gal. 
1 : 20), éréBadov aitots tas xetpas (Ac. 4:3), ever adrots dru (Mk. 
14°: 27), but dete avayacov (Mk. 14:15), éppeOn rots apxaios (Mt. 
5:21), rpocédepov ait radia (Mk. 10 : 13), evayyedtfouar butv yapav 
meyadnv (Lu. 2:10), dderrev aitd éxarov Snvapia (Mt. 18 : 28), ravra 
arodwaw cou (Mt. 18 : 26), OXiuy eyelpew rots decuots pou (Ph. 1:17), 
TOLNnTwW WOE TpEls oKNVaS, gol wiay KTA. (Mt. 17:4), Hv adros ernyyeldato 
nucv (1 Jo. 2:25). An example like éretyev airots (Ac. 3 : 5) is really 
the indirect object. Cf. Ac. 26:27. In 2 Cor. 12: 7, 2666 por 
oKxoddow 7H capxt, the you is indirect object and capxi may be either 
dative of advantage or locative. 

2. Dativus Commodi vel Incommodi. The so-called dative of 
advantage or disadvantage does not differ very greatly from the 
indirect object. A good example is épxouai co. (Rev. 2:5, 16). 
Moulton (Prol., p. 245) cites Auschylus (P.V. 358), aX’ AAOev aita 
Znvos ayputvov Bedros. It is indeed rather more loosely connected 
at times and varies more in the resultant idea. Thus in paprupetre 
éavtots dre (Mt. 23 : 31) we have to translate ‘against yourselves,’ 
though, of course, the dative does not mean ‘against’ any more 
than it means ‘for’ or ‘in behalf of.’ The personal relation is 
expressed by the case and it may be favourable or unfavourable. 

1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 96. 


2 Giles, Man., etc., p. 329, but see Prepositions (ch. XIII). 
$ Griech. Gr., p. 455. 


EEE ae 


THE CASES (ITO=EI=) 539 


Indeed, nowhere does the personal aspect of the dative come out 
more clearly than in this usage. Thus ravra 7a yeypaypéva — 7B 
vig tod avOpwrov (Lu. 18:31), ypaupareds pabnrevdels 77 Bacidela 
(Mt. 13 : 52), viudny xexoounuernv 73 avdpi (Rev. 21: 2), avarAnpotrar 
abrots (Mt. 13 : 14), dikaim vouos ob xetrar (1 Tim. 1: 9; note long list 
of datives), avacravpobyras éavrots tov vidv (Heb. 6:6), & od peuap- 
topyxas (Jo. 3 : 26), Expiva EuavT@ robro (2 Cor. 2:1), ui) pepiuvare rH 
pox (Mt. 6:25) aceBéow reBexws (2 Pet. 2: 6), ceive ekeornuer, Oed° 
eire owppovoduer, buiv (2 Cor. 5:13), evetyey aird (Mk. 6:19). 
Blass! notes how frequent this idiom is in Paul’s Epistles, especially 
in the vehement passages. Thus pyxére éavrots Gow (2 Cor. 5 : 15), 
iva 06@ (now (Gal. 2:19), areBavopuer TH auapria (Ro. 6 : 2; cf. 6:10 f.), 
HavaTwOnre TH vow — eis TO yeverOar buds érepw (Ro. 7:4), ebpeOn 
pot (Ro. 7:10), 7G idiw Kupiw orjxe 4 mwimre. (Ro. 14:4), xupio 
éabier (Ro. 14 : 6), €av7d £7 — éavt@ arobvnoxe (verse 7). Cf. vol in 
Ro. 7: 21, duty in 2 Cor. 12:20 and pou with éyévero in Ac. 22 : 6. 
A good example is arouacodueba bytv, Lu. 10:11. See éuav7d in 2 
Cor. 2:1 and 76 rvebyare (2:18). Cf. Bacratwr att tov cravpov 
(Jo. 19:17). In Mk. 10:33 note also the other datives, either 
the indirect object or the direct object like éuaifovow atta. 
Cf. also raéow and rots ’Jovéaios in 1 Cor. 9:19f. In this con- 
nection one may note also ri por ro ddedos (1 Cor. 15 : 32), 
Tt juty kai cot (Lu. 4:34). The intense personal relation is also 
manifest in the examples in 1 Cor. 1:23f. Cf. also 1:18, 30. 
Prof. Burkitt (Jour. of Theol. Stud., July, 1912) interprets ri euol 
kal cot (Jo. 2:4) to mean ‘What is it to me and thee?’ That 
is, ‘What have we to do with that?’ In a word, ‘Never mind!’ 
like the modern Egyptian md ‘algsh in colloquial language. The 
so-called ethical dative (cf. co. in Mt. 18:17) belongs here. A 
very simple example is cupdéper yap cor (Mt. 5:29). Moulton? 
cites a papyrus example for épyouai oo (Rev. 2: 5, 16), though from 
an illiterate document. For pede see Ac. 18:17; 1 Pet. 5: 7. 

3. Direct Object. Then again the dative is often the direct 
object of transitive verbs. These verbs may be simple or com- 
pound, but they all emphasize the close personal relation like 
trust, distrust, envy, please, satisfy, serve, etc. Some of them vary 
in construction, taking now the dative, now the accusative, now 


U Grob: Ne TeeGke pall. 

2 Prol., p. 75. Blass, Gr. of N. T, Gk., p. 113, calls this the ethical dative. 
The so-called dative of “majesty”? Blass considers a Hebraism. He compares 
darelos TS Oe With rods peyadn TO OeG (Jonah, 3 : 3), ‘a very great city.’ But 
it is doubtful if the N. T. follows the LXX here. 


540 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


a preposition. But this is all natural enough. Thus kal jricrour 
abrats (Lu. 24:11), areddv 7 vid (Jo. 3 : 36), éreifovro air@ (Ac. 
5 : 36), braxovovew att@ (Mk. 1:27). Once we find the dative with 
reéroia (Ph. 1: 14), but elsewhere prepositions, as ev (2 Th. 3: 4), 
els (Gal. 5:10), éwi (Lu. 18:9). In particular micretw calls for a 
word. Deissmann! has made an exhaustive study of the subject, 
and Moulton? has given a clear summary of results. This verb 
may be used absolutely (Jo. 20 : 31) or with an object clause (7b.) 
in the sense of believe. Moreover, it often means entrust (Gal. 
2:7). Leaving out these uses Moulton finds that moretw occurs 
with the dative 39 times and always in the sense of believe or trust 
(especially in John, as Jo. 5 : 46, ef yap émiorebere Mmvoet éeriorevere 
av éuot). It is rather remarkable that & occurs only once (Mk. 
1:15, recrevere &y TH ebayyediw) explained by Deissmann® as mean- 
ing ‘in the sphere of,’ to which Moulton agrees. In Eph. 1:18 
év more properly belongs to éodpayicOnre. The LXX uses év rarely 
with mioretw and no other preposition. But in the N. T. eis 
occurs 45 times (37 times in John’s Gospel and 1 Jo.) while éri ap- 
pears 6 times with the locative and 7 with the accusative. Moul- 
ton objects to overrefining here between eis and ézi (at most like 
believe in and believe on). So also as to accusative and locative 
with éri. What he does properly accent is the use of these two 
_ prepositions by the Christian writers to show the difference be- 
tween mere belief (dative with rioredw) and personal trust (eis and 
éri). This mystic union received a further development in Paul’s 
frequent é Xpicr@. The relation between é& 76 édvduare and ért 
T@ Ovouate is parallel.* 

We must note other groups with the dative, like verbs of serving. 
Thus déiynxdvoury attra (Mt. 4:11), 7B vot dovrebw vouw Oeod (Ro. 
7:25, both instrumental and dative here), Narpevey aird (Lu. 1: 
74), banperety airG (Ac. 24:23). But in Ph. 3:3 we have the 
instrumental with Aatpebw, and mpooxvyéw uses either the dative 
(Mt. 2: 2) or the accusative (Jo. 4 : 23), not to mention éwmuov 
(Lu. 4:7). The dative with dovAcw in 1 Cor. 9: 19 is merely the 
indirect object. 

Another convenient group is verbs to please, to suffice, to be 
envious, angry, etc. Thus 663 dpeoa (Ro. 8 : 8), &veBpiudvro aith 


1 In Christo, p. 46f. My friend, Prof. Walter Petersen, of Lindsborg, 
Kan., does not believe that the dative is ever the direct object of a verb, and 
Dr. W. O. Carver agrees with him. 

2° Prolyep.6 et. 3 In Christo, p. 46 f. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 68; Heitmiiller, Im Namen Jesu, I, ch. i. 


THE CASES (IITQZEIZ) 541 


(Mk. 14:5), werprorabety rots ayvoodow (Heb. 5 : 2), 6 dpyutdpevos 7S 
adedkdG (Mt. 5: 22), dpxe? cor (2 Cor. 12:9), &d\dAgAAors POovodyTes 
(Gal. 5 : 26, accusative, margin of W. H.). 

Once more, we may note verbs meaning to thank, to blame, to 
enjoin, etc. So ebxapior cor (Jo. 11:41), eyxadelrwoayv &ddpdors 
(Ac. 19 : 38), éweriunoev attots (Mt. 12:16), rots dvéuors éritdooe 
(Lu. 8 : 25). So also rpocératey air (Mt. 1 : 24), dverré\Xero abrots 
(Mk. 8:15), uot xoda7e (Jo. 7:23). But xedebw has accusative, 
though the dative occurs in the papyri. 

There remain verbs meaning to confess, to lie, to help, to shine, 
etc. Thus we find dpyodoyotvrwy 7B dvoyate (Heb. 13:15)! and 
avOaporoyeiro TS Oe@ (Lu. 2:38), otk ehebow avOpwros (Ac. 5:4), 
Bonber po. (Mt. 15:25, but adedew has accusative), iva datywow 
aith (Rev. 21:23). In the later cow we find Bonbéw with accusa- 
tive or genitive (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 110). Cf. also 76 
6G mpocedyecOar (1 Cor. 11:18), @ dvriornre (1 Pet. 5:9). Cf. 
two datives in Lu. 11:4. 

4. The Dative with Intransitive Verbs. However, this is not a 
point that it is always easy to decide, for in apxe? cou (2 Cor. 12: 
9) one is not sure where to place it. See above. Cf. Lu. 3:14. 
We are so prone to read the English into the Greek. The same 
remark applies in a way to ri buty doxet (Mt. 18 : 12), rpérer aytors 
(Eph. 5:3). But there is no doubt about 7i éyevero airg (Ac. 
7:40), ad7@ cvpBaivew (Mk. 10 : 32), and the passive constructions 
like dzoXeirerar caBBaticuos 7S Aad (perhaps dativus commodi, 
Heb. 4 : 9), ébavn aird (Mt. 1 : 20), eppnOn rots apxaious (perhaps in- 
direct object, Mt. 5:21). The same thing is true of a number of 
the examples of ‘advantage or disadvantage” already given, like 
Ro. 6 +10; 14:4, etc. Cf. also wed 7G OeG (1 Cor. 9:9). See 
év cou dele (Lu. 18 : 22), but & ce borepet (Mk. 10: 21). 

5. Possession. The Greek, like the Latin, may use the dative 
for the idea of possession. Thus ovx jv abtots romos (Lu. 2 : 7), obk 
éorw oor pepis (Ac. 8:21), buiv éorw 7 érayyedia (Ac. 2:39), rin 
éorar (Lu. 12:20), eioly juty récoapes dvipes (Ac. 21:23), eorw 
ovvnbera buiv (Jo. 18:39), eav yernral ti avOpwrw exatov mpoBata 
(Mt. 18:12). The idiom is extended even to examples like ob py} 
écrat cor Todro (Mt. 16 : 22), éorar xapa oo (Lu. 1:14). Cf. Ac. 
2:43; Lu. 9:38. This is a frequent idiom in the ancient Greek 
and a perfectly natural one. This predicative dative at bottom 
is just like the usual dative. 

6. Infinitive as Final Dative. Giles? calls attention to the in- 
1 But note Mt. 10: 32 &, and duodoyS & airg in Lu. 12:8. 7? Man,, p. 327. 


542 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


finitive as a final dative. This was the original use of the dative 
in —a, the expression of purpose. So 7#ouer mpookuyjcar atte 
(Mt. 2:2). Here we have the dative form and the dative of pur- 
pose. Cf. the old English “for to worship.” This dative form con- 
tinued, however, when the case of the infinitive was no longer 
dative. 
' 7. The Dative of the Agent. It was discussed under the instru- 
mental and there is nothing new to be said here. The one clear 
example is found in Lu. 23:15. But not very different is the idiom 
in Mt. 6:1 (pos 76 Oeabjvar adrots) and 23:5. Cf. also 2 Pet. 
a 214, 

8. The Dative because of the Preposition. We have already 
had examples of this. Compound verbs often have the dative 
where the simplex verb does not. The case is due to the total 
idea of the compound verb. The dative occurs with dvari- 
deuac in Ac. 25:14; Gal. 2:2. So! with ayri, as @ dvrioryrte (1 
Pet. 5:9), avrieyee 7H Kaioape (Jo. 19:12), avtixetuevor atrd (Lu. 
13:17), 7S ayiw avtimintere (Ac. 7:51). ’Amo in aroraccopar goes 
with the dative (Mk. 6:46). The same thing is sometimes true 
of év, as éveraréay aitG (Mk. 15 : 20), euBredas adrots (Mk. 10 : 27). 
Sometimes with avti— we have zpos, as with & we find & or zpos 
after the verb. With évetxey aitG (Mk. 6:19) we must supply 
Ouuov or some such word. Eis and éri usually have a preposition 
after the compound verb, except that compounds of ézi often 
have the indirect object in the dative (especially éziri@nu). But 
compare émitaoow and émitiwdw above. Cf. éréorn adtots (Lu. 2 : 9), 
but ézi repeated (Lu. 21:34). With zapa we note rapéxyw and 
mapioTnue with indirect object. In mapéornoay aitd (Ac. 9 : 39) 
we can see either the dative or the locative. Cf. apedpedvev 
(1 Cor. 9:13). In 2 Pet. 1:9 we may have the possessive da- 
tive with rapeorwv. With zepi again there is doubt as between 
the locative and dative in zepixeac (Heb. 12:1), zepureipev 
(1 Tim. 6:10), repurirrw (Lu. 10:30). Ipés with apoorifnw has 
the indirect object in the dative (Mt. 6:33), but with zpocép- 
xouvat the dative directly as with dpe (Heb. 12:18, 22). With 
mpooexere éavrots (Lu. 17: 3) the object voty has to be supplied, but 
this is not the case with rpocxaprepotyres 77 bidaxH (Ac. 2 : 42), nor 
with @ mpocexdiOn (Ac. 5 : 36), nor with rpocérecev ait (Mk. 5 : 33) 
nor with rpocedava abrots (Ac. 22:2). With mpockvrdiw (Mt. 27: 
60) the dative is merely the indirect object, but note éri in Mk. 
15 :46. Compounds of io likewise generally have the dative, as 

Le Che Blass irs ofeN a bs Gk pat Loe 


CO OE, 


THE CASES (ITQSEIS) 543 


braxoblw (Mt. 8:27), brapxw (Lu. 12:15), troracow (Lu. 10:17), 
broriGeuac (1 Tim. 4 : 6). 

(h) AMBrauous EXAMPLES. Sometimes it is not easy to decide 
whether the case is locative, instrumental or dative. The ex- 
ample in Ac. 2:33, tWoby 77 de&d, has already been cited. This 
may mean ‘to lift up to the right hand,’ ‘at the right hand’ or ‘by 
the right hand.’ Cf. also Ro. 8 : 24; Jo. 21:8. But it is not often 
that there is any serious difficulty in the matter. In 2 Cor. 11:1, 
dvelxecbE wou pkpov TL adpootyns, note ablative, accusative, genitive. 
And, if some cases remain, as with the genitive and ablative, that 
cannot be finally settled, the matter must simply remain in abey- 
ance. It so happens that in Lu. 8 : 29 f. we have all eight cases 
used if zoAXots xpdvors be here locative and not instrumental. It 
may serve as a good exercise to discriminate in this passage each 
of the cases and explain the distinctive meaning and the result in 
this special context. The cases have kept us for a good while, 
but the subject is second to none in importance in Greek syntax. 
Nowhere has comparative philology shed more light than in the 
explanation according to historical science of the growth and 
meaning of the Greek cases. 


(SUAPALE ee 
ADVERBS (’ENIPPHMATA) 


I. Special Difficulties. See chapter VII (Declensions) for dis- 
cussion. of the origin, formation and history of adverbs. The 
matter will come up again in chapter XIII (Prepositions) where the 
so-called “improper”’ prepositions are treated. Brugmann! has no 
syntactical handling of the subject, though Delbriick? gives an 
exhaustive presentation of the matter. But even Delbrick gives 
less than a page to the purely syntactical phases of the adverb (p. 
643), whereas Winer? treats the adverb only under syntax. 

(a) NATURE OF THE ADVERB. The first difficulty is in deciding 
what is an adverb. As shown in chapter VII, the adverb not only 
has great variety in its origin, but also wide expansion in its 
use. In simple truth a large portion of the “parts of speech” are 
adverbs. Brugmann? pointedly says that it is not possible to draw 
a sharp line between adverb, particle and preposition. The devel- 
opment of adverb into preposition, conjunction, intensive particle 
and even interjection was illustrated in chapter VII with perhaps 
sufficient fulness. To this list may be added the negative particles 
which are really adverbs. In particular in the Sanskrit is there 
difficulty in the treatment of preposition and conjunction as 
distinct from adverb, since the indeclinable words were less dis- 
tinctly divided.» But this vagueness applies to other members 
of the Indo-Germanic group.6 In Greek and Latin no distinct 
line can be drawn between adverbs and prepositions.’ 

(b) THE NARROWER SENSE OF ADVERB. These wider and 
more specialized forms of the adverb must be dropped out of view 


1 Griech. Gr., pp. 250-257. 


2 Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 535-643. 3 W.-Th., pp. 462-473. 

4 Griech. Gr., p. 250. On final s in adv. see Fraser, Cl. Quarterly, 1908, 
p. 265. 

5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 403. 

6 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 536. 7 Giles, Man., p. 341. 


044 


a 


ADVERBS (’EIIPPHMATA) 545 


before we can do anything with the mere adverb which is not prep- 
osition, conjunction, particle nor interjection. There is a good 
deal that needs to be said concerning the syntax of the mere ad- 
verb, for, in spite of its being a fixed case-form, it has a varied and 
interesting usage in the Greek sentence. The adverb has been 
treated by the grammars as a sort of printer’s devil in the sentence. 
It has been given the bone that was left for the dog, if it was left. 

II. Adverbs with Verbs. 

(a) Commonest Usr. This is indeed the etymology of the 
word and the most frequent use of the pure adverb. But one can- 
not say that this was the original use, as the name ézippnua might 
suggest. The truth is that the adverb has such a varied origin 
that it is difficult to make a general remark on the subject that 
will be true. Only this may be said, that some adverbs began to 
be used with verbs, some with adjectives, some absolutely, etc. 
At first they were not regarded as strictly adverbs, but were used 
progressively so (cf. xapuv) until with most the earlier non-adverbial 
uses ceased. 

(b) N. T. Usage. Winer! suspects that the N. T. writers did 
not understand the finer shades of meaning in the Greek adverbs, 
but this is true only from the point of view of the Attic literary 
style and applies to the vernacular xow7y in general. But he is 
wholly right in insisting on the necessity of adverbs for precise 
definition in language. The grammarians find offence? in the 
adverbs of the xow7 as in other portions of the vocabulary. Some 
of the ‘‘ poetic”? adverbs in Winer’s list are at home in the papyri 
as in the N. T., like evapéotws. A few examples will suffice for the 
normal usage in the N. T. See the majestic roll of the adverbs in 
Heb. 1:1, rodvpep&s cai rodvtpédtws madat. Cf. crovdarorépws (Ph. 
2:28), wepiccorépws and raxeov (Heb. 13:19), reparrepw (Ac. 19: 
39) as examples of comparison. 

(c) PREDICATIVE USES WITH yivopat AND eft. There is nothing 
out of the way in the adverb with yivoua in 1 Th. 2:10, as dciws 
kal dixatws Kal aueumrTws butv rots mictebvovow eyernOnuevr. Here the 
verb is not a mere copula. Indeed eiui appears with the adverb 
also when it has verbal force. Thus xadas ans éoriv (1 Th. 2 : 13) 
is not equivalent to kaOas adnOés éorw. Cf. Kadws eorw adnoea ev 
7@ ‘Incod (Eph. 4:21). So also 4 yéveois otrws qv (Mt. 1:18), e 
otws éortly } airia Tod avOpmamrov (Mt. 19:10), 76 ows efvar (1 Cor. 
7:26). Cf. 1 Cor. 7:7. The adverb in all these instances is 
different from the adjective. Cf. ri we éxoinoas otrws (Ro. 9 : 20) for 

1 W.-Th., p. 462. 2 Ib., p. 463. 


546 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


a similar predicate use of the adverb. Cf. also otrws meowv and 
bvrws 6 Beds & buly éoriv (1 Cor. 14 : 25) and 4AnOas in Mt. 14 : 33. 
In Ph. 4:5, 6 xbpios éyyts, the copula éoriv is to be supplied and 
here the adverb is not far from the adjective idea. Cf. also 
moppw ovros (Lu. 14 : 32), waxpay (Mk. 12 : 34), toa (Ph. 2: 6). 

(d) Wirn "Kyo. It has some idiomatic constructions with the 
adverb that are difficult from the English point of view. Thus 
rovs Kak@s tyovras (Mt. 14:35), and with the instrumental case 
in Mk. 1:34. Cf. Lu. 7: 2. In English we prefer the predicate 
adjective with have (He has it bad), whereas the Greek likes the 
adverb with éyw. So éoxarws évee (Mk. 5: 23) and in Jo. 4: 52 
Kouorepov écxev the comparative adverb. One must be willing for 
the Greek to have his standpoint. Cf. oJrws éve. in Ac. 7:1 and 
moppw améexer (Mk. 7:6). Ils éxovow (Ac. 15 : 36) needs no com- 
ment. It is a common enough Greek idiom. Cf. Bapéws exouca, 
P.Br.M. 42 (.c. 168). 

(ec) WitH ParTIcIPLES. “Aya édrifwr (Ac. 24: 26) belongs to 
the discussion of participles. But one may note here 76n reOvynxora 
(Jo. 19 : 33) and as weddovtas (Ac. 23:15). Cf. also the use of 
non With wappddev (Mt. 14:15), a matter that concerns the aorist 
tense. But note both viv and jén with éorly in 1 Jo. 4:3. 

(f) Loose RELATION TO THE VERB or any other part of the 
sentence. So dxunv (cf. érc) in Mt. 15:16 and rv dpyxnv in Jo. 
8 : 25, for this accusative is really adverbial. Cf. also 76 Xourév 
(Ph. 3:1), tovvavriov (Gal. 2:7). 

II. Adverbs Used with Other Adverbs. There is, to be sure, 
nothing unusual about this either in Greek or any other tongue. 
So wodd padrov (Heb. 12: 9), waddXov kpetocov (Ph. 1 : 23), waddov 
mepioootepov (Mk. 7: 36) are merely normal uses barring the double 
comparative in the two examples which, however, have their own 
explanation. The compound adverbs, which are common in the 
N. T. (as breprepicods, Mk. 7:37; cf. rodurporws in Heb. 1: 1), 
call for no more explanation than other compound words. Cf. 
xafodov (Ac. 4:18). The Greek, like the German, easily makes 
compound words, and the tendency to long compound words 
grows with the history of language. See dmepiordorws in 1 Cor. 
7:35. For compound adverbs see chapter VII, u, (c). For the 
comparison of adverbs see 7b., II, (e). 

IV. Adverbs with Adjectives. A typical illustration is found 
in 1 Tim. 3 : 16, duodoyouperws wéeya. So otrw péyas in Rev. 16:18. 
The instances are not very numerous in the N. T., since indeed, 
especially in the Gospels, the adjective is not excessively abundant. 


ADVERBS (’EIIPPHMATA) 547 


In Ac. 24 : 25, 76 vdv Exo, the participle being both verb and ad- 
jective, causes no difficulty. In Ac. 23:20, as pé\d\wv te axpiBe- 
otepov tuvOavecbat wept ai’tod, we have the adverbial use of 7: as well 
as axpiBerrepov. Cf. drepiotactws with ev’rapedpov in 1 Cor. 7:35. 

V. Adverbs with Substantives. Here indeed one may recall 
that the substantive as well as the adjective gives a basis for this 
idiom (cf. Jordan River). Nov is a typical example in the N. T. 
Thus we find & 76 vbdv xaipd (Ro. 3 : 26), 7H viv ‘lepovoadju (Gal. 
4:25), Swhs rhs vdv (1 Tim. 4:8), rdv viv aidva (2 Tim. 4: 10). 
Here indeed the adverb has virtually the force of the adjective, 
just as the substantive in this descriptive sense gave rise to the 
adjective. The English can use the same idiom as ‘the now 
time,” though this particular phrase is awkward. The Greek has 
so much elasticity in the matter because of the article which 
gives it a great advantage over the Latin.t Cf. also 4 6€ dvTws 
xnpa (1 Tim. 5:5), 9 6€ dvw ’Iepovoadju (Gal. 4 : 26), ris dvw 
KAnoews (Ph. 3 : 14), 6 rére Kdopos (2 Pet.3:6). 

VI. Adverbs Treated as Substantives.2. The very adverbs 
named above may be here appealed to. It is especially true of 
words of place and time. Thus é& 7a&v dvw eiui (Jo. 8 : 23), 76 vat 
(2 Cor. 1:17), ra a&vw (Col. 3:1 f.), 7a viv (Ac. 5 : 38), ws rod viv 
(Mk. 13 : 19), aro rod viv (Lu. 1:48) and often. Cf. rots &e? (Mt. 
26:71), ra ade (Col. 4:9). So rdnciov always in the N. T. save 
once as preposition with genitive (Jo. 4:5). It usually has the 
article (Mt. 5 : 43), but may be used without it in the nominative 
case (Lu. 10:29). A striking instance of the adverb treated as 
substantive appears in xywpis Tay mapextos (2 Cor. 11:28). Other 
examples of the adverb with the article are axpu rod detpo (Ro. 
1:13), & T&v Katw (Jo. 8 : 23), eis Ta driow (Mk. 13 : 16), robs ew 
(1 Cor. 5:12), 76 é&wOev xal 76 éowbev (Lu. 11 : 40), eis 7d Eurrpooben 
(Lu. 19:4). In tots paxpay and tots éyyis (Eph. 2 : 17) the adverb 
is rather adjectival in idea. In 79 €&js (Ac. 21: 1) we have to sup- 
ply, of course, juépa, though the text of Lu. 7:11 reads & 76 é&€is. 
Here the adverb is treated rather as an adjective, but the point of 
distinction between the use as substantive and adjective is not 
always clear. Cf. also 4 atjpuov (Mt. 6 : 34), repli ris onuepov (Ac. 
19:40). But it is not merely when the adverb has the article 
that it is treated as a substantive. Prepositions are used with 
adverbs without any article. Then it is not always clear whether 
we have two words or one. Thus editors print trép éxetva as well 
as brepexewa (2 Cor. 10: 16), irép éx mrepioood as well as brrepex- 

t Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 798. 2 Cf, K.-G., Ip. (5515 


548 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mepiaood (Eph. 3 : 20), trép Niay as well as brepXiay (2 Cor. 11 : 5). 
Cf. érerta, éravw, éparrat, and éws &pre in 1 Cor. 15:6. Thus azo 
mépvot (2 Cor. 9:2), am’ advabev éws xatw (Mk. 15:38), am’ apre 
(Mt. 23:39), ard paxpobev (Mt. 27:55), ard mpwi (Ac. 28 : 23), 
ama mpwt (Mt. 20:1), ws a&pre (Mt. 11:12), ews rpis (Lu. 22 : 34), 
éws ertakis (Mt. 18 : 21 f.), éws €&w (Ac. 21 : 5), ews éow (Mk. 14 : 54), 
éws toTe (Mt. 17:17), ws Gde (Lu. 23: 5), etc. For this doubling 
of adverbs see éxros ei uy (1 Cor. 14 : 5) in the realm of conjunctions. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 99) finds in the papyri é« Tore, O.P. 486 (1i/A.D.), 
and note a6 wépvot (Deissmann, B. S., p. 221). 

VII. The Pregnant Use of Adverbs. Just as the prepositions 
év and eis are used each with verbs of rest and motion (and zapa 
with locative or accusative), so adverbs show the same absence of 
minute uniformity. Joi, for instance, is absent from both the 
LXX and the N. T., as is dro. Instead we find od traye (Jo. 
3:8) and ézov éyw brayw (Jo. 13 : 33), but robev Epxerar (Jo. 3 : 8) 
and dev é&pOov (Mt: 12 : 44). So also épxerar exe? (Jo. 18:3) like © 
our “come here.” But on the other hand in Ac. 22:5, a&wv kal 
tovs éxetce Svtas, the usual word would be éxe?. But éxetce is regu- 
lar in Ac. 21:3. Winer! calls this an ‘‘abuse”’ of language, which 
is putting it rather too strongly, since it is found in the best Greek. 
It is largely a matter of usage, for with ade and évOade the ideas of 
hic and huc had long coalesced, while éfwOev, éowev, katw mean 
both ‘without’ (Mt. 23: 27) and ‘from without’ (Mk. 7: 18), ‘with- 
in’ (Mt. 7: 15) and ‘from within’ (Mk. 7: 23), ‘below’ (Mt. 4 : 6) 
and ‘from below’ (Jo. 8 : 23). Cf. weraBa evOev exe? (Mt. 17: 20) and 
evoev — exeifey (Lu. 16:26). In Mt. 25:24, 26, cvvaywv d0e ob 
Suecxdpricas, we have éxeidev ob merged into de by attraction. In 
ot ard THs “Iradtas (Heb. 13: 24) it is uncertain what standpoint the 
writer takes. With ék we have not only the normal idiom like 
tots éx Tepitouns (Ro. 4:12) and of & THs Kaicapos oikias (Ph. 4: 22), 
but the pregnant use where é& could have occurred. Thus apace r& 
éx THs olxias (Mt. 24 : 17) with which compare 6 eis tov aypov (Mk. 
13:16, » in Mt. 24:18). Cf. 6 rarjp 6 é& odpavod in Lu. 11:18, 
though some MSS.” do not have the second 6. The correlation of 
adverbs belongs to the chapter on Pronouns. 

VIII. Adverbs as Marks of Style. Thus dpzc is not found in 
Mark, Luke, James, Jude nor Hebrews, though fairly often in 
Matthew, John and Paul. Nov, on the other hand, is frequent 
throughout the N. T. as a whole. Abbott*® has an interesting dis- 


1 W.-Th., p. 472. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. TP. GE py 258: 
8 Joh. Gr., pp. 22 ff. 





ADVERBS (‘EIIPPHMATA) | 549 


cussion of cal vydv in John and Luke. Novi is found only in Acts, 
Paul and Hebrews, the most literary portions of the N. T. Then 
again Mark has abundant use of eis, but not eiOéws, while Mat- 
thew employs both. John uses each only three times. Abbott! 
notes that wherever Matthew uses evfis it is found in the parallel 
part of Mark. Ev6éws prevails in Luke (Gospel and Acts). Abbott 
insists on difference in idea in the two words, e’ews (‘immediately’), 
evs (‘straightway’). So in Matthew rove is exceedingly common, 
while in 1 Cor. ére:ra is rather frequent, though the two words 
have different ideas. Then again éyyis is more common in John 
than all the Synoptists together.2. The context must often decide 
the exact idea of an adverb, as with éxadefero ows (Jo. 4:6). Cf. 
ws Av ev TS Aolw (Mk. 4: 36). 

IX. The Adverb Distinguished from the Adjective. 

(a) DirFERENT MrANING. The adjective and the adverb often 
mean radically different things. Thus in Jo. 8 : 29, otk adjxey pe 
povov, the adjective povoy means that ‘he did not leave me alone.’ 
As an adverb, if the position allowed it, it would be ‘not only did 
he leave, but,’ etc., just the opposite. In 2 Tim. 4:11 jpdvos 
means that Luke is alone with Paul. So in Lu. 24:18 od pdvos 
may be contrasted with povoy rictevoov (Lu. 8: 50). The point is 
specially clear with rp&ros and rpdrov. Thus in Ac. 3 : 26 we have 
buty mp&rov avacrtnoas, not buly mpwros. It is not ‘you as chief,’ 
but ‘the thing is done first for you.’ So also Ro. 2:9 (‘Iovéaiou re 
mpatov kal “EXAnvos). But in 1 Jo. 4:19 note juels ayarGuer, Ste 
a’tos mpa@tos nyarnoev judas. ‘God is the first one who loves.’ Cf. 
also 7\Oev patos els 76 uvnuetov (Jo. 20:4) where John is the first one 
to come to the tomb. In Jo. 1:41 the MSS. vary between zp&ros 
and mpérov (W. H.). One can but wonder here if after all rp&zos 
is not the correct text with the implication that John also found 
his brother James. The delicate implication may have been easily 
overlooked by a scribe. Cf. also the difference between é\dre 
dp0&s (Mk. 7:35) and dvdarnht ext robs rddas cov opbds (Ac. 14 : 10). 
The English has a similar distinction in ‘‘feel bad’”’ and “feel 
badly,” “look bad” and ‘“‘look badly.”’ We use ‘well’ in both 
senses. Cf. édpatos in 1 Cor. 7: 37. 

(b) DIFFERENCE IN GREEK AND ENauisH Ip1iom. But the 
Greek uses the adjective often where the English has the adverb. 
That is, the Greek prefers the personal connection of the adjective 
with the subject to the adverbial connection with the verb. So 
we have airouarn } vy Kaprodopet (Mk. 4 : 28) and a’rouarn jvoiyn 

1 Ib., p. 20. 2 Ib., p. 19. 


550 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Ac. 12:10). In Lu. 21:34 the same construction is found with 
Epvid.os  uepa éxeivn. The ancient Greek idiom of the adjective 
rather than the locative of time appears in Ac. 28 : 18, devrepator 
HAOouev. So dpOpwai (Lu. 24:22). The same use of the adjective 
rather than the adverb meets us in 1 Cor. 9:17, ei yap éxav Todro 
Tpacow — ei 6€ axwv, Just as we see it in the ancient Greek. Cf. 
the Latin nolens volens. See Ro. 8:20. In péoos the Greek has 
an adjective that we have to use a phrase for. Thus pécos buay 
ornke (Jo. 1:26), ‘there stands in the midst of you.’ Cf. a very 
different idea in Auépas wéons (Ac. 26 : 13), ‘middle of the day.’ 

X. Adverbial Phrases. 

(a) INcrpIENT ADVERBS. Some of these are practically ad- 
verbs, though they retain the case-inflection and may even have 
the article. Thus ri dpxqv (Jo. 8:25), 7d Aourov (Ph. 3:1), 
tovvaytiov (Gal. 2 : 7), 7d rp&@rov (Jo. 12 : 16), 7d rpdrepov (Jo. 6: 62), 
To wAetatov (1 Cor. 14 : 27), 76 Kad’ juépav (Lu. 19 : 47), rod Nourod 
(Eph. 6:10), etc. These expressions are not technically adverbs, 
though adverbial in force. Cf. also the cognate instrumental like 
xape xalpe (Jo. 3:29). So O.P. 1162, 5 (iv./a.p.). 

(b) PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES. These adjuncts have the sub- 
stantial force of adverbs. Indeed there is little practical differ- 
ence in structure between ao meépvor (2 Cor. 9: 2) and trepNiav (2 
Cor. 11: 5), brepadvw (Eph. 4 : 10) and éws xatw (Mk. 15 : 38). Since 
the uncial MSS. had no division between words, we have to de- 
pend on the judgment of the modern editor and on our own for 
the distinction between an adverb like rapaxpjua (Lu. 1: 64) and 
an adverbial phrase like rapa rotro (1 Cor. 12: 15). Cf. also eme- 
xeva (Ac. 7: 48), brepexerva (2 Cor. 10 : 16), xafodov (Ac. 4:18). In 
Ro. 7: 18 xa’ brepBodnv is used with an adjective. Other examples 
are kar’ idtay (Mt. 14:13), xara povas (Mk. 4:10), xara éxovovov 
(Phil. 14), car’ e&avrov (Heb. 10:1), ex devrepov (Mk. 14: 72), & 
Yuxijs (Col. 3 : 23), €& apxfs (Jo. 6 : 64), az’ apxjs (2 Th. 2 : 18), eis 
xevov (Ph. 2 : 16), & adnOeia (Mt. 22 : 16), &v rpwrors (1 Cor. 15 : 8), 
év duxatoovvn (Ac. 17:31), én’ adnOelas (Lu. 22:59), nab’? yépar 
(Mk. 14:49), é vuxri (1 Th. 5:2), & éxreveia (Ac. 26:7), azo 
pépous (Ro. 11 : 25), && pépous (1 Cor. 12:27. Cf. pépos 7, 11 : 18), 
kata mwépos (Heb. 9: 5), aro mas (Lu. 14:18), es 76 mavredes (Heb. 
7:25). With yeéeoov we have quite a list, like ava pécov (Mt. 13 : 25), 
éx weoou (Mt. 13 : 49), & peow (Mk. 6 : 47), dca wéoou (Lu. 4 : 30), ded 
peoov (Lu. 17:11), eis 7d peoov (Lu. 5:19), e’s wecov (Mk. 14: 60), 
kata pecov (Ac. 27: 27), weoov (Ph. 2:15). In Mk. 14:30 adverb 
and phrase occur together, onuepov tabrn TH vuKti. This is not a 


ADVERBS (’EDIPPHMATA) 551 


complete list by any means, but it will suffice to illustrate the 
point under discussion. A striking example is found in 1 Cor. 
12:31, kad’ brepBodnv odor byiv deixvum., Where the adverbial phrase 
has practically the force of an adjective with odo». Clearly, then, 
many of the adverbs grew out of these prepositional phrases like 
mapautixa (2 Cor. 4:17), kadar (2 Pet. 2:3), ete. Cf. even vour- 
exas (Mk. 12 : 34). 

(c) PaRTICIPLES. Some participles come to be used adverbially. 
This is not merely true of adverbs made from participles, like dvrws 
(Mk. 11:32), duoroyvouperws (1 Tim. 3: 16), brepBadddvtws (2 Cor. 
11: 23), but it also applies to 76 dvr (Ro. 7: 23), 76 viv éxov (Ac. 
24 : 25), rvxov (1 Cor. 16:6) and verbals like dvayxacrés (1 Pet. 
5:2). Besides, the intensive use of the participle is adverbial 
in effect like evAoy&v ebdoynow oe (Heb. 6:14). Then again a case 
like Wevdduevo. (Mt. 5:11) is in point. Cf. 6é\wv in Col. 2:18. 
See also zpoo6els efrev (Lu. 19:11) which Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 258) compares with rpocGeica érexev (Gen. 38:5). See chapter 
on Verbal Nouns. 

(d) Tor VERB Usep ADVERBIALLY. This is, of course, not 
true technically, but only in the result. The old Greek idiom 
with AavOavw and ¢favw, where the participle expressed the chief 
idea and the verb was subordinate, occurs twice in the N. T. So 
édabov tives Eevioavtes (Heb. 13: 2) and rpoedOacev Aeywv (Mt. 17: 25). 
But it must be borne in mind that the Greek idiom is perfectly 
consistent in this construction, as ‘they escaped notice in entertain- 
ing,’ ‘he got the start in saying.’ Cf. apa elsewherein N. T. It 
is not necessary in Ac. 12 : 16, éréuevey kpotvwv, to take the verb as 
an adverb in sense. It is simply, ‘he continued knocking.’ The 
infinitive may likewise present the chief idea as in rpoéAaBev pupicat 
(Mk. 14: 8), mpocébero réuWar (Lu. 20:11 f.), like the Heb. 95779 
mow?. But in Mk. 12:4 we have the regular Greek idiom! ra\w 
améorecrey. Cf. Ac. 12:3 mpoceero cvAdaBetvy. This idiom is ex- 
ceedingly common inthe LXX. In Lu. 6:48, éoxapev kai EBabuver 
(‘he dug and went deep’), we have an idiom somewhat like our 
English vernacular “he went and dug,” “he has gone and done 
it,” etc. Cf. Ro. 10: 20 dmorodya Kal Aeyer, Mt. 18:3 dv wy orpa- 
pyre kal yevnobe. But I doubt if 6€\w with the infinitive is to be 
taken in the N. T. either adverbially or as the mere expletive 
for the future tense. In Jo. 7:17 6€\p rovetv means ‘is willing to 
do.’ So in Jo. 8: 44, etc. The text is obscure in Col. 2:18 and 


1 W.-Th., p. 468. 
2 C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 97. 


552 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT' 


there 6é\wv may have an adverbial force. Blass! conceives that in 
Mt. 6:5, drdotow . . . tpocebyeobar, we may translate ‘ gladly pray.’ 
But what advantage has this over ‘love to pray,’ ‘are fond of 
praying’? 

*' Groot NoT, GE p. 208. Ct. WwW —Lh., pe467, 





CHAPTER XIII 
PREPOSITIONS (IIPO@EZEIZ) 


I. The Name. As is often the case, so here the name describes 
a later development, not the original, nor the essential, idea. 

(a) Some PostpositivE. Prepositions may indeed be post- 
positive like the Latin mecum, the Greek rovrov xapw, réxvay répt 
(anastrophe). In the Turkish tongue! they are all postpositive. 
And Giles (Manual, p. 341) thinks that ouparwr azo is earlier than 
ATO OMMATWY. 

(b) Nor Orietnatty Usep with Verss. Moreover, the 
name implies that they properly belong with verbs (prae-verbia, 
mpobecers). But we now know that the use with verbs was a much 
later development. There are indeed in Greek no “inseparable’”’ 
prepositions, which are used only in composition with verbs. In 
the Attic, outside of Xenophon, oty was used mainly in composi- 
tion.” In the N. T. audi is found only with compound words like 
auPpiBarrAw, audievvym. In the Sanskrit most of the verbal pre- 
fixes can be traced to adverbs with cases.’ 

(c) ExPLANATION. Hence the name must be explained. The 
later grammarians used the term for those adverbs which were 
used in composition with verbs and in connection with the cases 
of nouns. Both things had to be true according to this definition. 
But it will be seen at once that this definition is arbitrary. The 
use with verbs in composition was the last step, not the first, in 
the development. Besides, what is to be said about those ad- 
verbs that are used, not with verbs, but with cases, and no longer 
appear as mere adverbs? Take dvev, for instance, with the abla- 
tive. It is not found in composition with verbs nor by itself 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 95. 
2 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 123, 147. Courtoz (Les Préfixes en Grec, en Lat. 
et en Frangais, 1894, p. 51) says: “Outre les dix-huit prépositions que nous 
venons de passer en revue, il y a encore, en grec, quelques particules insépa- 
rables, qui s’emploient comme préfixes dans les mots composés. Ces particules 
sont 4, dpe ou épr, dva, fa et m.’’ But these are not the “prepositions” under 
discussion. $ Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. 
553 


cae he 


554 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


apart from a noun. It is, of course, a preposition. The grammars 
eall it an ‘‘improper”’ or adverbial preposition. It is only ‘‘im- 
proper” from the standpoint of the definition, not from that of 
the Greek language. The truth seems to be that by preposition 
one must mean a word used with cases of nouns and many of 
which came to be used in composition with verbs. The facts do 
not square with the other definition. 

II. The Origin of Prepositions. 

(a) ORIGINALLY ADVERBS. This 1s now so well recognised 
that it seems strange to read in Winer! that “prepositions e.g. 
often assume the nature of adverbs, and vice versa,’ even though 
he adds “that the prepositions are adverbs originally.’’ Giles? 
puts the matter simply and clearly when he says: “‘ Between ad- 
verbs and prepositions no distinct line can be drawn.”’ Thus even 
in Homer audi, epi, etc., appear still as adverbs.* Delbriick* goes 
a bit further and says that originally the prepositions were place- 
adverbs. Brugmann? qualifies that to “‘mostly,” and he adds that 
we cannot draw a sharp line between the use as adverb and the 
use as pre-verb or preposition.® 

(b) REASON FoR User oF Prepositions. ‘The preposition is, 
therefore, only an adverb specialized to define a case-usage.”’? 
This definition gives the reason also. The case alone was enough 
at first to express the relation between words, but, as language 
developed, the burden on the cases grew heavier. The analytic 
tendency in language is responsible for the growth of prepositions.® 
The prepositions come in to help out the meaning of the case in a 
given context. The notion, therefore, that prepositions “‘govern’”’ 
cases must be discarded definitely. Farrar® clearly perceived this 
point. “It is the case which indicates the meaning of the preposi- 
tion, and not the preposition which gives the meaning to the case.” 
This conception explains the use and the non-use of a preposition 
like é&, for instance, with the locative, a76 or rapa with the abla- 
tive, etc. In the Sanskrit the prepositions do not exist as a sep- 
arate class of words, though a good many adverbs are coming to 
be used with the oblique cases (except the dative) to make clearer 
the case-idea.!° 


1 W.-Th., p. 356. 2 Man., etc., p. 341. 

3 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 659. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 123. 

4 Ib, p.609- Cle Grund ss hy palo. 

5 Griech. Gr., p. 429. 8 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 94. 
6 Ib., p. 430. Ailey 

7 


Giles, Man., etc., p. 341. 10 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. 


+ 
“ 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIZ) 555 


(c) VaRyING History. The adverbs that come to be used with 
the cases vary greatly in their history. Some cease to be used 
as adverbs, as ovv, for instance. Others continue (besides the 
use with cases and with verbs) to be employed occasionally as 
adverbs (ava eis, Rev. 21:21; xara eis, Mk. 14:19; trep eye, 
2 Cor. 11:23). Some are used both with nouns, and in com- 
position with verbs, like é, repi and the other seventeen ‘proper’ 
classical prepositions. “Audi occurs only in composition. Others 
are not used in composition with verbs, but are no longer mere 
adverbs like avev. Others are employed both as adverb and with 
cases of nouns, like dua, é&w, etc. Some occur both as preposi- 
tion and conjunction, like dxp., wéexpr, ws, rAMv. Some figure as 
substantive, adverb and preposition with case, like xdpuv. 

III. Growth in the Use of Prepositions. 

(a) Once No Prepositions. As already noted, in the Sanskrit 
there is no separate class of prepositions, though a number of ad- 
verbs are already coming to be used as prepositions, and verbs 
have some prefixes. Some adverbs in Greek are occasionally used 
with cases, like agiws and the genitive, but are not prepositions. 
Here we see the use of prepositions started, tentatively at*any rate. 
We may suppose a time further back in the history of the Indo- 
Germanic tongues when no adverbs were used with cases, when 
the cases stood all alone. 

(b) THe PREPOSITIONS STILL Usep AS ADVERBS IN Homsir. Not 
only do the “adverbial’”’ prepositions have their usual freedom, 
but a considerable number of adverbs are found in composition 
with verbs. Homer marks a distinct advance over the Sanskrit 
in the increase of prepositions. There is in Homer a real class of 
prepositions. But in Homer the limitation of the preposition to 
cases of nouns and composition with verbs is far from being estab- 
lished. ’Apdi, é, etc., may be simply adverbs, ‘on both sides,’ 
‘inside.’!_ So common is the separation of the preposition from the 
verb that the term tmests is used for it, but no strict line can be 
drawn between this usage and the ordinary adverb.? 

(c) DecrEAsiInG Usr as ADVERBS AFTER Homer. It is not 
common thereafter for the eighteen classical prepositions, those 
used in composition with verbs as well as with cases of nouns, 
to occur separately as adverbs. It is not common, but still pos- 
sible. This list comprises audi, ava, avi; amd, dia, els, €&, Ev, Ext, 
kata, pera, Tapa, wept, mpd, mpos, abv, brép, b1d. Now these words 
were used with steady increase so that one of the marks of later 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 123. @*Ib7; p. 124; 


556 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Greek is the abundance of compound verbs as well as the more 
extensive use of these prepositions with the various cases. Not 
only is this true, but continually new adverbs joined the already 
large list of adverbial prepositions employed with cases. In a 
word, as Blass! remarks, the use of a preposition with nouns was 
‘“‘a practice which in the course of the history of the language be- 
came more and more adopted in opposition to the employment of 
the simple case.’”’ The Emperor Augustus was noted for his ex- 
cessive use of prepositions in his effort to speak more clearly 
(quod quo facilius exprimeret, Suetonius).2 Other Latin writers 
show the same tendency. 

(d) Semitic INFLUENCE IN N. T. The N. T. writers were 
once supposed to make such free use of prepositions because of 
the Hebrew and Aramaic. But the N. T. does not make abundant 
use of all the prepositions. ’Aydi has dropped out entirely save 
in composition, and ava is nearly confined to the distributive use 
and ava peoov, a sort of compound preposition.? It occurs only 
12 times, omitting the adverbial use in Rev. 21:21. ’Avri appears 
22 times, but as Moulton‘ explains, five of these are due to av@’ ap. 
But azo is very abundant in the N. T., as are 6:4, eis, éx, &, Ent, 
Kata, meta, pos. But rapa, epi, mpd, atv, brép, bro are, like ava, 
already going the way of audi. Krebs has made a careful study 
of the prepositions in Polybius,® as Helbing has done for Herod- 
otus® and Johannessohn for the LXX.’ They show the same 
general tendency towards the increased use of some prepositions 
to the disuse of others. For the N. T., Moulton® has made a 
careful calculation which is worth reproducing. ’Ey and eis far 
outnumber any of the other prepositions in the N. T.° And é 
leads els by a. good margin. Moulton takes & as unity and 
finds the other N.'T. prepositions ranging as follows: ava .0045, 
avtTi .O08, amo .24, da .24, eis .64, & .34, ei .82, xara .17, wera .17, 
mapa .07, mepi .12, rpd .018, mpos .25, civ .048, brep .054, bro .08. 
The three commonest prepositions in Herodotus! are eis, & and 
éri, in this order. In Thucydides and Xenophon the order is é, 


LIGryOleNey be Gere Lele 

2 Cf. Farrar, Gk. San .» p. 95; Egger, Gr. Comp., p. 195. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 100. Ae lbe 

5 Die Prap. bei Polyb., 1882; cf.-p. 3. 

§ Die Prip. bei Herod. und andern Hist., 1904. 

7 Johannessohn, Der Gebr. der Casus und der Priip. in der Sept., TI. I, 1910. 
Cf. also C. and S., p. 80 f. 

8 Prol., p. 98. 9°Tb., p.-62: 

10 See Helbing, Prap. bei Herod., p. 8 f., for the facts here used. 


PREPOSITIONS (IPO@EZEIZ) 557 


eis and éri. But Xenophon varies the order of frequency in his 
various books. In Polybius the three chief prepositions are xara, 
mpos, eis; in Diodorus eis, kata, mpds; in Dionysius é, éml, els; in 
Josephus (War) mpés, eis, kara, (Ant.) els, eri, rpos; in Plutarch &, 
mpos, ets; in Dio Cassius éy, eis, éwi. In the N. T. the three main 
ones, as seen above, are é, els, ex, though ézi is not far behind é. 
In the literary xo.v7 it will be seen that the use of eis is nearly double 
that of év, whereas in the N. T. eis is ahead of év only in Mark and 
Hebrews.! In the vernacular xoww7n, é€v makes a rather better show- 
ing. The large increase of the adverbial prepositions in the N. T., 
as in the xow7, calls for special treatment a little later. It may be 
here remarked that they number 42, counting varying forms of the 
same word like émcev, dricw. 

(e) In MopeRN Greexk. The varying history of the eighteen 
prepositions goes still further.2 Thus davri(s) survives in the ver- 
nacular as well as amo (a7), 61a (yea), els (és, oé, ’s), wera (ue), Kara 
(xa) and ws. Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 100ff. The bulk of the 
old prepositions drop out in the medieval period. Their place is 
supplied largely by the later prepositional adverbs, as ava by ava, 
é€ by €£w, but partly also by a wider use of the remaining preposi- 
tions, as eis for év and zpos, we for oly. Then again all prepositions 
in the modern Greek use the accusative case as do other adverbs, 
and sometimes even with the nominative (y.a codds, ‘as a sage’). 

In a sense then the Greek prepositions mark a cycle. They show 
the return of the accusative to its original frequency. They have 
lost the fine distinctions that the old Greek prepositions once pos- 
sessed when they were used to help out the ideas of the cases. They 
drop out before the rise of other prepositions which more clearly 
exhibit the adverbial side of the preposition. The so-called im- 
proper prepositions are more sharply defined in modern Greek 
(Thumb, Handb., pp. 107 ff.). But in the N. T. the prepositions 
have not gone so far in their history. 

IV. Prepositions in Composition with Verbs. 

(a) Not tHE Main Function. As has already been shown, 
this was not the original use of what we call prepositions, though 
this usage has given the name to this group of words. Besides it 
debars one technically from calling those numerous adverbs prep- 
ositions which are used with cases, but not used in composition 
with verbs. But no ‘“inseparable”’ prepositions were developed 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 62. 
2 See Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 365 f., for careful comparison between anc. 
and mod. Gk. Cf. Hatz., Einl., p. 151. 


558 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Greek,! apart from the similar use of dayudi already men- 
tioned. In most dialects audi was obsolete (Buck, Gk. Dialects, 
p- 102). In modern Greek dva-, wapa— and é-— (é) are used 
chiefly in composition (Thumb, Handb., p..99), but 6x occurs 
with accusative. . 

(b) Preposition ALONE. Sometimes indeed the preposition is 
used alone (ellipsis) and the verb has to be supplied, as in otk & 
(Gal. 3 : 28) for otk &eort. So brep éyw in 2 Cor. 11:28. Cf. adv’ 
ava (‘but up!’) in Homer. This ellipsis does not differ greatly 
from the common use of tmesis in Homer, where the preposition 
is regarded more as an adverb. 

(c) INcrEAsING Use. The use of prepositions in composition 
increased with the history of the Greek language. One character- 
istic of the later Greek is the number of compound verbs employed.? 
This is a matter partly of impression and will remain so till one 
“vadxevrepos grammarian”’ arrives “who will toil right through 
the papyri and the xow7 literature.”* No one is anxious for that 
task, but Krebs* is able to say that verbs compounded with 
prepositions play a noteworthy rédle in the later Greek. This 
is not simply true of new compounds like é-xaxéw, ete., but 
“there is a growing tendency to use the compounds, especially 
those with 6.4, xara and otv, to express what in the oldest Greek 
could be sufficiently indicated by the simplex.’”’> The N. T. does 
not indeed show as lavish a use of compound verbs as does Polyb- 
ius, the chief representative of the literary xow7 of his time. But 
these é:rAa belonged to the language of the people in Aristotle’s 
time® and the papyri show a common use of compound verbs.’ 
As compared with Polybius the N. T. makes less use of certain 
verbs, but the matter varies with different verbs and different 
writers.® 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 123. 

2 The LXX in particular shows a great variety of uses of the prep. with 
verbs, partly due to transl. from the Heb., partly to the xowy. Cf. C. and S., 
p. 88, for list. Cf. Johannessohn, Der Gebr. d. Casus und der Prap. in der LXX. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 118. Cf. W.-Th., p. 426. 

4 Zur Rect. der Casus in der spiteren hist. Griic., III. Heft, p. 3. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 115. Blass, Gr oluNs De Gk pens 

7 Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., pp. 486 ff. Kuhring (de praepositionum 
Graecarum in chartis Aegyptiis usu quaestiones selectae, 1906) and Rossberg 
(de praep. Graec. in chartis Aegypt. Ptol. aetatis usu, 1909) have both attacked 
the problems in the pap., as Geyer (Observationes epigraphicae de praep. 
Graec. forma et usu, 1880) has done for the inscr. 


§ Moulton, Prol., p. 116 f. The great work on prepositions is Tycho Momm- 
sen’s Beitr. zu der Lehre von den griech. Priip., 1895. 





J 
‘ 
d 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOELEI2) 559 


(d) REPETITION AFTER VERB. Sometimes the preposition is 
repeated after the verb, as in the older Greek. The prepositions 
most frequently repeated are azo, éé, eis, ev, éri. This is partly 
because these prepositions are so common in the N. T. and 
partly because they emphasize the local notions of ‘from,’ ‘in,’ 
or ’upon,’ and ‘to’ or ‘into.’ Perhaps also the preposition in 
composition is a bit worn down. The papyri and inscriptions 
show the same repetition of the preposition, though hardly so 
frequently, if one may judge by his impressions. See damfdev 
am’ avrod (Mk. 1:42). With azo indeed Winer! finds that for the 
most part the preposition is repeated in the N. T. Thus we note 
also amap0j7 an’ a’rav (Mt. 9:15), adarpetrar am’ Euod (Lu. 16:3, 
but not so in 10 : 42), amnddaxOar am’ adrod (Lu. 12 : 58), areOavere 
amo TaV otorxelwy (Col. 2: 20), az’ abra&v aroBavres (Lu. 5: 2), arerecav 
aro Tav Odbadyav (Ac. 9:18), dropdanabertes ad’ budv (1 Th. 2:17), 
agopice an’ ad\dAnrowv (Mt. 25 : 32), drecracOn an’ a’tav (Lu. 22:41), 
atootpever amo “laxw8 (Ro. 11: 26), aroxwpetre am’ euod (Mt. 7: 28), 
amoorTnte am’ éuod (Lu. 13 : 27, but not 2 : 37). 

Likewise ék may be repeated as with eéxBaddeu éx Tod Oyocavpod 
(Mt. 13 : 52), & cod é£eXevoerar (Mt. 2 : 6), E€arpotmevos ex Tod aod 
(Ac. 26 : 17), é&eXeEaunv ex Tod Koopou (Jo. 15:19), éx ris kata plow 
éfexomns (Ro. 11: 24), ekerecav &x tv yerpdv (Ac. 12:7), exaopevduevov 
ék tod orouatos (Mt. 15:11), expuyetv &k 70d oixov (Ac. 19 : 16). 

Verbs compounded with eis “uniformly repeat eis’? (Winer- 
Thayer, p. 430). So, for instance, eionyayov (Lu. 22 : 54), elovevar 
(Ac. 3:3), elondOev (Mt. 2 : 21), eloropebovtrar (Mk. 1 : 21), elodepers 
(Ac. 17:20), but see Ac. 28:30 (eio— mpés). 

With & we observe the repetition in some verbs appears, though 
often eis occurs instead both where motion is implied and where 
the idea is simply that of rest (pregnant construction). As is well 
known, é and eis are really the same word. Hence the rigid dis- 
tinction between the two prepositions cannot be insisted on. There 
are two extremes about e’s and &, one to blend them entirely be- 
cause of alleged Hebraism, the other to insist on complete dis- 
tinction always. As a rule they are distinct, but es frequently 
encroached on é where one has to admit the practical iden- 
tity, like eis ofxév éorw (Mk. 2:1, marg. in W. H.), 6 dv es dv Kodrov 
tov matpos (Jo. 1:18), ete. For the frequent LX X examples see 
Conybeare and Stock, p. 81. Still, for the sake of uniformity, 
only examples of é& are here given, like éuBapas & 7 TpvBrAi@ 
(Mt. 26 : 23), éuBprmcdpevos év éav7d (Jo. 11 : 38), &yeypaumern & tats 

¥ 1 W.-Th., p. 427. 


560 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


kapdlars (2 Cor. 3 : 2), evdnuotyres ev TS cwpare (2 Cor. 5 : 6), evepyadv 
év butvy (Ph. 2:13), eveuewav & TH diabnan (Heb. 8: 9), evorxeirw ev 
iuiv (Col. 3 : 16), &vrpudadvres & tats amaras (2 Pet. 2: 138). 

A number of verbs have ézi repeated, such as émiBeBnxws ert 
with accusative (Mt. 21:5), émiBadd\er eri with accusative (Lu. 
5 : 36), éwipev én’ Eve (Jo. 13 : 18), Ebaddopevos ex’ abrots (Ac. 19 : 16), 
éreneboerar ert oé (Lu. 1:35), emide él ras rd. (Ac. 4 : 29), éréxecro 
éx’ aito (Jo. 11:38), ereBdeWev ert rHv xrr. (Lu. 1:48), éweérecer én’ 
avrév (Lu. 1 : 12), éx’ ovdevi abr&v érurerruxéds (Ac. 8:16), éripivarres 
éx’ abrov (1 Pet. 5:7), émuribeacw émli rods xrr. (Mt. 23:4), erorxodo- 
pet émt rov xrr. (1 Cor. 3:12), érorxodounbevtes Ext 7Q xTd. (Eph. 
2: 20). 

As to 6a not many verbs have it repeated, but note da7o- 
pevecOar airov da oropivwv (Lu. 6:1), dvecwOnoav 6.’ vdaros (1 Pet. 
3:20), duepxerar dv’ avidpwy (Mt. 12:43), dunpxero did peéoov (Lu. 
TOA 1e 

A similar rarity as to repetition exists in the case of xara, but 
we note xarnyopeire kar’ a’tod (Lu. 23:14), karaxavyaobe cata Tis 
aAnbeias (Jas. 3 : 14). 

Very seldom is rapa repeated as in zapeAaGere rap’ judv (1 Th. 
Aviectlt The 2s137 2h lower 

Ilepi is repeated with more verbs than zapa. Thus zepracrpayat 
mept éue (Ac. 22:6), repretwopevor rept Ta xTA. (Rev. 15 : 6), zepi- 
Keita wept Tov Tr. (Lu. 17: 2), wepreaomato rept roddnv (Lu. 10 : 40). 

IIpé, like wera, shows no example of repetition in the critical 
text, though some MSS. read rporopeboyn rp tpocwrov (for évwruor) 
In tie a7 Ge 

As examples of zpés repeated take rpocxo\dnPnoerat rpos THY KTD. 
(Eph. 5:31), rpocérecey pds rovs xtd. (Mk. 7: 25), tpoceréOn mpos 
tovs xTv. (Ac. 13 : 36). It is seldom repeated. 

As a lonely example of civ repeated see cuvefworoincey abv aite 
(Cols) 

We have no example of i176 repeated and but one of tzép in 
some MSS. (not the critical text) for Ro. 8 : 26 (érepevtvyxaver — 
trép nudav). 

(ec) DirFERENT PREPOSITION AFTER VERB. Once more, a dif- 
ferent preposition may be used other than the one in composition. 
This is, of course, true where the meaning differs radically, as in 
auvaxonovbodca a7é (Lu. 23 : 49), but even when the prepositions 
do not differ very greatly. Thus eis frequently follows compounds 
of é, as EuBavre els motov (Mt. 8 : 23), EuBarety eis rHv yéevvay (Lu. 
12 : 5), EuBarrouevos eis TO xTA. (Mk. 14 : 20), EuBréWare els Ta Kr. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOESEIS) 561 


(Mt. 6 : 26), éuzecdvros els robs krX. (Lu. 10 : 36), évérrucap els 7d KTH. 
(Mt. 26 : 67), évexevrpicOns eis KaddeXavoy (Ro. 11:24). There is 
little cause for comment here. 

In general the varying of the preposition is pertinent and is to 
be noted. So, for instance, ad, éx, mapa. Here rapé calls attention 
to the fact that one is beside the place or person whence he starts; 
aré merely notes the point of departure, while é« distinctly asserts 
that one had been within the place or circle before departing. Cf. 
therefore Mt. 3:16 avéBn a6 708 Ydaros and Mk. 1:10 dvaBaivwv 
éx tod vdaros. Thus a6 follows zapaBaivw in Ac. 1: 25, rapadap- 
Bavw in 1 Cor. 11: 28, tapadepw in Mk. 14:36, and zapépxouae in 
Mt. 5:18. Verbs compounded with é« (besides ék) may have amé 
as éxxdivw in 1 Pet. 3:11, or rapa as é&€pxouae in Lu. 2: 1, while 
éxtropevouat Shows either ex (Mt. 15: 18), aro (Mt. 20 : 29) or rapa 
(Jo. 15 : 26). So compounds of xara use either a7é as xataBaivw 
(Lu. 9 : 54) or é as 2b. (Jo. 6:41). See further discussion under 
separate prepositions. 

Compounds of ava likewise are followed by eis as with évaBaivw 
(Mt. 5:1), avayw (Lu. 2: 22), avaBdrérw (Lu. 9: 16), dvadapBa- 
vouat (Mk. 16:19), avarirrw (Lu. 14: 10), avadéow (Lu. 24: 51), 
avepxouar (Gal. 1 : 18); or by émi as avaBaivw (Lu. 5 : 19), dvaBiBatw 
(Mt. 13:48), dvaxaurrw (Lu. 10:6), dvaxXioua (Mt. 14:19), 
avarin7w with accusative (Mt. 15:35) or genitive (Mk. 8:6), 
avapepw (1 Pet. 2 : 24); or by rpés as avaBaivw (Jo. 20 : 17), avaxayrrw 
(Mt. 2:12), avaréurw (Lu. 23:7). As a rule zpos refers to per- 
sonal relations while eis and ézi differ in that ézi more distinctly 
marks the terminus. But the line cannot be drawn hard and fast 
between these prepositions, because éri and zpds show a variation. 
Thus verbs compounded with éri may be followed by eis as in 
ériBadr\9w (Mk. 4 : 37), ériBaivw (Ac. 20:18), ézaipw (Lu. 18 : 18), 
épixveouat (2 Cor. 10:14). ’Emypadw is even followed by év in 
Ac. 17:23. On the other hand, rpds may be followed by ézi as 
in mpooriOnur (Mt. 6 : 27) or & as in rpocpéerw (1 Tim. 1:38). And 
even eiceue has mpds in Ac. 21:18 and eicdépw has éwi (Lu. 12:11). 
Ava in composition may be followed by eis as in dvaBaivw (Ac. 16: 
9), xpos (Lu. 16 : 26) or ava (1 Cor. 6 : 5), ete. 

Compounds with pera usually have eis, like weraBaivw (Lu. 10:7 
both é& and eis), weradd\doow (Ro. 1: 26), weravoew (Mt. 12: 41), 
peraméurouar (Ac. 10: 22), weractpedw (Ac. 2: 20), petracxnuatifw 
(1 Cor. 4:6), perariOnuw (Ac. 7:16), werarperw (Jas. 4:9), pero.- 
kitw (Ac. 7:4). But peradidwue (Ro. 12:8) and peradddoow (Ro. 
1: 25) have év. 


562 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ilepuayw is followed by & in Mt. 4:23. As to apo in Lu. 1:17 
we have mpoede’cerar followed by évwmuor. 

Verbs compounded with ctv may have wera (cf. the displacing 
of civ by werd in modern Greek) as in cuvaipw (Mt. 25 : 19) avdAdadd 
(Mt. 17:3), cuuréurw (2 Cor. 8:18), cundwrd (Mt. 20:2) and 
even ouvkatepndicbn pera tov evdexa aroctod\wy (Ac. 1: 26). But 
note cuvayw eis (Mt. 3:12), éri (27:27) and mpds (Mk. 7:1), 
éri (1 Cor. 11: 20) and els (11: 33 f.). 

For trepdpovety mapa see Ro. 12:3. Ce. UreeB th Ns éxi in 2 Cor. 
9:14 and brepaipouar éxi in 2 Th. 2: 4. 

With i760 we find a number of prepositions especially with trayu, 
as pera (Mt. 5:41), eis (9:6), dd (13 : 44), rpds (Jo. 13:3), & 
(Jas. 2:16), with which compare éricw (Mt. 16 : 23) and peraéb 
(18:15). Cf. also trocrpépw with eis (Lu. 1:56) and émi (Ac. 
8:28). Delicate shades of meaning will be found in all these 
prepositions without undue refinement. See Conybeare and Stock, 
p. 88, for different prepositions with verbs in the LXX. 

(f) Seconp Preposition Not Ne&cEssary. But it is not 
always necessary for any preposition to follow the compound verb. 
Often the preposition with the verb may be followed by the case 
that is usual with the preposition without much regard to the 
verb itself. . That is to say, the preposition in composition may be 
tantamount in result to the simple verb followed by that preposi- 
tion. This is not always true, but it sometimes happens so. It 
is not necessary to give an exhaustive list. As examples we may 
note the following: ’Eurimrew aité (Mk. 3:10) with the dative 
may be compared with ris xapitos é€erecare (Gal. 5:4) with the 
ablative. Here the two prepositions and the cases correspond 
exactly. The instrumental case is illustrated by cuvyapnré wor (Lu. 
15:6). Cf. also the ablative in Lu. 10 : 42 with ddapeOjoerar. As 
an example of the locative take éuyeve 77 miore (Ac. 14 : 22). An 
example of the genitive is seen in gov katauwaptupotow (Mt. 26 : 62. 
Cf. also Mt. 16 : 18) and of the accusative in ry &dvow rabrnv repi- 
keruat (Ac. 28: 20) where a change of standpoint takes place, since 
the chain is around Paul. Cf. Heb. 12:1. In a case like diemo- 
pevovto Tas modes (Ac. 16 : 4) one may either regard the accusative 
as loosely associated with the preposition (cf. 61a wécov in Lu. 17: 
11) or consider that the preposition has made an intransitive verb 
transitive (see next point). See ch. XI for further exx. 

(g) Errect oF PREPOSITION ON MEANING OF THE VERB. Some- 
times there is no effect at all. The preposition is merely local as 
in é£€pxoua, ‘go out.’ The preposition may be “perfective” and 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 563 


merely intensify the meaning of the verb, as in xarecOiw (‘eat up’), 
katadvwxw (‘hunt down’). The preposition is sometimes weakened 
in idea as in amodéxouat, aroxpivouar. Prepositions in composition 
sometimes change the meaning of the verb and blend withit. A 
resultant meaning arises with a new construction. The use. of 
6a alluded to above may be a case in point. Thus take draBaivw 
with accusative (Heb. 11:29), depxouar (Lu. 19:1). The use of 
duamdew with the accusative in Ac. 27:5 is probably the result of 
the preposition in composition. See also mpodéw tuas in sense 
of ‘go before’ (Mt. 26: 32). Cf. further amodexaroty, peradidwpe, 
ouykdeiev. ‘These examples will suffice, though they could be 
multiplied easily. 

(h) DRopPING THE PREPOSITION WITH SECOND VERB. Winer! 
denies that we have in the N.T. an instance of the old Greek idiom 
of using the preposition with the first verb and dropping it with 
the repeated verb though really retained in sense. But Moulton? 
seems to show that the N. T. does offer some examples of this 
construction, like the xarjyov, jyov, jyov, of Kuripides’ Bacchides, 
1065 (English ‘pulled down, down, down,’ Moulton). He cites 
mapédaBov, €daBov (Jo. 1:11 f.); mpoeypadn, eypadn (Ro. 15:4); 
éEnpatyynoar, épavvdvtes (1 Pet. 1: 10f.); erevdtaacbar, évdvodmevor (2 
Cor. 5:3); avricrqvat, orqvac (Hph. 6:13); xatépayov, epayov 
(Rev. 10:10). These are certainly possible illustrations, though 
I have doubts about 2 Cor. 5:3 and Eph. 6:13. In Eph. 
6:13 especially orfvar is stronger alone than with av7i. I do 
not agree that in 1 Cor. 12:2 we have an illustration in jyeo6e 
amrayouevot. ; 

({) INTENSIVE oR PeRFEcTIVE. There is still another very 
common use of the preposition in composition. It is that of a 
mere adverb and intensifies or completes the idea of the verb. 
Sometimes the frequent use of the compound form tends to ob- 
scure this adverbial idea. Thus in aroxpivoua the force of a7é has 
largely faded and in droOyjckw it is quite obscure. Doubtless ‘die 
off’ was the original idea for the one, as ‘answer back’ for the 
other. The appeal to the original usage will explain the force 
of the preposition. But in most instances the idea is very clear, 
as in cuvkadel rods didrouvs (Lu. 15: 6), ‘calls his friends together.’ 
This common function of the preposition in all the Indo-Germanic 
tongues was probably the original use with verbs. At any rate 
it is common enough in English, though we usually separate verb 
and preposition. We say ‘‘up-set” as well as ‘‘set up,” but they 

1 W.-Th., p. 433. 2 Prol., p. 115, 3 Ih, 


564. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 

mean different things. We all see the adverbial force in ‘‘come 
home,” ‘“‘come back,” ‘‘come away,” etc., but it is the adverb just 
as truly in “‘fore-close,”’ ‘‘pre-clude,”’ etc. Indeed, prepositions when 
compounded are etymologically pure adverbs. The English may 
be compared with the Homeric Greek in the separateness of the 
adverb from the verb.1. In German the compound use of the pre- 
position is very extensive, but later Greek and Latin illustrate it 
abundantly.2. The German prepositions are either inseparable or 
detachable. As applied to the meaning of the verb the term “‘per- 
fective” is used for the force of the preposition, but it is not a very 
happy designation, since one is at once reminded of the perfect 
tense with which it has nothing to do. Moulton gives a number 
of luminous examples such as Ovqjckw ‘to be dying,’ amofavety ‘to die 
(off)’; petyecv ‘to flee,’ duadpuyety ‘to escape (flee clean through)’; draw 
‘to pursue,’ xatadiwxw ‘to hunt down’; rnpety ‘to watch,’ ovvry- 
pecv ‘to keep safe’; éoyagfecOar ‘to work,’ xatepyatecbar ‘to work 
out (down to the end),’ etc. The preposition in this ‘‘ perfective”’ 
sense does have a bearing on the present and aorist tenses of any 
given verb, but that phase of the matter belongs to the discussion 
of the tenses. Indeed, not all of the N. T. verbs by any means show 
examples of this “perfective” use of the preposition. Moulton‘ 
notes this absence, as compared with Polybius, in the case of &pxo- 
Mat, Pedouar, Pewpéw, Noyifouat, KWdvvelw, MEAAW, OpYifoual, Tpacow. He 
finds that the papyri support this ‘‘ perfective” use of the preposi- 
tion as between simplex and compound. N. T. illustrations are 
interesting. Thus ordoua (Mk. 14:47) is used of Peter’s drawing 
his sword (note voice), but dcacrac07 (Ac. 23:10) expresses the 
fear that Paul may be drawn in two. So épyafoua is a common 
verb for doing work (as Mk. 14:6), but xarepyafouar accents the 
carrying of the work through as in Ph. 2:12, and in verse 13 
évepyetv is used for the idea of in-working as contrasted with the 
out-working or development taught by xarepyafecOa. Cf. also 
Mndev épyatouevous AANA TeEptepyatouevous (2 Th. 3:11) where the 
whole idea turns on zepi, ‘doing nothing but doing about’ is a 
free rendering. The same distinction is seen between écfiw ‘to 
eat’ (Mt. 15: 2) and xarec@iw ‘to eat up (down)’ in Lu. 20: 47. 
Cf. also éfayov (Mt. 6:25) and xarédayov (Mt. 13:4). As one 
further illustration note apre yuwwoKnw éx pepovs (1 Cor. 13 : 12) and 
Tore 5€ émvyvwoopuat Kaas kal éreyvwobny (ib.). In general, on the 
whole subject of prepositions in composition see Delbriick, Ver- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 112. $ Moulton, Prol., p. 111. 
2 Riem, and Goelzer, Synt., p. 815. 4 Prol., p. 116, 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 565 


gleichende Syntax, I, pp. 660 ff. Cf. also Brugmann, Griech. Gr., 
p. 431 f. See also ch. XVIII for further remarks. 

(j) DouBLE Compounps. It is always interesting to note the 
significance of both prepositions. As noted in chapter V, Word 
Formation, tv, (¢), these double compounds are frequent in the 
xown and soin the N. T. ‘The point to emphasize here is that each 
preposition as a‘rule adds something to the picture. There are 
pictures in prepositions if one has eyes to see them. For instance, 
note avri-rap-fr\0ey (Lu. 10:31 f.), cvv-avri-AdBnrar (10:40. Cf. 
Ro. 8: 26. First known in LXX, but now found in papyrus and 
inscriptions third century B.c. Cf. Deissmann, Light., p. 83), 
imep-ev-tuyxaver (Ro. 8: 26), avr-ava-rdnp& (Col. 1: 24), cvy-rapa-ha- 
Betv (Ac. 15:37), mpoo-ava-rAnp&S (2 Cor. 9:12), dvri-dra-ridewar 
(Qe Timed 20), etc. 

V. Repetition and Variation of Prepositions. A few words 
are needed in general on this subject before we take up the prep- 
ositions in detail. 

(a) SAME PREPOSITION WITH DIFFERENT Cases. Sometimes 
the same preposition is used with different cases and so with a dif- 
ferent resultant idea. Take 6.4, for instance. In 1 Cor. 11:9 we 
have ovk éxric@n avnp da THY yuvatxa, While in verse 12 we read drip 
dua THs yuvatxos. In Heb. 2:10 the whole point turns on the dif- 
ference in case, du’ dv ra TavTa Kal 6c’ ov Ta TavTa. In Heb. 11:29 
the verb with 6.4 in composition has the accusative while 6a 
alone has the genitive, deBnoav tHv “EpvOpav Oddraccay ws dia Enpas 
vis. Cf. dua uéoov (Lu. 4:30) and 6a wéoov (Lu. 17:11). But the 
resultant idea is here the same. ’Ezi is a pertinent illustration. 
In Rev. 5:1 we find émi ri defay and él rod Apdvov, while in 
Rey. 11:10 observe émi ris ys and ém’ airots. Cf. also Rev. 14: 
6. So again in Mt. 19:28 note émi @pdvov and émt Opdvovs and in 
Mt. 24 : 2 éri NiGov, but Nios éri AOw in Lu. 21:6. Cf. emt rod 
and érl rv in Rev. 14:9. So édrifw éxi with dative in 1 Tim. 
4:10 and accusative in 5:5. This is all in harmony with the 
ancient Greek idiom. 

For an interesting comparison between the Synoptic and the 
Johannine use of prepositions and the varying cases see Abbott, 
Johannine Vocabulary, pp. 357-361. The variation is especially 
noticeable in 6.4, éré and mapa. The LXX shows abundant use 
of the preposition after verbs. Cf. Conybeare and Stock, Selections 
from the LXX, p. 87 {., and Johannessohn, Der Gebrauch ete. 
In some stereotyped formule one notes even in modern Greek 
dro Kapdlas, werd Blas, Kata dtaBorov (Thumb, Handb., pp. 103 ff.). 


566 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(b) REPETITION witH SrevERAL Nouns. When several nouns 
are used with the same preposition the preposition is repeated 
rather more frequently than in the earlier Greek.!. Winer? thinks 
that the repetition occurs only when the two or more substantives 
do not come easily under the same category. Within limits this 
is true (cf. repetition of the article), but there is rather more free- 
dom in the later Greek on this point. In Jo. 4:23 we do have a 
similar idea in the phrase é& mvebyare kal adnOeia as in ad PdGov Kal 
mpoodoxias in Lu. 21: 26. Cf. also & Atorpors cal "Ikoviw (Ac. 16 : 2), 
but in verse 1 observe kal eis AépBnv xal ets Aborpav, where perhaps 
the double conjunction plays some part. Indeed with kal — kai 
or te—xai the preposition is commonly repeated. Thus kal & 
odlyw Kal €v weyady (Ac. 26 : 29), & Te Tots decors pou Kal év TH amoNoyia 
(Ph. 1:7). With disjunctive conjunctions the repetition is usual 
also, as amo axav0Gy 7) ad TpiBd\wv (Mt. 7: 16). With antithesis the 
repetition is the rule, as uw & codia ad’ &v duvave (1 Cor. 2:5. Cf. 
also verse 4). But one cannot properly insist on any ironclad rule 
when he considers a case like a7d6 Mavoéws kat amo mavtTwy Tadv 
mpopyntav (Lu. 24: 27), rpos Liuwva eérpov xal mpos tov &ddov (Jo. 20: 
2), év duvayer kal év rvebpare aylw Kal €v tAnpodopia (1 Th. 1:5). Ina 
comparison again the preposition is repeated, as éz’ alto’s — domep 
kal é’ yas (Ac. 11:15). But even with disjunctive conjunctions the 
preposition is not always repeated, as érl dvely 4 rpiciv (Heb. 10: 28). 
In Ac. 26:18 azo is not repeated, though e/s occurs in one member 
of the sentence and ézi in the other. In Jo. 16:8 zepi is repeated 
for rhetorical reasons, wepi duaprias kal rept dexarocbvys Kal rept Kpl- 
cews. Cf. Eph. 6:12 where the repetition occurs without a con- 
junction, mpds Tas apxas, mpos Tas éLovoias, mpos To’s KooMoKpaTopas, 
etc. Cf. also Jo. 17: 9. 

(c) REPETITION WITH THE RELATIVE. The preposition is not 
always repeated with the relative. Usually the classic authors 
did not repeat the preposition with the relative when the antece- 
dent had it.? So the N. T. shows similar examples, as év juépars ats 
éretdev (Lu. 1: 25), eis 7d Epyov 6 mpookexAnuae (Ac. 18:2), ard mav- 
tuv av (Ac. 18:39), ete. But the repetition is seen in such ex- 
amples as eis rHv yijv tabrny, els Hv (Ac.7:4); ard rpwrns ueépas, ad’ 
js (Ac. 20:18). In Jo. 4: 538, éxeivy 7H Spa, & 7, the preposition oc- 
curs with the relative, but not with the antecedent. However, 
there is very little difference between the mere locative case and & 
added. Especially noticeable* is a case where the antecedent is 


1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 158. % W.-Th., p. 422. 
2 W.-Th., p. 420. 4»Blass:Gr.of NAT. Gk ip. 174. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 567 


not expressed and the relative has the preposition of the antece- 
dent. So repi dy in Jo. 17:9 is equal to rept robrwr obs dédwxds 
por. Cf. es dv (Jo. 6 : 29). 

(d) CONDENSATION BY VARIATION. Once more, the variation 
of the preposition is a skilful way of condensing thought, each 
preposition adding a new idea. Paul is especially fond of this 
idiom. Thus in Ro. 3 : 22 we note dixaocbvn € O06 b1a rictews "Inood 
Xprorod eis ravras. Cf. verses 25 f. A particularly striking example 
is €£ abrod kal dv abrod xal eis aitov Ta ravTa (Ro. 11:36). Cf. also 
Col. 1:16 & air exricbn Ta ravta — bv’ abrod kal els abrov éxriorat. 
Cf. éri, dua, €v in Eph. 4:6. In Gal.1:1 Paul covers source and 
agency in his denial of man’s control of his apostleship by the use 
of a6 and 6a. See Winer-Thayer, p. 418 f. Cf. also t7d Kupiov 
dia Tod rpopjrov (Mt. 1:22) for mediate and intermediate agent. 
One should not make the prepositions mere synonyms. Cf. bzép 
(Ro. 5:6), av7i (Mt. 20: 28), and wept (Mt. 26 : 28) all used in 
connection with the death of Christ. They approach the subject 
from different angles. 

VI. The Functions of Prepositions with Cases. 

(a) THe CASE BEFORE Prepositions.!. Both in time and at 
first in order. In the Indo-Germanic tongues at first the substan- 
tive was followed by the preposition? as is still seen in the Greek 
évexev, xapiv, etc. The Greek, however, generally came to put the 
preposition before the substantive as with compound verbs. 

(b) Notion oF Dimension. ‘The prepositions especially help 
express the idea of dimension and all the relations growing out of 
that,? but they come to be used in various abstract relations also. 
Indeed it was just the purely ‘“local”’ cases (ablative, locative and 
instrumental) that came to lose their independent forms (Moulton, 
Prol., p. 60 f.), due partly to the increase in the use of prepositions. 

(c) ORIGINAL ForcE OF THE Case. The case retains its orig- 
inal force with the preposition and this fundamental case-idea 
must be observed. The same preposition will be used with dif- 
ferent cases where the one difference lies in the variation in case 
as already noted. Take rapa, for instance, with the ablative, the 
locative or the accusative. The preposition is the same, but the 
case varies and the resultant idea differs radically.‘ 


1 K.-G., I, p. 448. “La préposition ne fait que confirmer, que préciser une 
idée exprimée par un cas employé adverbialement.”” Riem. and Cucuel, Synt. 
Grec., 1888, p. 213. ; 

2 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 653. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 433 f. 

’ K.-G., I, p.451. Cf. Delbriick, Grundl. etc., p. 184. 4 K.-G., I, p. 450. 


568 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(d) THe GROUND-MEANING OF THE PREPOSITION. This must 
always be taken into consideration.! It is quite erroneous to say 
that aapa, for instance, means now ‘from,’ now ‘beside,’ now 
‘to.’ This is to confuse the resultant meaning of the preposition, 
case and context with the preposition itself. It is the common 
vice in the study of the prepositions to make this crucial error. 
The scientific method of studying the Greek preposition is to 
begin with the case-idea, add the meaning of the preposition it- 
self, then consider the context. The result of this combination 
will be what one translates into English, for instance, but he 
translates the total idea, not the mere preposition. It is puerile 
to explain the Greek prepositions merely by the English or 
German rendering of the whole. Unfortunately the Greeks did 
not have the benefit of our English and German. Kiihner-Gerth? 
well observe that it is often impossible to make any translation 
that at all corresponds to the Greek idiom. 

(ce) THE OBLIQUE CASES ALONE WITH PREPOSITIONS. See 
also ch. XI. The vocative was obviously out of the question, 
and the nominative only appeared with pure adverbs like ava eis 
(Revi 21+ 21). «Ci. Mk) 1419s Rom 2s 5) xadeetsa Butanoveall 
the six oblique cases were used with equal freedom with prep- 
ositions. Certainly in the original Indo-Germanic tongues the 
dative was not used with prepositions.*? The dative is not origi- 
nally a ‘local’? case and expresses purely personal relations. 
Delbriick thinks that the Greek dative did come to be used 
sometimes with ézi as in Homer, éri Tpweoor udyeoba.t Indeed 
some N. T. examples of éri may naturally be datives like éorda- 
YxvicOn ex’ a’tots (Mt. 14:14), waxpoBiunoov er’ euoi (Mt. 18: 26). 
But usually even with eri the case is locative, not dative. We do 
have two examples of éyyt’s with the dative, as Ac. 9 : 38; 27:8. 
Originally again the genitive was not used with prepositions,® but 
the Greek undoubtedly uses the genitive, though not a “local” 
case, with some prepositions like avri, dia, ert. 

(f) Orn1GINAL FREEDOM. That is to say, most of the preposi- 
tions could be used with ablative, locative, accusative and some 
with the genitive or instrumental. But the three first mentioned 
(‘whence,’ ‘where,’ ‘whither’ cases) called upon most of the prepo- 
sitions. The dialect inscriptions give many proofs of this matter. 
Thus a76 and é£ both appear in the Arcadian and Cyprian dialects 

1K Geli eant 2 Ib. 


3 Delbriick, Grundl. ete., pp. 1380, 184. Cf. also Monro, Hom., Gr. p. 125, 
SI bala, Salb: pelos. 








PREPOSITIONS (IPOOESEIZ) 569 


with the locative as well as the ablative.’ ’Aydi originally oc- 
curred with locative, accusative and genitive. The same thing 
was true of éri, wera rept and bd (possibly with ablative, not 
genitive). Indeed epi once used the ablative also. Tapa and 
mpos were used with locative, accusative or ablative. It is pos- 
sible indeed that zpés may have been used with five cases, adding 
true dative and true genitive to the above.2 In the case of éri 
four cases occur (Delbriick) since it apparently used the dative 
also. Other prepositions once were used with two cases, as ava 
and év with locative and accusative (even the gen. with & and eis 
like eis Gdov), whereas kar& seems to use accusative, genitive, abla- 
tive. IIpé originally had locative as well as ablative, while tzép 
had ablative (genitive ?) and accusative and 6.4 accusative and 
genitive. ’Av7i has only genitive, while cty has only instru- 
mental. ’Aydi still occasionally occurs in the papyri as a free 
preposition. 

(g) No ADEQUATE DIvISION By Cass. It is very difficult, there- 
fore, to make any adequate division of the prepositions by the 
cases. There were indeed in early Greek two with only one case, 
eight with two, and eight with three cases. But the point to 
observe is that the usage varies greatly in the course of the cen- 
turies and in different regions, not to say in the vernacular and in 
the literary style. Besides, each preposition had its own history 
and every writer his own idiosyncrasies. For the detailed compa- 
rison of the prepositions see Helbing,’ and for the history of the 
cases with the prepositions see Krebs.t. But in the Ptolemaic 
times prepositions are more and more used with the accusative to 
the corresponding disappearance of the other oblique cases.? In 
particular one must note (cf. ch. XI) the disappearance of the 
locative, instrumental and dative before the accusative and the 
genitive, until in the modern Greek eis and the accusative have 
superseded év and the locative and the dative proper also. Even 
civ and the instrumental disappear in the modern Greek verna- 
cular before ywé (vera) and the accusative.® 

(h) SrruaTIon IN THE N. T. But in the N. T. the matter has 
- not developed that far and the cases are not so much blurred, 


1 Delbriick, Grundl., p. 129. Cf. Hadley and Allen, pp. 252-260. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449 f. 

3 Die Priip. bei Herod., p. 8f. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Voc., ete., pp. 357 ff., 
for prep. in the Gospels. 4 Die Prip. bei Polyb., p. 6 f. 

6 Mullach, Gr. Volg., pp. 376 ff.; Volker, Pap. Graec. Synt., p. 30. 

6 Cf. Geldart, Guide to mod. Gk., p. 247; Thumb, Handb., pp. 100 ff. 


570 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


though the range of the prepositions in the matter of cases is 
greatly limited. The seventeen ‘‘proper”’ prepositions (audi drops 
out) in the N. T. use the cases as will be now shown. 

1. Those with One Case. ’Ava, avti, ad, eis, ex, €v, Tpd, obv USE 
only one case, eight as opposed to two in the early Greek (davri 
and civ). The cases used are not the same (accusative with ava 
and eis; genitive with av7i; ablative with a7é, ex and spd; locative 
with év; instrumental with civ), but nearly half of the prepositions 
have come to one case in the N. T. In the modern Greek all the 
prepositions occur usually with the accusative (or even the nom.). 
The use of the genitive (abl.) is due to literary influence. The com- 
mon proper prepositions in modern Greek are eis, a6, we, yia, 
and less commonly xara, rapa, avtis, and in dialects zpos (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 98). This tendency towards case simplification is well 
illustrated by the so-called improper prepositions which use only 
one case (abl., gen. or dat.), though they do not feel the movement 
towards the accusative. 

2. Those with Two Cases. Five (as opposed to eight) use two 
cases: 6ua, wera, epi, brép, bro. The cases used are genitive and 
accusative each with 6:4, werd, rept; ablative and accusative with 
brép and tro. In the case of epi some of the examples can be 
explained as ablative (from around), while t76 seems, like izép, to 
use the ablative (cf. Latin sub) and possibly the genitive also. 

3. Those with Three Cases. Only four prepositions (as against 
eight) retain three cases: éri, xara, tapd, mpds, unless zepl, brép and 
i76 have both ablative and genitive. Kara in Mt. 8 : 32, épuncer 
Kata Tod Kpnuvod, is used with the ablative. Ilpés indeed only has 
the ablative once (Ac. 27: 34) and that is due to the literary influ- 
ence on the N. T.! If zpés drops out, only three prepositions 
still use three cases, barring epi, irép and iré. Of these zapa is 
not very common (gen. 78, acc. 60, loc. 50), still less xara, while 
éri is still frequent (acc. 464, gen. 216, loc. 176). 


4. Possibly Four with érit. In the case of éri indeed we may - 


have to admit four cases, if there are examples of the pure dative 
like Mt. 18: 26, uaxpoObunoor éx’ Evol. But at any rate éri and rapa 
alone show the old freedom in the use of the cases. 

(.) Each Preposirion IN A Case. Like other adverbs the 
prepositions are fixed case-forms, some of which are still apparent. 
Thus ayzi is in the locative case, like év(i), ért, rept. Cf. also rpori 
(xpos). The forms é.ai and érai occur also (datives). The old dative 
mapai occurs, while zapa is instrumental. So avd, dd, kara, werd are 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 106. - 





eT 


. 
a 
, 
: 
7 
5 








PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOESEIS) Sy Al 


in the instrumental case. What izé is we do not know. But the 
case in which the preposition may be itself has no necessary bear- 
ing on the case with which it is used. It is just a part of the word’s 
own history, but still it is always worth observing. 

VII. Proper Prepositions in the N. T. 

(a) “Ava. The case of ava is not clear. Originally it was ava 
and may be the same as the Lesbian, Thessalian and Cyprian 
év. Cf. English ‘‘on.’”’? Ht may be compared with the Old Per- 
sian and Gothic ana, the Latin and German an. One may com- 
pare the Greek av and Sanskrit ana.1_ The fundamental idea seems 
to be “fon,” “upon,” “along,” like German auf, and this grows 
easily to “up” like a@vw in contrast with xara (ka7w). Homer uses 
the adverb ava as an ellipsis to mean “up.” The locative was 
once used with ava, but in the N. T. only the accusative occurs. 
The distributive use may be up and down a line or series, and 
MSS. give xara in several of these instances (a common use of 
kata also). While ava is very common in composition with verbs 
in the N. T. (over ten pages of examples in Moulton and Geden’s 
Concordance), only thirteen examples of the preposition alone 
occur in the N. T. One of these (Lu. 9 : 3) is absent from W. H. 
(Nestle retains it), while in Rev. 21:21 (ava eis) the word is 
merely adverb (cf. Homer), not preposition.? Of the remaining 
eleven instances, four are examples of ava yécov with the genitive, 
a sort of compound prepositional phrase with the idea of ‘“‘be- 
tween”’ (like Mt. 13 : 25); similar to the modern Greek dvayeca, 
and found in the LXX, Polybius, etc. One (1 Cor. 14 : 27, ava 
Mépos, means ‘in turn,’® while the remaining six are all examples 
of the distributive use, like ava do (Lu. 10:1). The distributive 
use is in Xenophon. For examples in papyri and inscriptions 
see Radermacher, p. 15. Cf. our “analogy.” In Ac. 8:30, yuvw- 
oxes & avaywwokces, the point turns on dva—, but it is not clear 
how ava—turns “‘know” to “read.” See Ac. 10:20 dvacrds xata- 
Bnbc for contrast between avd and xara. Abbott, Johannine Gr., 
pp. 222 ff., argues at length to show that the one example in John 
(2:6) is distributive. ’Avdé does not survive in modern Greek ver- 
nacular (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366). In the papyri ava shows 
some new compounds not in the N. T., like avamopeboua (Mayser, 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 436; K.-G., I, p. 473. On the N. T. prep. see 
also Tycho Mommsen, Beitr. zu d. Lehre von d. griech. Priip. (1895). 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178, cites some late Gk. exx. of ava as adv. Clearly 
not a Hebraism. Deiss., B.S8., p. 139. 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 122, cites Polyb. 


572 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW: TESTAMENT 


Gr. d. Griech. Pap., p. 486). Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, I, p. 734, con- 
siders ava, like avri, one of the ‘‘proethnic” prepositions. It is 
rare in the papyri and the inscriptions (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., 
is strangely like Ac. 17: 6 of rip oik. dvactatwoarrTes. 

(b) Avtt. This preposition is in the locative case of avra. Cf. 
Sanskrit dnti, Latin ante, Lithuanian ant, Gothic and, German 
ant (—ent), Anglo-Saxon andlang, and-swerian (‘answer’). The root- 
idea is really the very word “end.” Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 437) 
thinks it may mean “front.” If so, “in front of’? would be the 
idea of the word in the locative. Cf. ante-room, avrios, avtaw (ar-, 
im), évaytios, ‘at the end’ (av7i). Suppose two men at each end of a 
log facing each other. That gives the etymological picture, ‘‘face 
to face.’ The case used with it was originally the genitive and na- 
turally so, though in modern Greek the accusative has displaced 
it.1. It is obviously the real adnominal genitive and not ablative 
(cf. Sanskrit adverb dntt) that we have with avi and is like the 
genitive with the adverbs ayra, dvriov, avria, and the adjective 
avrios, etc.2. In Homer indeed av7i has just begun to be used in 
composition with verbs so that it barely escapes the list of the 
“improper” prepositions.? Blass‘ calls it “‘one of the preposi- 
tions that are dying out,’’ but as a matter of fact it survives in 
modern Greek. In the N. T. it is used in composition with twenty- 
two verbs (single compounds) and occurs twenty-two times also 
with nouns and pronouns. It is not therefore very flourishing in 
the N. T. It does not occur often in the indices to the papyri 
volumes, and Mayser® gives papyri support for some of the N. T. 
compounds like avOopodoyéw, avrixeuat, avTiAauBavouar. It is absent 
from the inscriptions of Magnesia and Pergamon (Radermacher, 
N. T. Gr., p. 115).. In some of the compounds the original idea 
of the preposition comes out finely. Thus in 4dyv7-offadueiv 7h 
aveuw (Ac. 27:15) the preposition merely carries on the idea of 
the o¢$adruos. The boat could not look at (‘eye, face to face’) or 
face the wind. This root-idea is always present in avri and is the 
basis from which to discuss every example. It is equally plain in 
a word like avri-rap-7\Oev (Lu. 10:31 f.). The priest and Levite 
passed along on the other side of the road, facing (avi) the wounded 
traveller. Note dvri-Badd\ere in Lu. 24:17, where the two dis- 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 368. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 740. 
2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 437; Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 126, 149 f. 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 150. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gr., p. 124. 5 Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 487. 


ro. Cl —— ——— es ee ee ee eS eee a 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 573 


ciples were exchanging words (casting them from one to the other 
as they faced each other, av7i) with one another, an intimate and 
vivid picture of conversation. Cf. also the contrast between dvr 
and xara in évds avOe£erat (‘cleave to,’ ‘cling to,’ ‘hold one’s self face 
to face with’) xai rod érépou katadpovnce: (Mt. 6 : 24). In the double 
compound ovv-avri-AapPaverar 7H aobeveia judy (Rom. 8: 26; ef. Lu. 
10 : 40) the fundamental meaning is obvious. The Holy Spirit 
lays hold of our weakness along with (ctv) us and carries his part 
of the burden facing us (av7i) as if two men were carrying a log, 
one at each end. Cf. avri-hauPavecbar in Ac. 20:35. The English 
word “‘antithesis”’ preserves the idea also. Note xarynyricapev dyti- 
kpus Xtov (Ac. 20 : 15) where in both verb and preposition the idea 
of face-to-face appears. So am-avrnoe (Mk. 14:13), avri-repa (Lu. 
8 : 26), &-avri-ov (20 : 26). Now the various resultant ideas grow 
out of this root-idea because of different contexts. Take the notion 
of opposition (against). The word does not mean that in itself. 
The two disciples were talking in a friendly mood (av71-BadXere), but 
if a man makes himself king he dayri-Neyer 7G Kaioape (Jo. 19 : 12) 
in a hostile sense. It is the atmosphere of rivalry that gives the 
colour of hostility. We see it also in the word dyti-ypiotos (1 Jo. 
2:18), avri-mimrere 7G mvebwatre (Ac. 7:51). In Lu. 21:15 three 
instances occur: avti-orhvar, avt-ertety, avri-Keiwevor. Cf. dvti-duxos 
(Mt. 5:25). There is no instance of the uncompounded preposi- 
tion in this sense. The idea of ‘‘in the place of”’ or “‘instead’’ comes 
where two substantives placed opposite to each other are equiva- 
lent and so may be exchanged. The majority of the N. T. ex- 
amples belong here. In 6¢@adpov avti d¢0adyod (Mt. 5: 38; ef. 
also av7i d66vr0s) there is exact equivalence like “tit for tat.’’ So 
also xaxov avri kaxod (Ro. 12:17; 1 Th. 5:15; 1 Pet. 3 : 9), Nodopiar 
avti Novdopias (1 Pet. 3:9). None the less does the idea of exchange 
(cf. dvt-addd\ayua, Mk. 8 : 37) result when a fish and a snake are 
placed opposite each other, avril ixdbos ddw (Lu. 11:11) or one’s 
birthright and a mess of pottage (Heb. 12:16). In Mt. 17: 27, 
avri éuod kal cod, there is a compression of statement where the 
stater strictly corresponds to the tax due by Christ and Peter 
rather than to Christ and Peter themselves. But in ddirpov avr 
mo\dav (Mt. 20 : 28; Mk. 10 : 45) the parallel is more exact. These 
important doctrinal passages teach the substitutionary conception 
of Christ’s death, not because av7i of itself means “instead,” which 
is not true, but because the context renders any other resultant 
idea out of the question. Compare also avridurpov brép tavtwv by 
Paul (1 Tim. 2:6) where both avzi and bzép combine with ddrpov 


574 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in expressing this idea. Cf. avri-ruros (Heb. 9 : 24). In Mt. 2 : 22 
avrt tod marpos the substitution takes the form of succession as 
son succeeds father on the throne. Cf. av6-vaaros (Ac. 13:7). In 
Jas. 4:15 dv7i rod Neyev the result is also substitution, the points 
of view being contrasted. In Heb. 12:2 the cross and the joy 
face each other in the mind of Jesus and he takes both, the cross 
in order to get the joy. The idea of exchange appears also 
in 1 Cor. 11:15 % kéun dvti reprBoraiov. Blass! considers yxapupv 
avrtt xaptros (Jo. 1 : 16) as “‘peculiar,’’ but Winer? rightly sees the 
original import of the preposition. Simcox® cites from Philo xapitas 
veas avTl madaoTéepwy éerdidwow as clearly explaining this “remark- 
able” passage. But really has not too much difficulty been made 
of it? As the days come and go a new supply takes the place of 
the grace already bestowed as wave follows wave upon the shore. 
Grace answers (avri) to grace. The remaining examples are five 
of av’ Gy in the sense of ‘because’ (‘therefore’), when two clauses 
or sentences correspond to each other, one the reason for the other. 
This is indeed classical enough (LX_X also). Similar is avti robrov 
(Eph. 5:31) where the LXX (Gen. 2 : 24), which Paul does not 
quote, has évexey rovrou (cf. Mk. 10:7; Mt. 19:4). There is yet 
another idea that comes out in composition like dvr-azro-dléwpe 
(Lu. 14:14) where azo has the meaning of ‘back’ and ayri of 
‘in return’ (cf. “in turn’”’). Cf. dvr-aro-xpivoua (Lu. 14:6) and 
av0-ouodroyew (Lu. 2:38). In Col. 1 : 24, avr-ava-rdAnpow, Paul uses 
avrt in the sense of ‘in his turn’ (answering over to Christ). As 
Christ, so Paul fills up the measure of suffering. One may remark 
that prepositions in composition often best show their original 
import. 

(c) “Até. The etymology of this preposition is very simple. 
We note the Sanskrit dpa, Latin ab, Gothic af, English of, off. 
Some of the older dialects used the form av (Aread., Cypr., Thess.) 
and the Epic azai is to be noted.t7 We may compare ay (daz-s) 
with Latin aps (ab; cf. ex, €€). The case of az6 cannot be deter- 
mined, but observe arat above. In the Arcadian and Cyprian 
amv 1s found with the locative, but in the literary Greek only the 
ablative is used with a6, a case in perfect harmony with the 
meaning of the word. The nominative azé 6 dy in Rev. 1:4 is, 


1_GriotsN.bo Gk press 2 W.-Th., p. 364. 

8 Lang. of the N. T., p. 137. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 225f. The vague 
word avritnuyis (1 Cor. 12 : 28) is frequent in petitions to the Ptolemies (pap.). 
Cf. P. Par. 26 (B.c. 163-2). 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 4837. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 666 ff. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIZ) 575 


of course, for a theological purpose, to accent the unchangeable- 
ness of God. It is one of the most tenacious of the prepositions, 
being extremely frequent in the N. T. both with nouns and in 
composition with verbs. Jannaris! gives an interesting sketch 
of the history of a76 in the later Greek. In the modern Greek it 
is used with the accusative (the ablative only in set phrases). 
This accusative usage is found as early as Hermas.? ’Ex finally 
vanished before azo (cf. év before eis), but in the modern Greek 
aré also supplants to some extent ava, rpds and iro. The expla- 
nation of ao is somewhat complicated therefore’ since the increase 
of its use is due partly to the general tendency regarding prepo- 
sitions (cf. a6 with ablative instead of the “partitive genitive ”’) 
and partly to its supplanting other prepositions like é, rapa, 76. 

1. Original Significance. It can be easily perceived in the N. T. 
It is clear enough in aro-xérrTw, for instance, ‘to cut off,’ as ar-éxoper 
Ilérpos 76 wriov (Jo. 18 : 26). Cf. amo-xadtarw, ‘to take the veil off,’ 
‘unveil’ (cf. Mt. 10: 26 for contrast between xadtirrw and azoxad.). 
So amo-Onxn, ‘a treasure-house for putting things away’ (Mt. 3: 12). 
Cf. aa-ednuncey (Mt. 21:33) for ‘a man off from home.’ So a47- 
éBXerev In Heb. 11:26 and dd-opdyres in 12:2. It is needless to 
multiply examples from the compound words?‘ like dzo-xwpéw. 
Moulton® seems right against Blass® in considering ws 476 oradliwy 
dexarrevte (Jo. 11:18) not a real Latinism, but a mere accidental 
parallel to a millibus passuum duobus. The same idiom occurs in 
Jo. 21:8 and also in Rev. 14:20. It is indeed rather late Greek 
(Strabo, Diodorus and Plutarch), but it is not such a manifest 
Latinism as Jannaris’ supposes. It is not the meaning of a6 
that is unusual here, but merely the position. We say ten miles 
off, not off ten miles. Cf. aad apas 0’, ‘at 9 o’clock,’ P. Oxy. 523 
(ii/a.D.). The idea of ‘‘off”’ or ““away from”’ is enough to explain the 
bulk of the N. T. passages. The context as a rule does not alter 
this simple idea. Thus amd rfs Tadtdaias (Mt. 3:18), ard rod 
Ydatos (3:16), ard avatrod\Gv (2:1), Bare ard cod (5:29), ard Tod 
movnpov (6:13), ard Tod pynuetov (Lu. 24:2), am’ éuod (Mt. 7: 23), 
katémavoev ard tavtwv (Heb. 4:4), aro ths wpas exeivns (Mt. 9 : 22), 
ard Tov duapriav (Mt. 1 : 21), &davros éyévero an’ airy (Lu. 24:31), 
avadeua ard Tod Xptorod (Rom. 9:3). Here the ablative case and 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 369 ff. then jek iss 
8 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 187. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 369: 
4 Cf. Mayser, Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 487. 5 Prol., p. 102. 


6 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 95. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 227, also sees Lat. influence 
here. mHists GkaGre por ls 


576 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the root-idea of the preposition make all clear. The question of 
place, time, person or abstract relations cuts very little figure 
in the matter. Wherever the ablative case is natural in Greek, 
there até may appear to make clearer the case-idea of source 
or separation. Conybeare and Stock (p. 84) consider the idiom 
amd ’ABpadu éws Aaveié (Mt.1:17) a Hebraism. The construction 
is in the LXX, but there is nothing un-Greek about it. For 
a6 in expressions of time take ad’ js nuepas (Col. 1:9). In Mt. 
7:16, ard 7&v xapr&v éervyvwoecbe, the notion of source is the real 
idea. Cf. dveMé~ato abtots ard Tv ypadav (Ac. 17: 2). In Ac. 16: 
33, 2dovcev ard Tv TAnyr, it seems at first as if the stripes were 
washed from Paul and Silas and not, as here, Paul and Silas 
washed from the stripes. Winer! suggests the addition in thought 
of ‘‘and cleansed.” Cf. xaapiowuev éavtods amd mavTos wodvopod (2 
Cor. 7:1), which idiom Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 216) illus- 
trates from the inscriptions, and on p. 227 he further cites from the 
inscriptions three examples of Aovouar ao in illustration of Ac. 
16:33. Cf. aa-evivaro Tas xetpas (Mt. 27:24). In Ac. 15: 38, rov 
arooTavra an’ avtdv ard Haududtas, no difficulty should be found in 
the threefold use of amo, since the Greek, unlike the English, loves 
to repeat words in varying relations. Here we have amo in com- 
position, with persons, with place. See ’A9Gos ad Tod atuaros (Mt. 
27: 24). Certainly there was never any reason for thinking xafapos 
amo Tod atuatos (Ac. 20 : 26) a Hebraism, since it is the pure abla- 
tive idea, and the usage is continuous from Demosthenes to late 
Greek writers and papyri.2 We even find ridarts ard rv Gywr, 
Pap. Par. 10, 20 (Radermacher, p. 116). The Pastor Hermae 
shows a76 after éyxparevouar, Kabapifouar, tavouar, dvddoooua (Ra- 
dermacher, p. 113). Many similar examples of this simple use of 
amo occur in the N. T. Cf. the mere ablative with adioraro (Lu. 
2:37) and then with aro (4:13). Cf. areOavere ard (Col. 2: 
20), peravonoov aro (Ac. 8: 22), etc. Like other prepositions azo 
may occur with adverbs, like azo tore (Mt. 4 : 17). 

2. Meaning ‘Back.’ We see it clearly in dmo-didwm, ‘give 
back’ (Mt. 16:27). But even here the point of view is simply 
changed. The giver gives from himself to the recipient. In the 
case of a debt or reward from the recipient’s point of view he is 
getting back what was his due. This idea appears in dmo\apBavw 
as in Lu. 6:34. A particularly good example is found in az- 


1 W.-Th., p. 372. 
2 Deiss., B. S., p. 196, for numerous exx.; Moulton, Prol., p. 102. Cf. 
Kuhring, De Praep. in Usu, p. 54. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIZ) 577 


éxovow Tov mobdv airav (Mt. 6:2). Cf. ar-éyer (Mk. 14: 41). 
This notion of receipt in full is common (“in countless instances,” 
Deissmann) for aréxw in the ostraca, papyri and inscriptions. 
Cf. Deissmann, Light fr. the Anc. East, pp. 110 ff. Cf. ray reuav 
améxw macay (i/A.D., Delphi Inscr., Bull. de Corr. Hell., 22, p. 58), 
‘I have received the whole price’ for the slave’s manumission. 
Cf. aédaBev 7a rpodeta, P. Oxy. 37 (A.D. 49). Cf. é£eddunv Tv arro- 
doxnv, P. Oxy. 1133, 16 (A.p. 396). This idiom seems to be confined 
to composition (cf. am6-xpiua, 2 Cor. 1:9) and am-apx4 (Ro. 8: 23). 

3. “Translation-Hebraism” in goBetcbac ard. Cf. Lu. 12: 4.1 
In Mt. 10 : 28, doBetoGe rov duv., we have the usual accusative, and 
in verse 26 we even see doBnfijre abrots; but verse 28 again shows 
poBetabe ard. In Lu. 12:1, rpocéxere éavrots ard ris Cbuns, we have 
the usual ablative as above. Cf. BrXérw ard in Mk. 8:15. ’Ard 
in the LX X was used to translate the Hebrew 2,2 but not all the 
examples in the LXX are necessarily pure Hebraisms, as Cony- 
beare and Stock imply.’ Besides, the papyri show BXéze carov amd 
Tav ’lovéaiwy, B.G.U. 1079 (a.p. 41), the first reference to the 
Jews as money-lenders. Some of the N. T. examples are merely 
for the so-called ‘“‘partitive genitive.’ Thus éxXeEduevos am’ abrav 
dwoexa (Lu. 6:18), eveyxate ad Tv d~apiwv (Jo. 21:10), exe ard 
Tod mvetuatos (Ac. 2:17), éobie ard T&v Yryiwy (Mt. 15:27), ziw 
amo Tod yernuatos (Lu. 22:18), riva ard r&v dbo (Mt. 27 : 21), ete. 
The point is not that all these phrases occur in the older Greek, 
but that they are in perfect harmony with the Greek genius in 
the use of the ablative and in the use of azo to help the abla- 
tive. Moulton (Prol., p. 246) cites & am6 r&v Xprotiavdy, Pelagia 
(Usener, p. 28) as fairly parallel with otal — amo té&v cKavdadwv 
(Mt. 18:7). The partitive use of the ablative with azo does 
come nearer to the realm of the genitive (cf. English of and the 
genitive), but the ablative idea is still present. One may note 
Tov amd Kedrav pdfov in Polybius XVII, 11, 2 (Radermacher, 
N. T. Gr., p. 116). Cf. @éduya aro tpixav (Mt. 3 : 4) with the old 
genitive of material. 

4. Comparison with &. But aro needs to be compared more 
particularly with é which it finally displaced save? in the Epirot 
ax or 6x. But the two are never exactly equivalent. ’Ex means 
‘from within’ while a7é is merely the general starting-point. ’Azé 
does not deny the ‘“‘within-ness”’; it simply does not assert it as 
é does. Thus in Mk. 1:10 we read dvaBaivwy ex Tod téaros when 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 102. 3 Sel., etc., p. 83. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 126, 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 102. 


578 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the assertion is made by é« that Jesus had been in the water (cf. 
kata, — els, ava — &k in Ac. 8: 38f.). But in Mt. 3:16 we merely 
read avéBn amd Tod bdaros, a form of expression that does not deny 
the é of Mark. The two prepositions are sometimes combined, as 
éEeNOetv an’ airis (Ac. 16:18) and adoprotow éx pecov (Mt. 13:49). 
Even with the growth in the use of azo it still falls behind é in the 
N. T.!. Both azo and é« are used of domicile or birthplace, but not 
in exactly the same sense.?. Thus in Jo.1:44 see jv dé 6 Pidurmos 
aro BnOcada, €k THs TONEws ’Avdpéov, Where amd corresponds closely 
with the German von and French de which came to be marks 
of nobility. So in verse 45, "Iwo rov ard Nafapér, where (in 
both verses) no effort is made to express the idea that they 
came from within Nazareth. That idea does appear in verse 46, 
éx Nataper. In Lu. 2:4 both amo and é are used for one’s 
home (a706 r#s TadtAalas €x 7wodews Nafaper). Indeed é in this sense 
in the N. T. seems confined to rots. Both appear again in Jo. 
11:1. Cf. also Jo. 7:41 f., &k ris TadtAaias, ard BnO\eeu, where the 
two prepositions are reversed. The Latin versions render both 
amo and éx here by a.4 Cf. do ‘Apimabaias (Jo. 19:38). Abbott® 
is clear that John does not mean to confuse the two prepositions, 
but uses each in its own sense, though a7é is not found in the older 
writers for domicile. The sense of variety, as in English, may have 


led to the use of now one, now the other, since at bottom either 


answers. So Luke in Ac. 23:34 has éx qoias ézapxeias, but ard 
Kudixias. Cf. Ac. 1:4. Blass® notes that outside of John the N. T. 
writers use azo for one’s country. So even Luke in Ac. 24:18, 
amo Ths “Actas. The MSS. indeed vary in some instances between 
amo and é as in Ac. 16: 39 with ris woNews. Cf. MS. variation be- 
tween a76 and zapa in Mk. 16:9. Cf. also Ac. 13 : 50 for &—aro. 
In a case like of aro ris "Iradias (Heb. 13 : 24) the preposition does 
not determine whether the persons are still in Italy or are outside 
of Italy. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 237. But Deissmann (Light, etc., 
p. 186) thinks that a76 here means ‘in,’ like a76 ®uad in an ostra- 
con from Thebes, a.p. 192. Cf. rav am’ ’Okvptyxwv wodews, P. Oxy. 
38, A.D. 49. ’Azo is also, like é (Ac. 10 : 45, etc.), used for mem- 
bers of a party in Ac. 12:1, twas rv ad THs exxAnolas, an un-Attic 
usage. But on the whole the two prepositions can be readily dis- 
tinguished in the N. T. 

5. Comparison with mapa. <As to rapa, it suggests that one has 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 102. 4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 228. 
2 Abbott, JohsGr:; p? 227 f. ® ITb.sp22d: 


9 Blass Grol) NiwiitakseDatop: SGre Ole Naas ata ane 


PREPOSITIONS (ITPOOESEI®) 579 


been by the side of the one from whom he comes. In relation to 
God we find é rod deod €&fNov (Jo. 8 : 42), rapa Tod marpds éEAOOY 
(16 : 27), awd Oeod eéjOes (16 : 30). Cf. rpds tov Oedy (Jo. 1:1). It 
would be overrefinement to insist on a wide and radical difference 
here between a6, é« and apa; and yet they are not exactly syn- 
onymous. In the older Greek rapa was the common preposition 
for the conscious personal departure.! But in N. T. a7é occurs 
also with persons. So daxnxoayev am’ adrod (1 Jo. 1:5), pabety ad’ 
tuav (Gal. 3:2), mapedaBov ard Tod xupiov (1 Cor. 11:23). One 
must not, however, read too much into azo, as in Gal. 2 : 12, 
where tivds amd ’laxwBov does not mean ‘with the authority of 
James,’ though they doubtless claimed it. Cf. Mk. 15:45; 1 
Th. 3:6. One doubts if we are justified in insisting on a radical 
distinction between rapa rod rarpos (Jo. 10:18) and amo Tod Kupiov 
(1 Cor. 11: 23) save as etymology throws light on the matter.? 

6. Compared with bro. The MSS. of ancient writers,’ as of the 
N. T., varied often between az6 and io. As instances of this va- 
riation inthe Ne le take Mk. 8: 31; Ac. 4:36; 10:17; Ro..138 :1. 
The MSS. often vary where azo is the correct text. The use of 
a6 with the agent is not precisely like t7o, though one has only 
to compare 476 with Latin ab and English of to see how natural 
it is for azo to acquire this idiom. Observe xarevexfels a6 rod 
Yrvov (Ac. 20:9). So in Jas. 1:13, a6 Oeot repafouar, we trans- 
late ‘tempted of God.’ The temptation, to be sure, is presented 
as coming from God. Cf. also 6 probes 6 advaoTtepnyevos ad’ buav 
(Jas. 5:4), where the keeping back of the reward is conceived 
as coming from you. Cf. Ac. 4:36. In. Mt. 16:21, radety aro 
Tav tpecBurépwr, ‘at the hands of,’ is a free rendering of the idea of 
agency or source. In Lu. 16:18, arod\edvpévny ard avdpds, note the 
repetition of 476. This idea of removal is present in ia@jvac amo 
(Lu. 6:17) and in évoxdobpevor ad (6:18) it is agency. There may 
be a zeugma in the last clause. In Lu. 9:22, arodoxipacdjqvat amo Tov 
mpecBurépwv, we have the same construction as in 16:18 above 
(cf. 17:25). Cf. qromacpevoy ard rod Oeod (Rev. 12 : 6) and Ac. 2: 
22 amodederypevov ard Tod Oeod. The use of amo after substantives 
throws some light on this matter. Thus 77 aro cod erayyedtav 
(Ac. 23 : 21), ard cod onuetov (Mt. 12:38). This use of a6 after 
passive verbs came to be the rule in the later writers. Cf. Wilhelm, 
Cree Le 20, 

But it is not alone a form of agency that a7é comes to express. 


WP pea (OeCt Blass, Gr, of N.-T..Gk., p. 125. 
2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 370. 8 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 138. 


580 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


It may also be used for the idea of cause, an old usage of 76. 
For instance, take a6 ris xapas abrod braye (Mt. 13 : 44), aro rod 
hoBov expatay (14 : 26), oval 7G Koouw ard T&v cKavdadwy (18:7), 
KOLMWpevous ATO THs AUIns (Lu. 22 : 45), obKere taxvov ard TOD rANOous 
(Jo. 21:6), ovx eveBXerov amo ris doés (Ac. 22:11). Cf. further 
Lu. 19:3; 24:41; Ac. 12:14; 20:9; Heb. 5:7, etc. The LXX 
gives abundant illustration of the same idiom,’ the causal use of 
aro. Asa matter of sound see éd’ ov and aq’ js in Heb. 7: 13. 

(d) Aud. Delbriick? says: ‘Of the origin of 6.4 I know nothing 
to say.’’ One hesitates to proceed after that remark by the master 
in syntax. Still we do know something of the history of the word 
both in the Greek and in other Indo-Germanic tongues. The form 
6a may be in the instrumental case, but one must note é:ai (dative) 
in the lyric passages of Atschylus, not to say the Thessalian é:e.* 
But there is no doubt about 6:4 being kin to dvo, dis. Sanskrit 
dva, dvi (cf. trayas, tri), dvis; Latin duo, bis (cf. Sanskrit dvis, 
Greek dis, b=v or v); German zwei; English two (fem. and neut.), 
twain (masc.), twi-ce, twi-light, be-tween, two-fold, etc. 

1. The Root-Idea. It is manifest in 6va-xédoror, dio-xidL01, 6(-dpax ua, 
di-7Aods (cf. a-dods). The etymology of the word is ‘two,’ dvo, as 
shown in these three words as well as in dis, 6u-7Adw, all of which 
occur in the N. T. Thus it will be seen how persistent is the ety- 
mological force in the word. Cf. Mk. 6:37; Rev. 18:6; Mk. 5: 
13. See also dls uvpiddes (Text. Rec., dto uw. Rev. 9 : 16), di-Aovyos 
(1 Tim. 3 : 8), 6i-crowos (Heb. 4:12), dt-Yuxos (Jas. 1:8), di-dpax por 
(Mt. 17: 24), Ai-duyos (Jo. 11:16). Cf. éoxic6n eis dto (Mt. 27: 51). 

2. ‘By Twos’ or ‘Between.’ But the preposition has advanced a 
step further than merely “‘two” to the idea of by-twain, be-tween, 
in two, in twain. This is the ground-meaning in actual usage. 
The word 6:-64d\accos originally meant ‘resembling two seas’ (cf. 
Euxine Sea, Strabo 2, 5, 22), but in the N. T. (Ac. 27: 41) it ap- 
parently means lying between two seas (Thayer). The notion of 
interval (be-tween) is frequent in the N. T. both in composition 
and apart from composition. Thus in jyep&v b:a-yevouerwv twav (Ac. 

25 : 13), ‘some days came in between’ (614). Cf. dta-yvmooua Ta Kad’ 
duds (Ac. 24:22) with Latin di-gnosco, dis-cerno and Greek-English 
dia-gnosis (da-yrwou, Ac. 25:21). Aca-Ojnxn is an arrangement or 
covenant between two (Gal. 3:17). See 6:-acpody (1 Cor. 12 : 11); 
dra-didwyue (Lu. 11:22) ‘divide’; ovOev 6:-expivey peTtakd hua re Kal abrav 
(Ac. 15:9) where weraéd explains 6a. Cf. d1a-xprous (Heb. 5 :14), ‘dis- 


1 ©, and’ S.; pase: 2 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 759. 
§ K.-BL., II, p. 250. Cf. xarai, rapat, bral. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 581 


crimination’ ; dva-Aeimw (Lu. 7: 45), ‘intervals of delay’; dua-Abw (Ac. 
5 : 36), ‘dis-solve’; dua-vepifw (Ac. 2 : 45), ‘dis-tribute’; dva-pryvupe 
(Lu. 8:29), ‘rend asunder’; 6a-cxoprifw (Jo. 11:52), opposed to ow- 
ayw, ‘di-sperse’; dva-onaw (Mk. 5 : 4), ‘rend in two’; d:a-orelpw (Ac. 
8 :1)=‘scatter abroad’; d:a-c7opa (Jo.7 : 35), ‘dispersion’; dra-cTé\Aw 
(Heb. 12: 20), ‘divide’; 6:a-ornua (Ac. 5:7), ‘distance’ or ‘interval’; 
dia-croAn (1 Cor. 14:7), ‘distinction’; dva-rifewar (Lu. 22: 29), ‘dis- 
pose’; dia-pépw (Ac. 27: 27, Mt. 6:26), ‘bear apart,’ ‘differ’; dud- 
dopos (Ro. 12: 6), ‘different’; d:-xafw (Mt. 10:35), ‘set at variance’ 
(‘cleave asunder’). These numerous examples ought to be suffi- 
cient to show what the real meaning of the word in itself is. A 
particularly noticeable instance appears in Lu. 24:51, where we 
have 6.-éoTn an’ a’toev. 

The N. T. preserves this notion of interval in expressions of 
time and so it is hardly “peculiar only to literary style.”’! Thus 
in Mk. 2:1 6.’ juepov means ‘interval of days,’ ‘days between,’ 
‘after some days,’ though surely no one would think that 64 
really means ‘after.’ Cf. Mt. 26:61, 61a rprdv jyepay (cf. év, 27: 
AO); 6v’ érGv rrecdvwv, Ac. 24:17; Gal. 2:1, da dexatecodpwr érdv. 
Cf. Ac.5:7. In Ac. 1: 8, 60’ juepSv reccepaxovta ortavouevos, the 
appearance of Jesus was at intervals within the forty days. But 
see opposition to this idea in Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 
255 f. In the phrase 6ca vuxrds (Ac. 5:19; 16:9, etc.), ‘by night,’ 
dia adds little to the genitive itself. It is the real adnominal 
genitive. The preposition is very common in the N. T., especially 
with the genitive (gen. 382, acc. 279),? though the accusative be- 
comes dominant later. 

3. ‘Passing Between’ or ‘Through.’ The idea of interval between 
leads naturally to that of passing between two objects or parts of 
objects. ‘Through’ is thus not the original meaning of 64, but 
is a very common one. The case is usually the genitive, though 
in Homer? the accusative is common also, as we find it once in the 
N. T. (Lu. 17:11), 6:4 wécov Dayapias (cf. dua péoov, 4: 30), and even 
-here note the genitive after uécov. Some MSS. in Jo. 8: 59 read also 
dua pécov. Blass* wrongly calls the accusative an “inadmissible 
reading” in view of Homer and the growing use of the accusative 
in the vernacular with all prepositions (cf. modern Greek). This 
use of ‘through’ or ‘thorough’ is common in composition and 
sometimes has a “perfective” idea (‘clear through’) as in éca-xaBapret 
TH ddwva (Mt. 3:12), ‘will thoroughly cleanse.’ Cf. also d:a-Baivw 


1 Jann., Hist. Gr. Gk., p. 374. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 145. 
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. 4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 132. 


582 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Heb. 11:29), dca-BXérw (Mt. 7:5), du-ayyedrdw (Lu. 9:60), d:a-ypnyopew 
(Lu. 9:32), d:-ayw (1 Tim. 2:2), dva-déxouar (Ac. 7:45), dca-xare- 
Neyxouae (Ac. 18 : 28), dra-udxoua (Ac. 23 : 9), dua-wervw (Lu. 1 : 22), 
dta-vuxtepevw (Lu. 6:12), di-aviw (Ac. 21:7), dca-raparpi8n (1 Tim. 
6:5); dta-cetw (Lu. 3 : 14), dta-cwfw (Lu. 7:3), dva-durAacow (4 : 10). 
This sense of 6:4 is used with words of place, time, agent or ab- 
stract word. In all of these relations the root-idea of the preposi- 
tion is easily perceived. Thus in Mt. 12:43, dvépxerar 6c’ avidpwv 
Torwv, dua Enpas (Heb. 11: 29), dua rhs LDayapias (Jo. 4:4), dra 
aupos (1 Cor. 3 : 15), 60’ éodrrpov (1 Cor. 13:12). Cf. Ac. 13: 49; 
2 Cor.8:18. In Ro. 15 : 28, arereboouar 6c’ budv eis Varaviavy, Winer 
(Winer-Thayer, p. 378) takes 6’ tyuav to be ‘through you,’ i.e. 
‘through your city,’ ‘through the midst of you.’ In all these exam- 
ples the idiom runs just as in the older Greek. The use of 6a with 
expressions of time was never very common and gradually was 
transferred! to eis. But some examples occur in the N. T. like 6.’ 
8Ans vuKros (Lu. 5: 5), which may be compared with 61a mavros rob 
¢qiv (Heb. 2:15) and the common phrase 6:4 ravros (Mk. 5: 5). 
Here the idea of through is applied to time. Rouffiac (Recherches, 
p. 29) cites 6a Tod yemuGvos ddov from inscriptions of Priene 112, 
98 and 99 (i/B.c.). The agent may also be expressed by 6:4. This 
function was also performed in the ancient Greek, though, when 
means or instrument was meant, the instrumental case was com- 
monly employed.? Aca is thus used with inanimate and animate 
objects. Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in be- 
tween the non-attainment and the attainment of the object in 
view. One may compare ypaypavres bua xerpds a’tdv (Ac. 15: 23) 
with 600 éruttodds, dua Nndbuou pilav, dua Kpoviov waxarpopdpov piar, 
B.U. 1079, a.p. 41 (Milligan, Greek Pap., p. 39). So od Oed\w dua 
MéXavos Kal Kadapou cor ypadev (3 Jo. 13), dua yAwoons (1 Cor. 14: 9), 
Ta dtd TOD awpyaros (2 Cor. 5: 10), dua Tov 6rAwY (2 Cor. 6:7), unre dua 
mvevpatos pte dia AOyou pre du’ Ercotodns (2 Th. 2: 2). In 2 Pet. 
3:5 note the difference between €£ tdaros and 6c’ ddaros. Abstract 
ideas are frequently so expressed, as cecwopevor 61a tiotews (Eph. 
2:8), dud OeAnuatos eod (Eph. 1:1), da rod evayyediov (1 Cor. 4 : 15), 
dca vouou (Ro. 3 : 27), dv’ droxadtWews (Gal. 1:12). Cf. 1 Cor. 6 : 14. 
When 64 occurs with the personal agent, he is regarded as the in- 
termediate agent. Sometimes the immediate agent is also ex- 
pressed by iro. So trd Kupiov 6ca tod rpodynrov (Mt. 1 : 22, etc.). 
Cf. also 6ua Tijs yuvarxos — ex Tod Heod (1 Cor. 11 : 12), where source 
and mediate agent are distinguished. In Gal. 1:1, am’ avOparwv — 
1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 374. Sel bi Dao Toe 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEDEI2) 083 


dv’ avOpamrov, Paul takes pains to deny both ideas. In 1 Cor. 8 :6, 
é£ ov — dv’ od, the first refers to God the Father as the source of all 
things and the second refers to Jesus as the mediate agent by 
whom all things come into existence. Cf. Col. 1:16. Indeed 
God himself may be regarded as source, mediate agent, and ulti- 
mate object or end, as Paul does in his noble doxology in Ro. 
11:36, dre €& abrot Kal 60’ adtod Kal els abrov ra ravta. There are 


_ other instances also where God is looked upon as the intervening 


cause or agent. So 6.’ ob (Heb. 2:10; 1 Cor. 1:9). But &4 is 
often used with Christ in regard to our relation to God (cf. Paul’s 
use of vy). Thus Ro. 1: 8; 5:1, etc. Cf. 6’ éuod in Jo. 14:6, 
dua ToAAGy paptipwy (2 Tim. 2:2), dv’ ayyékwy (Heb. 2:2). The 
intermediate idea of 6.4 appears well in 1 Cor. 3:5 dcdxovor bv’ dv 
ércatevoate, Heb. 3:16 dad Mavoéws, Ro. 5:5 dca rvebparos. In 
1 Th. 4:2, rivas mapayyeNias ebaxapev butv dca Tod Kuplov Inood, the 
matter seems turned round, but, as Paul was the speaker, he con- 
ceives Jesus as also making the commands. Abbott, Johannine 
Grammar, p.236, rightly argues in favour of ‘through him’ (not ‘it’) 
in Jo. 1:7. It is important to note dca "Incod Xpicrod (Eph. 1: 5), 
pregnant with meaning. Cf. Schettler, Die paulinische Formel 
“Durch Christus,” pp. 28 ff. This use of 64 occurs in the papyri 
(Wenger, Die Stellvertretung im Rechte der Papyri, 1906, p. 9 f.). 
Christ is conceived as our representative (Deissmann, Light, etc., 
p. 340). It is not far from the notion of means like 6:4 ricrews to 
that of manner like 61a rapaBodjs (Lu. 8: 4). Indeed the two shade 
off into one another as 6c’ dpauatos (Ac. 18:9). Note also 6’ 
ayarns (Gal. 5:6), dv’ érayyeNias (Gal. 3:18), dud Bpaxéwy (Heb. 
13 : 22), dv’ ddtywv (1 Pet. 5 : 12), 60’ bdaros cal atuaros (1 Jo. 5:6), 
dia Ypauparos kal repitroufs (Ro. 2 : 27), dua rpookoupartos (14 : 20), dua 
dogs (2 Cor. 3:11), bu’ brouovfs (Heb. 12:1), da woddAAv daxpbwr. 
(2)C@or. 2:4). Ci, Rom. 2:27. But here also the notion of 
between is always present. This is true even in a case like dca 
T&v oiktTipuav Tod Geod (Ro. 12:1). Cf. also dvd ris xaperos in Ro. 
12:3 with dca thy xapw in 15: 15. 

4. ‘Because of.’ With the accusative 6u4 comes to be used with 
the idea of ‘because of,’ ‘for the sake of,’ ‘on account-of.’ The 
notion of between is still present. Take Mt. 27:18, ca ¢8ovov rape- 
dwxav airév. Envy is the reason that prompted the betrayal and 
so came in between and caused the act. The accusative (exten- 
sion) is natural and helps also to distinguish this idiom from the 
others. For instance, in Heb. 2:10, 6’ dy 7a wavra kal dv’ ov Ta 
mévra, the two ideas are distinguished entirely by means of the 


584. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cases. One may note also 6a tiv yuvatka and dca ths yuvaskds (1 
Cor. 11:9, 12). Cf. da rav xapw above. In Ro. 8:11 the MSS. 
vary between 6.a 76 évorxody and ‘6ca Tod evotxobvros (W. H., Nestle). 
Note also the difference between 61a miotews and dia THY Tapeow 
in Ro. 3:25. Cf. also the common 61a 76 dvoua (Mt. 10: 22), dra 
Thy Tod ayarnv (Eph. 2:4), dua tov Adyov (Jo. 15:3), dua Tov 
xpovov (Heb. 5:12). Cf. Heb. 5:14; Rev. 12:11. The personal 
ground is common also as in éya (& 61a tov rarepa (Jo. 6 : 57), bv’ 
ols (Heb. 6:7), ete. Cf. 1 Jo. 4:9 Snowe 6’ atrod. The aim 
(usually expressed by évexa) may be set forth by 61a also. So 76 
caBBarov dua Tov avOpwrov eyeveto Kal OVX 6 aVOpwros 61a TO GABGBaTor In 
Mk. 2:27: Cfralso 6.’ eueiandtsi vuds in) JO Ze O0n Chevike 
13 : 20; Ph.3:7. Moulton (Prol., p. 105) cites tva 61a cé Baotded 
Tov duxalov Tvxw, M.P.16 and 20 (11i/B.c.), in illustration of Jo. 6: 57. 
The Pauline phrase 6a *Incody (2 Cor. 4:5) is illustrated by éva 
tov Kipiov in a Berlin Museum papyrus letter (ii/A.D.) which Deiss- 
mann (Light, pp. 176 ff.) thinks curiously illumines the story of 
the Prodigal Son in Lu. 15. In the modern Greek ya (6:4) this 
notion of aim or purpose with the accusative is the usual one.! 
A common idiom in the Greco-Roman and Byzantine Greek? is 
the use of 6ua 76 and the infinitive in the sense of va. It is practi- 
cally equivalent in the N. T. to é7c and the indicative and is fre- 
quent. In Jo. 2:24 f. we have both constructions parallel, da 76 
avToV YwwoKkew TavTas, Kal STL Ov xpelay ecxev. In the modern Greek 
we actually have yea va (dca iva) with the subjunctive. Cf. English 
“for that.’ The use of 6:4 7é does not differ practically from rt 
alone. 

(e) "Ev. Inasmuch as eis (év-s) is merely a later variation of év3 
it will be treated after &. There is an older form évi (locative case), 
év., and in Homer eivi or eiv for metrical reasons. But some of the 
dialects (Arcadian, Cretan) wrote iv like the Latin in. But compare 
Latin en-do, Umbrian en, (Latin inter), German in (ein), English 
in (en-). 

1. Old Use of & with Accusative or Locative. Originally & was 
used with either locative or accusative, not to say genitive in a 
case like ety Aiéao which Brugmann‘ does not consider mere ellipsis. 
He cites also éurodwy as being really é& zodév. But there is no man- 
ner of doubt as to the accusative and the locative. The inscrip- 
tions of many of the dialects show abundant illustrations of éy 

1 Thumb, Handb., p. 104. 


2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 374. 3 K.-G., I, p. 468. 
4 Griech. Gr., p. 439. Cf. Brug., Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 465. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 585 


with the accusative such as the Thessalian, Boeotian, Northwest 
Greek, Arcadian, etc.’ Cf. & rayua, év orXiras, etc.2 So iv ra epya,3 
etc. Indeed in Cypriote Greek é& usually has the accusative.t In 
North Arcadian & alone appears (not é&-s, eis) and with either 
locative or accusative like Latin in.’ Besides in Homer we have 
év-Gra, not to mention the common compound verbs like éu-B4\drw, 
éu-Baivw, where one might look for eis. Cf. éuBdvrr eis mdotov 
(Mt. 8 : 23), 6 éuBaas ev 7S TpvBrAiw (Mt. 26 : 23). This so-called 
pregnant use of é& seems very natural after all. It is only in com- 
position that the old usage is preserved in the N. T. or a case like 
év T@ TpUBALw above after a verb of motion where eis might at first 
seem more natural. Cf. Lu. 9 :46;.1 Cor. 11:18; Ro. 1:25. In 
Ro. 1: 24 é& occurs with zapédwxev, but eis in verse 26. Indeed 
(Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 130) we find & with diédwu, tornu and 
TiOnut. Remnants of this early usage survive in the N. T., as 
didovre &v TH Kapdia (2 Cor. 8:16), dedwkey & TH xepi (Jo. 3:35), 
amelero &v dudakj (Mt. 14:3). Cf. the spurious verse Jo. 5: 4 
KaTéBawey ev TH Kod\vuBHOpa; Par. P. 10, 2 (iii/A.D.) avaxexwpnker 
év ’AdeEavdpeia; Epict. (I, 11, 32) avépxn & ‘Pwoun; Tob. 5:5 ropev- 
Ojvar ev “Payous. Cf. Blass-Debrunner, p. 131. The LXX shows 
similar examples. Cf. Conybeare and Stock, p. 83. But it was 
only by degrees that é& came to be associated exclusively with 
the locative case and eis with the accusative as a result of the 
triumph of the Ionic-Attic Greek.* In Homer indeed & appears 
as an adverb.’ In origin therefore we are not to associate & 
primarily with the locative any more than in Latin, though ulti- 
mately that came to be true. Other examples of é& in composi- 
tion in the N. T. with verbs of motion are éuBaretw (Col. 2 : 18), 
éuBiBarw (Ac. 27:6), éurimrw (Lu. 10:36 followed by eis). The 
word therefore evidently expresses the idea of ‘within,’ whether 
of rest or of motion depending on the context. Compare verna- 
cular English, “Come in the house.” Note in Ac. 26 : 20 that é& 
is not repeated with ’LepocoXtpors. 

2. ’Ev Older than eis. It seems certain that originally é stood 
alone without eis, whereas in the modern Greek vernacular é& 


t Tb., p. 438. 2 Meister, Die griech. Dial., Bd. I, p. 284. 

3 Solmsen, Inser. Graecae, p. 4. 

* Meister, Gr. Dial., Bd. II, p. 283 f. 

5 Hoffmann, Gr. Dial., Bd. II, p. 591. Boeotian also knows only & with 
either loc. or ace. Cf. Claflin, Synt. of Boeotian Dial. Inscr., p. 56f. Pindar 
shows é with ace. 

6 Brug., Griech, Gr., p. 4388. 7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 147. 


586 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


has entirely disappeared before eis which uses only the accusa- 
tive.!. There is once more unity, but not exactly on the same terms. 
In the Greek N. T. this process of absorption is going steadily on 
as in the xow? generally. There is rarely much doubt as to the 
significance of év, whereas eis has already begun to resume its old 
identity with é, if indeed in the vernacular it ever gave it up? 
We may compare é& 76 aypd in Mt. 24:18 with els roy aypov in 
Mk. 13:16. Cf. éréecxev xpovov eis rnv ’Aciav (Ac. 19 : 22), rnpetcbar 
els Katoapiay (25:4), eis ofxov éorw (Some MSS. in Mk.2:1). Cf. 
Jo. 1:18. 

In the N. T. & is so frequent (2698 instances) that it is still 
the most common preposition. Indeed Moulton’ thinks that its 
ultimate disappearance is due to the fact that it had become too 
vague as ‘fa maid of all work.” 

3. Place. The simplest use is with expressions of place, like év 
TH ayopa (Mt. 20 : 3), ev de&a (Heb. 1:3), & 7d Opovy (Rev. 3: 21), 
év 7 TAolw (Mt. 4 : 21), év rH rode (Lu. 7: 37), & 7B "lopdavyn roTraud 
(Mt. 3:6), & tdare (8:11), & TH duTerw (Jo. 15:4). Cf. also 
eenOev 6 Noyos ev TH Lovdaia (Lu. 7:17) and év 7 yaroduvAakiw (Jo. 
8:20). For the “pregnant” construction of & after verbs of 
motion cf. chapter XI, x, (2). Cf. examples given under 1. In 
these and like examples év indeed adds little to the idea of the 
locative case which it is used to explain. See also éy rots (Lu. 2: 
49) in the sense of ‘at the house of’ (cf. ets ra téua, Jo. 19 : 27) for 
which Moulton? finds abundant illustration in the papyri. Cf. év 
tots ’Amo\dwviov, R.L. 38? (iii/B.c.). The preposition in itself 
merely states that the location is within the bounds marked 
by the word with which it occurs. It does not mean ‘near,’ but 
‘in,’ that is ‘inside.’ The translation of the resultant idea may 
be indeed 2n, on, at, according to the context, but the preposition 
itself retains its own idea. There is nothing strange about the 
metaphorical use of é in expressions like é Bacavors (Lu. 16 : 23), 
év T@ Oavatw (1 Jo. 3: 14), & do& (Ph. 4:19), & pvornpiw (1 Cor. 
2:7), etc. | 

4. Expressions of Time. ’Ev may appear rather oftener than 
the mere locative. Cf. év ri éoxarn juepa in Jo. 6:44, but 7A 
éoxaTyn juépa in 6 : 54, while in 6:40 the MSS. vary. By & rpiocly 
nuepats (Jo. 2: 19) it is clear that Jesus meant the resurrection 


1 V. and D., Mod. Gk., p. 109 f. 2 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 142. 

3 Prol., p. 103. In the Ptol. papyri, Rossberg (Priip., p. 8) finds 2245 
examples of é and it is the most common preposition. 

4 Prol., p. 103, On the retreat of é& before eis see Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 380. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) O87 


will take place within the period of three days. Cf. 79 rpirn jueépa 
(never with ev in the N. T.) in Mt. 16: 21.1. More common ex- 
pressions are évy caBBarw (Mt. 12: 2), & rH quépa (Jo. 11: 9), & 
TH vuxti (11:10), & 7G devrépw (Ac. 7:13), & 7G xabeEfs (Lu. 8: 1), 
év 7@ perakd (Jo. 4:31), & tals quépas éxeivars (Mt.3: 1), & rH 
mapovoia (1 Th. 2:19), & 7H dvacrace (Mk. 12 : 23), & Auépa xpicews 
(Mt. 10:15), & rH ecxarn cadmeyye (1 Cor. 15 : 52), ete. Cf. Lu. 
1:7. Another temporal use of év is & @ in the sense of ‘while’ 
(Mk. 2:19). Cf. also & ots in Lu. 12:1. The frequent use, espe- 
cially in Luke (cf. év 7G broorpedew, 8 : 40), of & 7S with the infin- 
itive calls for a word. Examples of this idiom occur in the ancient 
Greek (16 in Xenophon, 6 in Thucydides, 26 in Plato)? and the 
papyri show it occasionally. Cf. & 7 doyifecPa, Par. P. 63 
(ii/B.c.). But in the LXX it is a constant translation of 2 and 
is much more abundant in the N. T. as a result of the LXX 
profusion. 

5. ‘Among.’ With plural nouns évy may have the resultant 
idea of ‘among,’ though, of course, in itself it is still ‘in,’ ‘within.’ 
Thus we note & yevynrots yuvarcdv (Mt. 11:11), ore & jutv (Ac. 
2:29), jv &v avrots (4:34), & buty (1 Pet. 5:1), & Tots yyeudow 
‘lovéa (Mt. 2:6). This is a common idiom in the ancient Greek. 
Not very different from this idea (cf. Latin apud) is the use & 
ddPadpots nuav (Mt. 21:42), like Latin coram. One may note also 
év tutvy in 1 Cor. 6:2. Cf. & rots @verw (Gal. 1:16). See also 2 
Cors4.:35 8551; 

6. ‘In the Case of,’ ‘in the Person of’ or simply ‘in.’ A fre- 
quent use is where a single case is selected as a specimen or 
striking illustration. Here the resultant notion is ‘in the case 
of,’ which does not differ greatly from the metaphorical use of ev 
with soul, mind, ete. Cf. Lu. 24:38. Thus with dzoxad\irrw note 
ev éuot (Gal. 1 : 16), elds ev éav7d (Jo. 6 : 61), yernrar ev Euoi (1 Cor. 
9:15), & 7B Enos ri yevnrae (Lu. 23:31), év uty udOnre (1 Cor. 4: 
6), év TH kAaoe (Lu. 24:35). One may note also év 7G ’Adau ravres 
amobvnckovew (1 Cor. 15 : 22), év 7S “Inood xatayyedrew (Ac. 4: 2), 
hyvacuevn ev mvebate ayiw (Ro. 15:16), wyiacrae év 7H yuvasxi (1 
Cor. 7: 14), etc. Paul’s frequent mystical use of év xupiw (1 Cor. 
9:1), & Xpiorg@ (Ro. 6: 11, 23, etc.) may be compared with Jesus’ 
own words, welvate ev euol, Kayw ev byty (Jo. 15:4). Cf. also & 74 


1 See especially Field’s valuable note on this verse showing how impossible 
it is for the resurrection to have occurred on the fourth day. Cf. also Abbott, 
Joh. Gr., p. 255 f. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 215. # Ib., p. 14. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379, 


588 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


deS in Col. 3:3. The LXX usage is not quite on a par with this 
profound meaning in the mouth of Jesus and Paul, even if “ex- 
tremely indefinite” to the non-Christian.!. But Moulton? agrees 
with Sanday and Headlam (Ro. 6:11) that the mystic indwelling 
is Christ’s own idea adopted by Paul. The classic discussion of 
the matter is, of course, Deissmann’s Die Neutestamentliche For- 
mel “in Christo Jesu’? (1892), in which by careful study of the 
LXX and the N. T. he shows the depth and originality of Paul’s 
idea in the use of é& Xpiord. Moulton*® doubts if even here the 
N.T. writers make an innovation, but the fulness of the Christ- 
ian content would amply justify them if they did have to do so. 
See év alrt@ exrioOn Ta wavra (Col. 1:16). As further examples cf. 
Ro.'9 343 4 314 Ph e390 oh ees 

7. As a Datwe? One may hesitate to say dogmatically that in 
1 Cor. 14:11, 6 Aadav & Evol BapBapos, we have & used merely as 
the dative (cf. eis in modern Greek). But 7 dadodvre BapBapos in 
the same verse looks that way,* and Moulton® cites rots év deg 
Tatpt nyamrnuevors (Ju. 1) and reminds us of the common ground 
between the locative and dative in Sanskrit where the locative 
appears with verbs of speaking. Cf. also é éuot in Ph. 1: 26. 
Note also év éuol xipre in late LX X books (Thackeray, Gr., p. 14). 
One may compare ézoincay & aité (Mt. 17:12). There seems 
no doubt that duoroyéw & (Mt. 10: 32=Lu. 12:8) is due® to 
literal translation of the Aramaic. The use of é with duvivar 
(Mt. 5 : 34) is similar to the Hebrew 3. 

8. Accompanying Circumstance. It is needless to multiply un- 
duly the various uses of év, which are “innumerable”’ in the LX X7 
where its chief extension is due to the imitation of the Hebrew 3.8 
But by no means all these uses are Hebraic. Thus éyv for the idea 
of accompanying circumstance is classical enough (cf. é dédous 
etvar, Xen. Anab. 5. 9, like English ‘The people are up in arms’’), 
though the LX X abounds with it. It occurs also in the papyri. 
Cf. Tb.P. 41 (119 B.c.). Here é draws close to wera and oty in 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 181. Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 144, con- 
siders this an “extra-grammatical’’ point. 

2 Prol., p. 103. With this cf. row w (Mt. 17:12; Lu. 23 : 31), an idiom 
paralleled in the LXX. Cf. efedetaro & éuot (1 Chron. 28 : 4), npérixa & aitG 
(1 Chron. 28 : 6). 

®Prol.; p. 103, ; beRrolstpaeloa: 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 131. SiIby, pelos 

7 C. and §., Sel., ete., p. 82. Cf. Thack., Gr., p. 47, for the frequent use 
of & of accompanying circumstance in the LXX, 


® Blass, Gr, of N. T, Gk., p. 130, 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIZ) 589 


usage. Note, for instance, & déxa xudcdow bravrfca (Lu. 14:31), 
mrOev ev dyias pupidow avtod (Ju. 14), &v macw dvadaBdvres (Eph. 
6:16), & orodats mepurarety (Mk. 12:38), épyovrar & évdbuaow 
mpopatwv (Mt. 7:15), & Aevkots Kabefouevovs (Jo. 20:12), perexa- 
hecato — ev Wuxats (Ac. 7: 14), eicépxerar ev atuare (Heb. 9 : 25), & 
T@ vdate cal &y TH aiuare (1 Jo. 5:6), ev paBdw EXOw (1 Cor. 4 : 21), 
év tAnpwyare (Ro. 15:29), & Kerebouare (1 Th. 4:16), repiBaretrar 
év iuatios (Rev. 3:5; cf. Mt. 11:8). Note also & uvornpiw \adodper 
(1 Cor. 2:7) where ‘in the form of’ is the idea. These examples 
show the freedom of the preposition in this direction. Somewhat 
more complicated is a passage like av@pwios év mvebuate axabaprw 
(Mk. 1: 23), which Blass! properly compares with rvetyua dxd0aprov 
éxe. (Mk. 3:30), and the double use in Ro. 8:9, ters 6é otk éaore 
év oapki adda ey mvebyatt, elrep mvedua Deod oixe? ev bytv (followed 
by mvedua Xprotod obk exer). The notion of manner is closely al- 
lied to this idiom as we see it in év dixatoovvn (Ac. 17: 31), & rappn- 
gia (Col. 2:15), & raxe (Lu. 18:8, cf. raxt and raxéws). Cf. Mt. 
6:18 and Jo. 18 : 20. 

9. ‘Amounting to,’ ‘Occasion,’ ‘Sphere.’ Moulton? considers 
Mk. 4 : 8, édepev els rpraxovta kal ev éEnxovTa Kal év éxatov (note sim- 
ilarity here between eis and é), as showing that év sometimes is 
used in the sense of ‘amounting to.’ Cf. also Ac. 7:14 (LXX). 
The idiom is present in the papyri. Moulton cites rpotka & dpax- 
bats évvaxociats, B.U. 970 (ii/A.D.), Ti TpwTny doow & dpaxuais TEo- 
capaxovta, O.P. 724 (ii/B.c.). He (Prol., p. 76) quotes Hb. P. 42 
(il1/B.C.), dwoouev ev dperAnuati, as “‘predicative’ use of év. He 
compares Eph. 2 : 15, & déyuaow, ‘consisting in decrees.’ Certain 
it is that in Rev. 5 : 9 jnydpacas & 7H aiwari cov we have price’ indi- 
cated by &. Cf. Ro. 3:25; Ac. 20:28. In afew examples é& gives 
the occasion, as épuyev &v TB NOyw To’Tw (Ac. 7: 29), & TH ToAVAOYia 
avt&v elcaxovobnoovta (Mt. 6:7), & Tovrw (Jo. 16 : 30). Note also 
Natpebw év 7TH mvebmati pov év To ebayyediw (Ro. 1:9) where the 
second é& suggests ‘in the sphere of.’ Cf. év wéerpw (Eph. 4 : 16), 
év rovros tof (1 Tim. 4 : 15), & vouw juaprov (Ro. 2:12). In simple 
truth the only way to know the resultant meaning of év is to note 
carefully the context. It is so simple in idea that it appears in 
every variety of connection. 

10. Instrumental Use of &. See previous discussion under 
Cases. Blass* considers it due to Hebrew influence as does Jan- 


*a(Gre otf Nee beaks De lols a Prol pr lOs: 


3 Rare and possibly Hebraistic. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 380. 
4 Gr. of N. T..Gk.,; p.-130. 


590 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


naris.!. The ancient Greek writers did use év with certain verbs, 
as the N. T. xaiw & mupt (Rev. 17:16, some MSS.), amroxadimrw ev 
mupt (1 Cor. 3 : 18), adifw év rim (Mt. 5 : 18), werpew ev @ erpw (Mt. 
7:2). The construction in itself is as old as Homer.? Cf. & 
dpbadpuots FrdecOar (II1. i. 587), & rupli xaiew (I). xxiv. 38). It is ab- 
normally frequent in the LX X under the influence of the Hebrew 
2,4 but it is not so common in the N. T. Besides, the papyri 
show undoubted examples of it.2 Moulton finds Ptolemaic ex- 
amples of é& yuaxaipn, Tb.P. 16 al.; diadvoyerar ev 73 Aw Par. P. 
28 (11/B.c.), while 22 has 73 Aud dcadvOjvac and note rods éverxn- 
pévous ev tisw ayvonuacw, Par. P. 63 (ii/B.c.). We can only say, 
therefore, that the LX X accelerated the vernacular idiom in this 
matter. The Aramaic probably helped it on also. The blending 
of the instrumental with the locative in form facilitated this 
usage beyond a doubt,’ and the tendency to use prepositions 
abundantly helped also.7. But even so one must observe that all 
the N. T. examples of & can be explained from thé point of view 
of the locative. The possibility of this point of view is the reason 
why é& was so used in the beginning. I pass by examples like 
Barrifw & védaTr, Bartice & mvebuate ayiw Kal wupt (Mt. 3:11) as 
probably not being instances of the instrumental usage at all. 
But there are real instances enough. Take Lu. 22:49 éi za- 
Tatouevy ev paxatpn; Here the smiting can be regarded as lo- 
cated in the sword. To be sure, in English, we translate the 
resultant idea by ‘with,’ but év in itself does not mean ‘with.’ 
That resultant idea can only come in the proper context. So & 
TO BeefeBovd apxovte Tav datpoviwy éexBadrrer (Mt. 12 : 24). Here the 
casting out is located in the prince of demons. Cf. xpivw & dvipt 
(Ac. 17:31), & Bpaxiou (Lu. 1:51), & dod» (Mk. 14:1), & ddvw 
paxaipns (Heb. 11:37). The Apocalypse has several examples, like 
Todeunow ev TH poudaia (2:16), amoxretvar ev poudaia Kal ev Aiud Kal 
év Oavatw (6:8), &v paxalpy aroxreved (13:10). In Rev. 14:15, 
Kpatav ev dwv_, we do not necessarily have to explain it in this 
manner... Cf Royer 16 2ee 28 ello 252 Oe) dees Oem Oe ae 
whole there is little that is out of harmony with the vernacular 
xown in the N. T. use of év, though Abbott® thinks that the ex-- 


Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. But see Deiss., B. S., p. 119 f. 

W.-Th., p. 388. 

Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 144. 

C. and S., p. 82; Thack., p. 47. 

Moulton, Prol., pp. 12, 61, 104, 234f. 7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. 
TDs on U Le § Joh. Gr., p. 256, 


bi StS ime OS Boa ee 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI) 591 


amples of Deissmann and Moulton do not exactly parallel the 
N. T. instrumental use. For repetition of é& see 2 Cor. 6:4 ff. 

(f) His. There is nothing to add to the etymology of eis as com- 
pared with that of év save that e/s is known to be really é&-s as we 
find it in the inscriptions of Argos, Crete, etc. So évs ’A@avaiay.t 
This s seems to have been added to év by analogy to é£.2. Usually 
with the disappearance of v the form was eis, but Thucydides, like 
the Ionic and Dorie writers and the poets, preferred és which was 
current in the inscriptions before 334 B.c.* So is appears in a Phry- 
gian Christian inscription. But the A¥olic eis gradually drove out . 
all the other forms.’ Originally, therefore, €& alone existed with 
either locative or accusative, and eis appears nowhere else save in- 
the Greek. The classic use of eis Atéov (some MSS. in Ac. 2 : 27, 
ol and reading in Is. 14:15) is the true genitive, according to 
Brugmann (Griech Gr., p. 439), ‘in the sphere of Hades.’ 

1. Original Static Use. In Homer eio-xetofac means merely to 
lie within. But, though eis really means the same thing as éy, it 
was early used only with the accusative, and gradually special- 
ized thus one of the usages of é. The locative with é&, however, 
continued to be used sometimes in the same sense as the accusa- 
tive with eis. The accusative indeed normally suggests motion 
(extension), and that did come to be the common usage of eis plus 
the accusative. The resultant idea would often be ‘into,’ but 
this was by no means always true. Eis is not used much in 
composition in the N. T. and always where motion is involved 
save in the case of elo-axobw where there seems little difference 
between eis and é (cf. 1 Cor. 14:21; Mt. 6:7). In itself es 
expresses the same dimension relation as é, viz. in.° It does 
not of itself mean into, unto, or to. That is the resultant idea 
of the accusative case with verbs of motion. It is true that in 
the later Greek this static use of efs with the idea of rest (in) is 
far more common than in the earlier Greek. This was naturally 
So, since in the vernacular es finally drove év out entirely and did 
duty for both, just as originally év did. The only difference is 
that eis used the one case (accusative), whereas & used either ac- 


1 Solmsen, Inscr. Graecae, p. 46. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 488. He treats & and eis together. 

pean, Hist. Gk: Gre D, 3/6: 

4 Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I, p. 525. Cf. also Psichari, 
Etudes de Philol., 1892, p. v. 

5 Cf. H. W. Smyth, p. 80, Transactions of Am. Philol. Assoc. for 1887. 
J. Fraser (Cl. Quarterly, 1908, p. 270) shows that in Cretan we have és dp6dv 
(before vowel), but és 7év (before consonant). 6 K.-G., I, p. 468. 


592 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cusative or locative. But! then the accusative was once the only 
case and must be allowed large liberty. And even in the classic 
writers there are not wanting examples. These are usually ex- 
plained? as instances of ‘‘ pregnant’ construction, but it is possible 
to think of them as survivals of the etymological idea of eis (év-s) 
with only the general notion of the accusative case. Certainly 
the vernacular laid less stress on the distinction between eis and 
év than the literary language did. Though eis falls behind év in the 
N. T. in the proportion of 2 to 3, still, as in the papyri® and the 
inscriptions and the LX X,‘ a number of examples of static es oc- 
cur. Some of these were referred to under év, where the “ pregnant”’ 
use of & for es occurs. Hatzidakis gives abundant examples of 
év aS eis andeisasev. Cf. els ’ANeEavdpecav éorr, B.U. 11. 385; els rivBov 
ketuat, Kaibel Epigr. 134; xuvdvveboavros eis Oadaccav, B.U. 423 (ii/ 
A.D.). Deissmann (Light, p. 169) notes Paul’s xwédbvos ev Oadracon 
and that the Roman soldier in the last example writes “more vul- 
garly than St. Paul.’’ In these examples it is not necessary nor 
pertinent to bring in the idea of ‘into.’ Blass> comments on the 
fact that Matthew (but see below) has no such examples and John 
but few, while Luke has most of them. I cannot, however, follow 
Blass in citing Mk. 1:9 eGarricOn eis rov “lopdavnv as an example. 
The idea of motion in Barrifw suits els as well as é& in Mk. 1:5. 
Cf. vita eis (Jo. 9:7). But in Mt. 28:19, Bamritovres eis 7d 
dvoua, and Ro. 6:3 f., eis Xpuorov and els tov Pavarov, the notion 
of sphere is the true one. The same thing may be true of Barz- 
TusOnTw eis Adeow THY auapriav (Ac. 2 : 38), where only the context 
and the tenor of N. T. teaching can determine whether ‘into,’ 
‘unto’ or merely ‘in’ or ‘on’ (‘upon’) is the right translation, a 
task for the interpreter, not for the grammarian. One does not 
need here to appeal to the Hebrew »va b2v as Tholuck does 
(Beitrdge zur Spracherklérung des N. T., p. 47f.). Indeed the 
use of dvoua for person is common in the papyri (Deissmann, Bible 
Studies, p. 196 f.). Deissmann gives examples of els évoua, én’ 
dvouatos, and the mere locative dvouar., from the papyri. The 
static use of eis is seen in its distributive use like év in Mk. 4:8, es 
TpiaKkovTa Kal ev é€nxovta kal & éxatrov. But there are undoubted 
examples where only ‘in,’ ‘on’ or ‘at’ can be the idea. Thus 


1 Jann., Hist? GkeGreips3 (6; 

2 Ib., p. 377. Cf. Mullach, Gr. d. griech. Vulgarsp., p. 380. Blass, Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 128, calls it a “provincialism.”’ Cf. further Hatz., Einl., p. 210 f.; 
Moulton, Prol., p. 234 f. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 62 f. 

4 C. and §., Sel., p. 81. ; Si Gr vol Nes lis Cn tckL as 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI) 593 


knpvoowy els Tas avvaywyas (Mk. 1:39) where there is some excuse 
for the ‘‘pregnant”’ explanation because of #\Oev. So dav xatoKn- 
cev eis TOM (Mt. 2:23; 4:13), but note only mrapdxnoe els viv 
(Heb. 11:9) and ebpé6y eis "Afwrov (Ac. 8: 40). Cf. xabnuévov eis 
To dpos (Mk. 13:3), 6 els tov aypov (Mk. 13:16), rots eis tov ofkov 
(Lu. 9 : 61), ets rHv Kotrny eiciv (Lu. 11:7), éyearadelers els &dnv (Ac. 
2:27; cf. verse 31), rots els waxpav (2:39), els xoAnv — bvra (Ac. 
8 : 23), émecxev xpovov eis tiv ’Aciavy (Ac. 19: 22), amofavety els 
"Tepovoadny (Ac. 21 : 13), eis ‘Paunv waprupqoa (Ac. 23 : 11), rnpetobat 
eis Kauoapiay (Ac. 25:4), 6 dy els Tov KodXTov (Jo. 1:18), of rpets ets 
76 év eiow (1 Jo. 5: 8), eis qv orfre (1 Pet. 5:12). Nor is this quite 
all. In some MSS. in Mk. 2:1 we have eis ofxoyv éorw (NBDL 
év oixw). In Ac. 2:5 the MSS. vary between eis and é& as in Mk. 
10:10. Another instance is found in Eph. 3 : 16, xparaw6jvar eis 
Tov éow avOpwrov. Cf. Jo. 20:7; Mk. 18:9. But in éo7n eis 76 
peoov (Jo. 20: 19, 26) we have motion, though éorn eis rév aiyraddv 
(Jo. 21:4) is an example of rest. Jo. 17:23 is normal. In Mt. 
10:41 f., eis dvoua rpodnrov (uabyTod, dixatov) one can see little dif- 
ference between eis and év. Certainly this is true of Mt. 12 : 41, 
Merevonoay eis Knpvyua ’lwva, where it is absurd to take eis as ‘into’ or 
‘unto’ or even ‘to.’ See also cuvnypevor eis Td Eudv dvoua(Mt. 18: 20). 

2. With Verbs of Motion. But the usual idiom with eis was 
undoubtedly with verbs of motion when the motion and the 
accusative case combined with eis (‘in’) to give the resultant 
meaning of ‘into, ‘unto,’ ‘among,’ ‘to,’ ‘towards’ or ‘on,’ 
‘upon,’ according to the context. This is so common as to call 
for little illustration. As with & so with eis, the noun itself gives 
the boundary or limit. So eis rv oikiay (Mt. 2:11), els 7d dpos 
(5 : 1), els 76 rpattwprov (27 : 27), eis Pa4Xacoav (17 : 27), els Tov obpavor 
(Rev. 10: 5), eis €0vn (Ac. 22 : 21), eis wecpacudv (Mt. 6 : 13), eis 7d 
pvnuetov (Jo. 11:38), els trav dd0v (Mk. 11:8), eis rods wadnras (Lu. 
6 : 20), ets rods Anoras (Lu. 10: 36), eis xdAtvyv (Rev. 2 : 22), eis 
Ta de&a (Jo. 21:6), eis ryv Kedadrynv (Mt. 27:30), eis Tas ayKadas 
(Lu. 2 : 28), eis ddov tov Koopov (Mk. 14 : 9), eis duds (1 Th. 2:9). 
These examples fairly illustrate the variety in the use of eis with 
verbs of motion. For idea of ‘among’ see Jo. 21:23. It will 
be seen at once, if one consults the context in these passages, that 
the preposition does not of itself mean ‘into’ even with verbs of 
motion. That is indeed one of the resultant meanings among 
many others. The metaphorical uses do not differ in princi- 
ple, such as els 0Aibuww (Mt. 24:9), ovvayew eis & (Jo. 11:52), es 
tiv cwnv (Mt. 18:8), eis xpiow (Jo. 5:24), eis braxony (2 Cor. 


594 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


10:5), els xetpas (Mt. 17 : 22), etc. For many interesting exam- 
ples of & and eis see Theimer, Die Prdpositionen eis, ev, & im N.T., 
Beitrdge zur Kenntnis des Sprachgebrauches im N. T., 1896. 

3. With Expressions of Time. Here eis marks either the limit 
or accents the duration expressed by the accusative. Thus in 
2 Tim. 1:12 we find ¢uddéar els exetvnvy tiv juepay where ‘until’ 
suits as a translation (cf. ‘against’). Cf. Ph. 1: 10, eis jyepar 
Xpicrod. Not quite so sharp a limit is eis rv avpiov (Mt., 6 : 34). 
Cf. 1 Pet. 1:11. There is little that is added by the preposition 
to the accusative in such examples as eis 7d wéddov (Lu. 13 : 9), 
els tov aiava (Mt. 21:19), els yeveds cal yeveds (Lu. 1: 50), ets 76 
dunvexés (Heb. 7: 3), ete. Cf. Lu. 12:19. But a more definite 
period is set in cases like eis rov xarpov (Lu. 1: 20), ets 76 peraéd 
chBBarov (Ac. 13 : 42). 

A. Like a Dative. It is not strange to see eis used where 
disposition or attitude of mind is set forth. Indeed already eis 
and the accusative occur where the dative alone would be suffi- 
cient. This is especially true in the LXX, but the papyri show 
examples also. Cf. of els Xprorév (Mart. Pauli, 11). Moulton (Prol., 
p. 246) cites Tb. P. 16, od Anyovres rie [eis] ab7ods alOadia, ‘where eis 
actually stands for the possessive genitive.’”? One must remember 
the complete disappearance of the dative in modern Greek! ver- 
nacular. Note ris Noylas rhs els rods ayiovs (1 Cor. 16:1), rAovrd 
eis mavtas (Ro. 10: 12), rreovatw eis (Ph. 4 : 17), EXenuocivas romnowv 
eis T0 COvos (Ac. 24 : 17), Necroupyor eis Ta vy (Ro. 15: 16), aoBderrw 
eis (Heb. 11 : 26), Never eis (Ac. 2 : 25), duriw eis (Mt. 5: 384 f.), 76 
aro eis a\ANAOvs (Ro. 12 : 16), ricreve eis (Mt. 18 : 6), xpnoros els 
(Eph. 4 : 32), ayarny eis (Ro. 5:8), ete. If one entertains hostile 
feelings the resultant idea with eis will be ‘against,’ though the 
word does not of itself mean that. So in Lu. 12:10 eis tov vidv rod 
avOpwmov (cf. xara In Mt. 12 : 32) and els 76 dyov rvedua BAaodn- 
Lnoavr., BAdodnua eis (Ac. 6:11), EreBoud eis (Ac. 23: 30), duapravew 
eis (Lu. 15: 18), etc. As a matter of fact all that es really accent- 
uates here is the accusative case (with reference to) which happens 
to be in a hostile atmosphere. But that is not true of such ex- 
amples as 70érnoay eis éavrovs (Lu. 7:30), els rHv erayyedlayv Tod 
Oeod (Ro. 4:20), ete. For dYorra: eis in Jo. 19:37 see Abbott, 
Johannine Grammar, p. 245. In the modern Greek eis has dis- 
placed the dative in the vernacular. 

5. Aim or Purpose. Sometimes indeed efs appears in an at- 
mosphere where aim or purpose is manifestly the resultant idea. 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 63; C. and S., p. 82; W.-Th., p. 396 f. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 595 


Thus we may note éay els tiv Tpwada els 7d ebayyédtov (2 Cor. 
2:12). Here the second eis suggests the purpose of his coming. 
Cf. also rodro movetre eis THY Euyy avauynow (1 Cor. 11: 24), where 
ets does not mean ‘for,’ though that is clearly the resultant idea. 
So with eis uapripiov abrots (Mt. 8:4). Take Ro. 11:36, for in- 
stance, where eis atrov is set over against ¢& a’rod. Cf. again eis 
ddéav Oeod in Ph. 1:11, eis o8ov in Ro. 8:15, els &5eEv in Ro. 
3:25, els CwHv aiwvov in Jo. 6:27. One may not doubt also that 
this is the idea in Mt. 26 : 28, 76 repi roAdGv Exxvvvdyevor eis Ahecw 
duapTiav. But it by no means follows that the same idea is ex- 
pressed by eis ddeow in Mk. 1:4 and Ac. 2:38 (cf. Mt. 10:41), 
though that may in the abstract be true. It remains a matter 
for the interpreter to decide. One must not omit here also the 
frequent use of eis 76 and the infinitive to express design. Cf. eis 
76 éurratéac in Mt. 20 : 19, ets ro oravpwOjvar in 26 : 2. See chapter on 
Verbal Nouns for further discussion. Cf. also els rotro (Mk. 1: 38), 
eis alto Tovro (2 Cor. 5:5), ayopatw eis (Jo. 13 : 29), els amavrnow 
(Mt. 25 : 6), eis dravrnow aitd (Jo. 12: 13).1 Cf. EtAwy eis EXardvas 
pou (Fay. P., 50 a.p.), ‘sticks for my olive-gardens’ (Deissmann, 
Light, etc., p. 157), els tarmov evoxdotuevov (P. Fl.-Pet., ii. xxv, 226 
B.c.), ‘for a sick horse’ (Deissmann, B. S., p. 118). Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 112) cites oxodouncev — els éavrov (83 N. Chr. Wadd. 
Inser., 2614). | 

6. Predicative Use. But there remains one more use of efs which, 
though good xown, was greatly accelerated by the influence of the 
LXX.2 This is where eis occurs in the predicate with yi or 
yivowat, kTA. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 16 f.) quotes iva pi els 
Ywuiov yernrat, P.Fay. 119, 276 (100 a.p.); Heliod., #thiop. VI, 
14, rHv mhpay eis Kabédpay rornoayevn; and even the Attic author 
AMneas 114, 5 H, yuvatkas éaXicavtes ws és Gvdpas. Thus in Lu. 3: 5, 
éaTrau Ta oKoALa eis evOeias (Is. 40:4). So cece por els viods Kal Ovya- 
répas (2 Cor. 6 : 18, LXX); écovrar of dvo0 eis capxa play (Mt. 19: 5; 
cf. Gen. 2 : 24); 4 Aban dudv els xapav yernoerar (Jo. 16: 20). Cf. 
Lu. 13:19. As already remarked, this predicate use of eis ap- 
pears in the papyri® and in the Apostolic Fathers,* but not with 

1 This can no longer be called a Hebraism, since the pap. have it. Moulton, 
Prol., p. 14. Cf. eis aravrnow, Th. P. 43 (ii/B.c.). Rouffiac (Recherches, p. 28) 
finds efvac eis dvAaxhv in inscr. of Priene 50, 39 (ii/B.c.). a Ceand 5. Diokl: 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 71 f. Cf. K.P. 46 (ii/A.D.) éoxov map’ budv 64 (veor) 
orépuara, ‘for a loan.’ Cf. our “to wife.’ Moulton (Prol., p. 67) cites M. 
Aurelius, VI, 42. 


4 C.and S., p. 81. Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 143, cites an ex. from 
Theogn. 


596 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the frequency that we find it in the LXX. Cf. pp. 481 f. Blass? 
credits eis in traye els eipnhvnv (Mk. 5 : 34) to the Hebrew through 
the LXX (cf. 1 Sam. 1:17). Cf. also els duatayas ayyédwy (Ac. 
7:53) where eis is much like év. In general therefore, as with év 
so with eis we must hark back to first principles and work out to the 
resultant idea by means of the context and the history. 

7. Compared with éri, rapa and wpos. The growth in the use 
of eis is shown by its appearance where éri or mpés would be ex- 
pected in the older Greek. Cf. épyerai eis rod (Jo. 4 : 5), where 
the point is not ‘into,’ but ‘to.’ So 11: 31, traye es 7d pvnuetor. 
In 11:38 D has ézi, not els. Soin Mk. 3:7, avexwpnoer mpos rHv 
Oad\accav, DHP have eis. Cf. Mk. 2: 18, & has eis for rapa and 
in 7:31 NBD have eis, not zpos. 

(g) Ex (€). The etymology of this word is simple. Cf. Latin 
ex (e), Gallic ex, Old Irish ess, Cymric eh. In the Greek the form 
varies thus éx (€& before vowels), éy (assimilation), é€ (Locrian, cf. 
Latin e), é or éos like Old Irish (Arcadian, Boeotian, Thessalian). 
The original form was éé, then é« like Latin ex, e. Cf. Brugmann, 
Griech Gr., p. 147. 

1. Meaning. The word means ‘out of,’ ‘from within,’ not 
like a6 or rapa. It stands in contrast to év (é-s).2- In the modern 
Greek vernacular a7o has displaced é except in the Epirot ax or 
ox.2 But in the N. T. é is still ahead of aro. The indifference 
of the scribes‘ as to which they used is shown in the MS. variations 
between éx and a76 as in Mt. 7:4; 17:9; Mk. 16:3. The writings 
of John (Gospel, Epistles, Revelation) use éx more frequently than 
any other N. T. books.’ In the late Greek (eighth century A.D.) 
we find the accusative with é, and this was the last usage to sur- 
vive. Brugmann’ indeed thinks that é may even rarely use the 
genuine genitive besides the ablative, but I doubt this. But it is 
certain that é« used the locative in Arcadian, Cypriotic and Pam- 
phylian dialects after analogy of év (Buck, Greek Dialects, p.101f.).° 

2. In Composition. It is very common and sometimes with 
the “perfective” idea. So we note é£-aropotmevor contrasted with 
aropovmevo. In 2 Cor. 4:8.9 Cf. also ék-daravaw (2 Cor. 12 : 15), 


1 Gr. of N. T. Gk. 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 440. 

§ Moulton, Prol., p. 102. On p. 246 he cites Psichari as saying that é& 
tov is still ““une forme vivante.”’ 

4 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 145. ¢ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr. p. 381. 

5 Blass, Gr. of Nw TAGE. pi) 26; 7 Griech. Gr., p. 440. 

§ Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 129; Meister, Griech, Dial., I, pp. 285, 307. 

® Moulton, Prol., p. 237. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 597 


éx-dunyeouar (Ac. 13:41), &x-PauBew (Mk. 9:15), &-Oavyatw (Mk. 
12:17), &x-xaBaipw (2 Tim. 2:21), é&-epavvaw (1 Pet. 1:10). The 
other uses in composition follow the root-idea of the word closely, 
meaning ‘out of,’ ‘away,’ etc., like éfepxouar, ExBadrw, ete. ’Ex 
has a causative force in composition sometimes as in é£ayuaprave, 
‘cause to sin’ (LXX), and éxdoBety (2 Cor. 10 : 9). 

3. Place. The preposition naturally is common with expres- 
sions of place. The strict idea of from within is common, as in 
duvy éx Tv otpavdv (Mt. 3:17), ék rod d¢Oadpod (Lu. 6 : 42), & rav 
pvnuetwy (Mt. 8 : 28), etc. Often it appears in contrast with eis as 
in éx rhs ’lovéaias eis TV TadvAalav (Jo. 4:47), rod &k oKxorous buds Kade- 
cavtos eis TO pas (1 Pet. 2:9), where the metaphorical follows the 
literal usage. In Lu. 6 : 42 ék rod 6¢0adp00 is set in opposition to 
év T@ OPOadud. In Ac. 8: 38 f. we have both els 76 téwp and é« rod 
voaros. So in Mk. 1:10 avaBaivwy & rod vddaros a previous presence 
év TG vOare is implied. Ina case like kataBaivovtwy ex Tod dpous (Mt. 
17: 9; parallels in Mk. and Lu. azo) we are not to suppose that 
they had been in a cave, but merely up in the mountain (cf. Eng- 
lish idiom), the term ‘‘mountain” including more than the earth 
and rock. Cf. es 76 dpos in Mt. 5:1. But in Mt. 8:1 we merely 
have amo rod dpous. Note likewise Oplé & THs Kehadfs (Lu. 21:18), 
& trav xepav (Ac. 12:7). Thus we explain also xpeuduevov 76 Onpiov 
ék THs xetpos a’tod (Ac. 28:4), ex deEdv (Mt. 20:21), €& earTias 
(Mk. 15 : 39), etc. It is not necessary to record all the verbs with 
which éx occurs. In Lu. 5: 3 édiéackey & Tod rdolov the teaching 
is represented as proceeding out of the boat (Jesus was in the 
boat). One may compare with this éyelperar x Tod deizvou (Jo. 13 : 
4), avadton &k Tov yauwv (Lu. 12 : 36), aroxudlev Tov Nov Ex Tis OLpas 
(Mk. 16 : 3), dracwhevra ék THs Oadacons (Ac. 28 : 4). 

4. Time. With expressions of time é« gives the point of de- 
parture, like é vedrnros (Mk. 10 : 20), €& apxis (Jo. 6 : 64), €& ikavav 
xpovwv (Lu. 23:8), & Tod aidvos (Jo. 9:32), & moddAGy éerdv (Ac. 
24 : 10), é« rovrouv (Jo. 6 : 66). In cases where succession is involved 
the point of departure is really present. Thus with é devrépov 
(Jo. 9:24), & tpirov (Mt. 26: 44), juepay é& quepas (2 Pet. 2: 8). 
Other adverbial phrases have a similar origin as with ék peépous 
(1 Cor. 12 : 27), é« wérpov (Jo. 3: 34), é& avayxns (2 Cor. 9: 7), & 
ouudwvov (1 Cor. 7:5). Cf. & marae. 

5. Separation. The use of é for the idea of separation is merely 
the fuller expansion of the ablative. Thus with éde’fepos éx ravTwv 
(1 Cor. 9: 19), avaranoovrar éx T&v Korwv (Rev. 14: 13), tWobd ex 
Tis vis (Jo. 12 : 32), broorpepar ex Tijs evToAns (2 Pet. 2:21), apps éx 


598 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Tod Koopou (Jo. 17:15). Cf. Jo. 17: 6. Abbott! doubts if in the 
LXX and John é& always implies previous existence in the evils 
from which one is delivered when used with cwfw and rnpew. Cer- 
tainly in Jo. 17 é occurs rather frequently, but tynpjons éx rod 
movnpod (17: 15) may still imply that the evil one once had power 
over them (cf. Jesus’ prayer for Peter). Certainly in Jo. 12 : 27, 
cdcov pe €k THs pas Ta’Tns, Jesus had already entered into the hour. 
Cf. duvayevov cwrew éx Oavarov (Heb. 5:7) where ek may accentuate 
the power of God (éuvayevov), though he had not yet entered into 
death. In Rev. 3:10 rtnpjow & THs Spas Tod Tepacuod We seem to 
have the picture of general temptation with the preservation of 
the saints. Cf. éBaors in 1 Cor. 10:13. So in Mt. 18:41 ovdre- 
fovow ék THs BacNelas the idea is ‘out from among,’ just as cheat or . 
cockle grows in among the wheat in the same field. The two 
kingdoms coexist in the same sphere (the world). The notion of 
separation is common with a number of verbs like é£oX\cOpevOqoerar 
éx Tov Aaod (Ac. 3: 23), Hryepev ex vexpdv (Jo. 12:1), % dvacracts 7H Ek 
vexpav (Lu. 20: 35), é£eXeEaunv ex Tod Koouou (Jo. 15:19), ete. This 
all seems simple and clear. Not quite so apparent 1s vixdvras é« 
Tod Onpiov (Rev. 15:2). Thayer and Blass both take it like rnpéw 
éx, ‘victorious over’ (by separation). Cf. werevonoay ex T&v Epywv 
(Rev. 16:11) and Jo. 3 : 25, ¢nrnots éx. a 

6. Origin or Source. Equally obvious seems the use of é« for the 
idea of origin or source. Thus é£#)ov éx rod tarpos (Jo. 16 : 28), odx 
eiul ék Tod Koopou (17: 14, 16), éx rdv AiOwy TovTwWY eyetpa Téexva (Mt. 
3:9. Naturally this usage has a wide range. Cf. éx Natapeér (Jo. 
1:46 f.), é wodews (Jo. 1:44), ek ris Layapias (Jo. 4:7), "EBpatos 
é& ’EBpaiwy (Ph. 3: 5), éx ris yiis (Jo. 3: 31), éx Oeod (Ph. 3: 9), 
é& COvav (Gal. 2:15), ek rravns (1 Th. 2:3), && oddjs OAlWews (2 
Cor. 2:4), rH é& juav & byly ayarn (2 Cor. 8:7). Cf. Lu. 12: 
15. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it is at least sug- 
gestive. One may note here orédavoy é& axavOdv (Mt. 27: 29), 
where the material is expressed by éé. 

7. Cause or Occasion. Closely allied to the above is the notion 
of cause or occasion which may also be conveyed by é. Thus 
note ro é& bua in Ro. 12:18, éuacdvro &k Tod révov (Rev. 16 : 10), 
dixawwevtas éx mliatews (Ro. 5:1), €& Epywr (Gal. 3:10), & Tod 
evayyedtov ¢jv (1 Cor. 9: 14), é& dobevetas (2 Cor. 13 : 4), & rod ya- 
pwva (Lu. 16:9). Cf. also aréOavov & trav bdaTwv (Rev. 8:11). 
Perhaps here belongs érAnpw6n &k Tijs ous (Jo. 12:3). Cf. yenitw 
éx in Jo. 6 : 13 (Abbott, Johannine Gr., p. 253). At any rate a 

1 Joh. Gr., p. 251 f. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 599 


number of verbs use é« in this general sense like d&ped\éw (Mk. 
7:11), &nmeotoba (2 Cor. 7:9), adicetoOar (Rev. 2:11), rdovréw 
(Rev. 18 : 3), xoprafecbar (Rev. 19 : 21), comiatw (Jo. 4 : 6), Caw (Ro. 
1:17), etc. Cf. Gdracdjunoar tov Oedv éx THs TAnyAs (Rev. 16 : 21). 
‘Indeed éx with the notion of price does not differ radically from 
this idiom. Thus 7yépacav é& ab’t&v tov aypov (Mt. 27:7), ékrf#cato 
éx ptobod (Ac. 1:18), cvudwrjcas ex Synvapiov (Mt. 20:2). ’Ex d.a- 
rays, ‘by order,’ was a regular formula in the papyri (Deissmann, 
Tight, ete., p. 87). Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 248, finds the 
idiom éx T&v Tecodpwv avéeywy (Mk. 13 : 27) in the papyri as well as 
in Zech. 11:6. : 

8. The Partitive Use of &. It is not infrequent, marking an in- 
crease over the earlier idiom. Thus in Jo. 16:17 & 7&v yadnrav 
is even used as the subject of ef7ayv. Cf. Ac. 21:16 without ék. 
See also Jo. 7:40. John is specially fond of the partitive use of 
éx (Radermacher, NV. 7. Gr., p. 115) and the inscriptions and papyri 
have it also. Cf. avip & T&v rpwrevdvrwy, Petersen-Luschan, Reisen, 
p. 113, xvi. A. 5. Further examples are av0pwros éx rév Papicaiwv 
(Jo. 3:1), un tes & T&v apxovrwy (Jo. 7:48), ek Tod dxXNov axoboarTes 
(Jo. 7:40), Oavarwoovow €& buadv (Lu. 21:16), €& air&v aroxrevetre 
(Mt. 23 : 34), Brerovow ex Tov Nady (Rev. 11:9), dinxdvovy &k trav 
brapxovTwy (Lu. 8:3), €& a’rod dayn (Jo. 6:50), & Tod rvebparos 
dédwxev (1 Jo. 4:13), rivwy ex Tod béatos (Jo. 4:18), obdels €F adrav 
(Jo. 17: 12), etc.2 In Heb. 13 : 10 it is what is on the altar that 
is eaten. The use of éx with a class or for a side or position may 
as well be mentioned here also. Thus 6 ay ék ris adnfelas (Jo. 
18 : 37), of & vduou (Ro. 4 : 14), 6 & micrews (Ro. 3 : 26), of &k mept- 
touns (Ac. 11:2), of &k épifias (Ro. 2:8), etc. The partisan use is 
allied closely to the partitive. Cf. Ph. 4:22 of & rijs Kaioapos 
oixias. See further ch. XI, Cases. 

9. ’Ex and év. A word in conclusion is needed about the so- 
called blending of ek with év. Blass* doubts if this classic idiom 
appears in the N. T. The passages that seem to have it are pu 
KaTaBaTw dpar Ta ek THs oikias a’rod (Mt. 24:17) where & might in- 
deed have been employed, but é« coincides in idea with dpa. Cf. 
Mk. 13:15, where é does not have ra before it. In Lu. 11: 
13 6 marnHp 6 é& ovpavod bwcer rvedua aywov W. H. bracket 6 before 
é£, and with 6 the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Father has 


1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 145. 
2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T..Gk., p. 100. 
3 Tb., p. 258. Cf. also Field, Ot. Norv., Pars III, Mk. 5 : 30, on rip é abrod 


dbbvapuv. 


600 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


caused é£ to displace é& which would otherwise have been regular. 
In Jo. 3:13 some MSS. add 6 Sy & 76 obpavd to 6 vids Tod avOpwrov, 
thus making Jesus in heaven at that moment when he was speak- 
ing to Nicodemus. In Col. 4: 16, 79 & Aaodcxias, the é assumes, 
of course, that an Epistle had been sent to Laodicea, and suggests 
that the Colossians get it from (é) them. Cf. Ro. 3:25f. for 
examples of 61a, év, els, mpos, ex. See aro and srapa. 

(h) Ent. See Sanskrit dpz (locative case), Zend arpr, Latin ob, 
Lithuanian 72. 

1. Ground-Meaning. It is ‘upon’ as opposed to tzé. It differs 
from trép in that éi implies a real resting upon, not merely over.! 
But the very simplicity of this idea gives it a manifoldness of re- 
sultant uses true of no other preposition. Sometimes indeed in 
the causal and ethical usages the root-idea seems dim,? but none 
the less it is there. The only safety consists in holding on to the 
root-idea and working out from that in each special context. It 
marks a delicate shade of difference from év, as is seen in ws é& 
ovpave Kal éxi ys (Mt. 6:10). For & cf. Lu. 8:15. 

2. In Composition in the N. T. It is very common, always re- 
taining the root-idea (cf. éa-ev-dtw, 2 Cor. 5 : 2), though sometimes 
the perfective idea is clear. Thus with ér-acvéw in Lu. 16:3, ém- 
ywookw in 1 Cor. 13 : 12,3 éri-yrwors in Col. 1: 9, éme-reX€w in 2 
Cortscerie 

3. Frequency in N. T. In the N. T. ézi is still in constant use, 
though it ultimately dropped out of the vernacular* before éravw. 
Note éws émt diadrloyro]uds, P. Oxy. 294 (A.D. 22) like ava eis, ete. 
But in the N. T. it is the one preposition still used freely with 
more than two cases (acc. 464, gen. 216, dat. and loc. 176).5 Most 
of the examples called dative in the lexicons and grammars are 
really locatives, but some of them are possibly true datives.® So 
then ézi really has four cases still in the N. T. In Homer ém often 
stands alone for ér-eore. Farrar,’ quoting Donaldson, finds in 
the locative with éri the idea of absolute superposition, while the 
genitive expresses only partial superposition and the accusative 
implies motion with a view to superposition and the dative would 
be superposition for the interest of one. There is some truth in 
this distinction and the case-idea must always be observed. But 


1 K.-G., I, p. 495. Ahoy 3 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 118. 
4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 383; Mullach, Vulg., p. 381. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 107. 

6 K.-G., I, p. 495; Delbriick, Grundl., p. 180; Vergl. Synt., I, p. 676 f. 
7 Greek Synt., p. 102. 





° ol 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 601 


the growth of the accusative in the later language at the expense 
of the other cases caused some confusion in the usage according 
to the standard of the earlier Greek. Simcox! considers it ‘‘al- 
most a matter of indifference’? whether in the N. T. one uses 
locative, genitive or accusative. This is somewhat true, but even 
so it does not follow that there was no difference in the cases. The 
locative accentuated mere location, the genitive brought out rather 
the kind or genus, while the accusative would present the general 
idea of extension modified by the fact that the accusative tended 
to absorb the other cases without insisting on the distinct case- 
idea. Thus sometimes either case with ézi would give substan- 
tially the same idea, though technical differences did exist. For 
instance, in Ac. 5 : 9 note émi 77 Ovpa, while in verse 23 we have ézi 
Tov bup&v. So compare éyyts éorw er Opais (Mk. 13: 29) with éornka 
éxi THV OUpay (Rev. 3:20). Here the notion of rest exists with all 
three cases, though in Rev. 3 : 20 xal xpotw may have some effect 
on the presence of the accusative. Once more observe xafion éri 
Opovov and xabnoecbe Eri Swoexa Opdvovs in Mt. 19: 28. Rev. 4:2 
gives us él tov Opdvov kabjuevos, verse 9 (marg. of W. H., text of 
Nestle) 73 xaOnuerw eri 7G Opovw, while verse 10 has 70d xa@nuévou 
él Tod Opovov, three cases with the same verb. It would be over- 
refinement to insist on too much distinction here. But the cases 
afford variety of construction at any rate. In Rev. 14:9 the 
single verb AauBaver has éxi rod petwrov aitod 7} éxl thy xelpa abtod 
(cf. Ac. 27:44). Compare also Xidos éri Aifov in Mt. 24 : 2 with 
AiBos eri ALOw in Lu. 21:6. In Ph. 2:27 the MSS. vary between 
AUTnv ert A’UTyYV and Airy ext Urry. Cf. also éx’ 6dtya and Eni 
ro\\ov in Mt. 25:21. The use of mioretw éri with locative or 
accusative has already been discussed. The accusative suggests 
more the initial act of faith (intrust) while the locative implies 
that of state (trust). We find es also used with this verb as well 
as dative (both common in John). Once we have mrtetw é& 
(Mk. 1:15). See Moulton, Prol., p. 68. But, after all is said, 
the only practical way to study émi is from the point of view of 
the cases which it supplements. 

4. With the Accusative. As already noted, it is far in excess 
of the other cases combined. It is hardly necessary to make mi- 
nute subdivision of the accusative usage, though the preposition 
with this case follows the familiar lines. With expressions of place 
it is very common and very easy to understand. So edety eri ra 
Vara (Mt. 14 : 28), reprerarnoer Et ra bdata (14 : 29), avamecety ext 

1 Lang. of the N. T., p. 146. 


602 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


rv viv (Mt. 15 : 35), oxoros éyevero éml racavy tiv yqv (Mt. 27: 45), 
mopevov ért tHv ddov (Ac. 8 : 26), éréBadov ras xelpas ert tov ’Inoody 
(Mt. 26:50), avarecwv eri 7d orH00s (Jo. 13:25). The meta- 
phorical use is in harmony with this idiom. Thus ¢dos érérecev 
én’ abrov (Lu. 1:12), xaréornoas abrov emt ra épya (Heb. 2:7), Ba- 
oureboer Ext tov otxov (Lu. 1 : 33), wa émtoxnywon em’ Eve H Sbvapts TOD 
Xpiorod (2 Cor. 12:9). Cf. 2 Cor. 1 : 23, émixadodpuar ert thy Eunv 
Yuxnv. But not all the accusative uses are so simple. In a case 
like Mt. 7:24, @xoddouncer eri rHv rérpav, some idea of motion may 
be seen. But that is not true of Mt. 13:2, was 6 dxXos erl tov 
aiywadov tornxe. Cf. also xabquevov ert 7d Tedwviov (Mt. 9:9) and 
others given above. So ézi 76 rpocxepadatoy xabebdwy (Mk. 4 : 38), 
mvedua Av ay.ov én’ avrov (Lu. 2:25), ewevev én’ adrov (Jo. 1 : 32), 
éréotnoay éxt tov mudava (Ac. 10:17), éd’ buds avaraterar (1 Pet. 
4:14), caduppa ert HV Kapdiay Ketrar (2 Cor. 3:15), Ecovrar adnOovoat 
ért 76 avré (Lu. 17:35). Here it is hard to think of any idea of 
‘whither.’ Sometimes indeed éri seems not to imply strictly 
‘upon,’ but rather ‘as far as.’ So with épyovrar ert 76 uvnuetov (Mk. 
16 : 2), karéBnoav éxt tiv Oddaccav (Jo. 6:16), AAOov Et Te Vowp (Ac. 
8 : 36). The aim or purpose is sometimes expressed by éri, as ézl 
7o Barricwa (Mt. 3:7), éb’ 6 mape (Mt. 26:50). It may express 
one’s emotions as with micrebw éri (Ro. 4 : 24), édritw éi (1 Pet. 
1:18), omdrayxvifoua eri (Mt. 15:32). Cf. ed’ dv yeyove in Ac. 4: 
22 and the general use of éwi in Mk. 9:12 yéypamrac emi rov vidv 
ToD avOpwrov. In personal relations hostility is sometimes sug- 
gested, though éi in itself does not mean ‘against.’ Thus as 
él Anornv €EnOare (Mt. 26:55). In Mt. 12 : 26 éd’ éavrdp Euepicbn 
is used side by side with pepicbetca kab’ éavris in the preceding 
verse. Cf. also Mk. 3 : 26, ete. Abbott? notes that John shows 
this usage only once (19:33). For ézi with the idea of degree 
or measure see éd’ dcov (Ro. 11:18). Cf. eri 76 atro in the sense 
of ‘all together’ (Ac. 1:15). With expressions of time érit may 
merely fill out the accusative, as with émi érn rpia (Lu. 4 : 25, 
marg. of W. H.), él quépas mrelouvs (Ac. 13:31), &d’ dc0v xpdvov 
(Ro. 7:1), or a more definite period may be indicated, as with 
érl thy dpav THs tpocevxjs (Ac. 3: 1),? ext tHv avprov (Lu. 10 : 35). 
It is common with adverbs like é¢’ azaé, él rpis, ete. 

5. With the Genitive. The genitive with ézi has likewise a 
wide range of usages. Usually the simple meaning ‘upon’ sat- 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 186. For LXX ex. of rest see C. and S., p. 85. 
2*Joh: Gr:, p: 209: 
8 A postclassical usage, Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 147. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI=) 603 


isfies all requirements, as in émi xXivns (Mt. 9 : 2), 6’ 08 @xoddunro 
(Lu. 4:29), xnptéare érl rdv dwuatwv (Mt. 10: 27), éoxduevov ent 
vepedav (Mt. 24 : 30), eOnxev emt rod cravpod (Jo. 19 : 19), xabicas émt 
tov Bnuartos (Ac. 12 : 21), éml ris xepadijs (Jo. 20 : 7), ext ris Oaddoons 
(Rev. 5 : 13), él EvNov (Ac. 5:30). In Mk. 12 : 26, éxt 70d Barov, 
an ellipsis in thought occurs “in the passage about the bush.” 
Sometimes, indeed, as with the accusative, so with the genitive, 
ézi has the idea of vicinity, where the word itself with which it is 
used has a Sak wie INS UNE in Jo. 21: 1 emi ris Oaddoons seems 
to mean ‘on the sea-shore,’ and so ‘by the sea.’ So with él ris 6500 
(Mt. 21:19), the fig-tree being not on the path, but on the edge 
of the road. Abbott! notes how Matthew (14 : 25 f.) has éml rip 
6aXaccavy which is not ambiguous like the genitive in Jo. 6:19. 
Cf. Ac. 5: 23 éxt r&v Ovpdv. The classic idiom with éri and the 
genitive in the sense of ‘towards’ is not so common in the N. T., 
though it has not quite disappeared as Simcox? thinks. Cf. éyévero 
TO TAotov ert THs yas (Jo. 6:21), kabeuevov Eri Hs ys (Ac. 10: 11), 
Barodca TO pvpov ert Tod cwpyatos (Mt. 26:12), érirrev él ths vis 
(Mk. 14:35), yevouevos éri rod rorov (Lu. 22:40), rov én’ airijs 
épxouevov (Heb. 6:7), recay emt ris ys (Mk. 9:20). In these ex- 






tive wi rbs of rest. Cf. wecetrar ext trav yav (Mt. 10 : 29) with 
Mk. 9:20 above and Badety éxi trav yiv (Mt. 10 : 34) with Mk. 
4:26. With persons émi and the genitive may yield the resultant 
meaning of ‘before’ or ‘in the presence of.’ Thus ézt fyeudver 
(Mk. 13:9), xpivecdar ert rev toikav (1 Cor. 6:1), éxrds ef pt ext 
dvo 7 TpLav paptvpwr (1 Tim. 5:19), ert Hovriov Hedarov (1 Tim. 
6 : 13), eri cod (Ac. 23 : 30), Ex’ éuod (25:9). Blass* observes how 
in Ac. 25: 10 éorws éxi tod Bhuatos Kaicapos the meaning is ‘before,’ 
while in verse 17 the usual idea ‘upon’ is alone present (kaficas ért 
tov Bnuatos). Cf. éxt Tirov in 2 Cor. 7:14. With expressions of 
time the result is much the same. Thus én’ écxarov r&v xpdvwv 
(1 Pet. 1:20) where ézi naturally occurs (cf. Ju. 18). With éz 
Tv mpocevxav pou (Ro. 1:10) we have period of prayer denoted 
simply by éri. Cf. érebxoua éxi (Magical papyrus, Deissmann, 
Inght, etc., p. 252). There is no difficulty about émt ris pero- 
keslas (Mt. 1:11). With persons a fuller exposition is required, 
since éri K\avéiov (Ac. 11: 28) is tantamount to ‘in the time of 
Claudius’ or ‘during the reign of Claudius.’ Cf. also émi apxrepéws 
"Avva (Lu. 3:2), émt ’EXuoalov (4 : 27), éri ’ABidbap apxvepews (Mk. 
1 Joh. Gr., p. 261. 
2 Lang. of the N. T., p. 147. $* Gr of Nail Gkeipeiad 


604 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2:26). Cf. éx’ airfs in Heb. 7:11. The idea of basis is a natural 
metaphor as in én’ adAnfeias (Lu. 4 : 25), a érrote éxi trav acbevolytwr 
(Jo. 6:2), ws ért rodAdGy (Gal. 3:16), Eri crduaros (Mt. 18 : 16). 
One of the metaphorical uses is with the resultant idea of ‘over,’ 
growing naturally out of ‘upon.’! Thus xaracrnoe émi ris Oepareias 
(Lu. 12 : 42), though in Mt. 25 : 21, 23 both genitive and accusa- 
tive occur. Cf. also Bactdelay ert tov Bacrdewy (Rev. 17:18), 6 dv 
éri mavTwy (Ro. 9 : 5), ete. 

6. With the Locative. Here ézi is more simple, though still 
with a variety of resultant ideas. Blass? observes that with the 
purely local sense the genitive and accusative uses outnumber the 
locative with éri. But still some occur like émi wivax: (Mt. 14 : 8), 
érl rh wnyi (Jo. 4:6), eri tuariw radare (Mt. 9:16), ert rabry rH 
mTéTpa oikodounow (Mt. 16:18; cf. some MSS. in Mk. 2:4, é¢’ 6 
KATEKELTO), él Tots KpaBartrous (Mk. 6 : 55), eri 73 xoptw (Mk. 6 : 39), 
éx’ épnuots tomos (Mk. 1:45), éweéxerto Ex’ aitd (Jo. 11:38), emi 
caviow (Ac. 27: 44; cf. also éri rwwv). In Lu. 23 : 38, érvypady én’ 
ai7@, the resultant idea is rather that of ‘over,’ Mt. 27:37 having 
éravw Tis Kepadys adrov. As with the accusative and genitive, so 
with the locative the idea of contiguity sometimes appears, as 
in éri Ovpars (Mt. 24 : 33), ert rH rpoBatuxh (Jo. 5:2), éxl rH org 
(Ac. 3:11). Here the wider meaning of the substantive makes 
this result possible. Cf. also éml 7G roraud (Rev. 9:14). ’Eziis . 
used very sparingly with the locative in expressions of time. Cf. 
éri cuvtedeia TOV aiwvwy (Heb. 9:26). The use of éri racy TH 
uveia bua@v (Ph. 1:8), ob cuvijxay eri rots aptors (Mk. 6 : 52), Oepitev 
érl evAoyiats (2 Cor. 9 : 6) wavers between occasion and time. Cf. 
also érl 7H tpwty dcabnxn (Heb. 9:15). The notion of ézt rprciv pap- 
tuow (Heb. 10:28) is rather ‘before,’ ‘in the presence of.’ Cf. 
érl vexpots (Heb. 9:17). All these developments admit of satis- 
factory explanation from the root-idea of éri, the locative case 
and the: context. There are still other metaphorical applica- 
tions of eri. Thus in Mt. 24:47, érl maou, ‘over’ is the resul- 
tant meaning. So in Lu. 12:44 éml raow rots trdpyovor. The 
notion of basis is involved in éz’ a@prw povw in Mt. 4:4, emi 7h 
pnuati cov in Lu. 5:5, éXevoovrar ert 7TH dvduart wou in Mt. 24:5, 
éx’ é\ridc in Ac. 2 : 26, etc. Ground or occasion likewise may be 
conveyed by ert. Thus note émi rotrw in Jo. 4 : 27 and in particular 
éd’ o, like ert rovrw dtr, n Ro. 5:12 and 2 Cor. 5:4. Cf. é¢’ 6d 
éppovetre (Ph. 4: 10) where ‘whereon’ is the simple idea. See 


1 For éxi rod Evepyérov in Prol. to Sirach see Deiss., B. S., p. 339 f. 
2 Gro of NuTy Gk ipals7. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 605 


also érl rapopytoug duadv (Eph. 4 : 26), ef. 2 Cor. 9:15. The idea 
of aim or purpose seems to come in cases like ért épyous ayabois 
(Eph. 2:10), é¢’ @ Kai xarednudOnv (Ph. 3:12). Note also Gal. 
5:18, én’ ehevdepia; 1 Th. 4 : 7, od én’ axabapaia (cf. & ayiacua), ext 
kataotpopy (2 Tim. 2:14). Cf. én’ édevBepias inser. at Delphi ii/s.c. 
(Deissm., Laght, p. 327). The notion of model is involved in 
éxadouv érl 7S dvduare (Lu. 1: 59) and él 7G suouwpare (Ro. 5: 
14). Many verbs of emotion use éri with the locative, as éxatpev 
éxi mace (Lu. 13 : 17), Oavyatovres éxi (Lu. 2 : 33), etc. But some of 
the examples with these verbs may be real datives, as is possibly 
the case with the notion of addition to, like rpoceOnxev kal toto émi 
maow (Lu. 3 : 20). 

7. The True Dative. As we have seen, it was probably some- 
times used with ézi. The N. T. examples do not seem to be very 
numerous, and yet some occur. So I would explain éca ri dzep- 
Baddovcay xapiv Tod Oeod Ed’ duty (2 Cor. 9:14). This seems a clear 
case of the dative with éri supplementing it. The same thing may 
be true of éd’ tutv in 1 Th. 3:7 and Ro. 16:19. Cf. also zezo.66- 
tas €d’ éavtots in Lu. 18:9 and pakpobipnoor er’ éuot in Mt. 18 : 26 f. 
So Lu. 1:47 émi 7G 66. In Lu. 12: 52 f., rpets éxi dvciv, do Emi 
Tpioiv, vids ért marpl (cf. also éri @vyarépa), the resultant sense is 
‘against.’ Cf. also mpodnredoar éxi Aaots in Rev. 10:11. .In 
Jo. 12: 16, nv ex’ atrd yeypaypeva, and Ac. 5:35, él rots avOpwrors 
tovro.s, the idea is rather ‘about’ or ‘in the case of.’ Cf. also 
THs yevouerns ext Drepavw (Ac. 11:19). Here the personal relation 
seems to suit the dative conception better than the locative. The 
notion of addition to may also be dative. Cf. Lu. 3:20 above 
and Col. 3:14, émi réow 6€ tovrous; Heb. 8: 1, ert rots Neyouévors. 
In Eph. 6: 16 the best MSS. have év. It is possible also to regard 
the use of ézi for aim or purpose as having the true dative as in 
techs 4027. 

(i) Katé. There is doubt about the etymology of this prepo- 
sition. In tmesis it appears as xara, and in Arcadian and Cypriote 
Greek it has the form xarb. It is probably in the instrumental 
case,! but an apparently dative form xarai survives a few times. 
Brugmann? compares it with Old Irish cét, Cymric cant, Latin 
com-, though this is not absolutely certain. 

1. Root-Meaning. Brugmann*® thinks that the root-meaning 
of the preposition is not perfectly clear, though ‘down’ (cf. ava) 
seems to be the idea. The difficulty arises from the fact that we 


1 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 342. | 
2 Griech. Gr., p. 443. Cf. also Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 759f. % Ib. 


606 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


sometimes find the ablative case used when the result is down from, 
then the genitive down upon, and the accusative down along. But 
‘down’ (cf. ka7w) seems always to be the only idea of the preposi- 
tion in itself. In the N. T. three cases occur with xara. 

2. Distributive Sense. Kara came to be used in the distribu- 
tive sense with the nominative, like ava and ovv, but chiefly as 
adverb and not as preposition.! Hence this usage is not to be 
credited to the real prepositional idiom. Late Greek writers have 
it. So eis xara ets in Mk. 14:19 (and the spurious Jo. 8:9), 
ro kal’ eis in Ro. 12:5. The modern Greek uses xaels or xabévas 
as a distributive pronoun.2 Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 138 f., 
considers also eis xa’ éxaoros (A Lev. 25 : 10) merely the adverbial 
use of xara. But see xa’ éva in 1 Cor. 14:31, xara 6é éoprny (Mt. 
pH POA SY 

3. Kara in Composition. It is true to the root-idea of ‘down,’ 
like xkare8y in Mt. 7 : 25, xarayayetv in Ro. 10:6. But the various 
metaphorical uses occur also in composition. Often xara occurs 
with ‘‘perfective”’ force. So, for instance, observe xarapricec 
(1 Pet. 5:10), xarnywvicavro (Heb. 11 : 33), xarediwéev (Mk. 1 : 36), 
Katadovdot (2 Cor. 11 : 20), xataxatoee (Mt. 3:12), xatapdbere (Mt. 
6:28), xatavonoare (Lu. 12: 24), xaréravoay (Ac. 14:18), xara- 
mivovres (Mt. 23 : 24), xatacxevaoe (Mk. 1:2), xarepyatecbe (Ph. 
2:12), xarepayer (Mt. 13 : 4), xaBoparar (Ro. 1 : 20). This preposi- 
tion vies with 6:a and otv in the perfective sense. Karexw in Ro. 
1:18 is well illustrated by 6 xatéywy rov Ovuov from an ostracon 
(Deissmann, Light, p. 308). In the magical texts it means to 
‘cripple’ or to ‘bind,’ ‘hold fast.’ But in Mk. 14 : 45, xaredidnoe, 
the preposition seems to be weakened, though the A. 8.V. puts — 
“‘kissed him much” in the margin. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 
Nov., 1907, p. 220. 

4, With the Ablative. This construction is recognised by Brug- 
mann,‘ Monro,? Kithner-Gerth,® Delbriick.” There are some ex- 
amples of the ablative in the N. T., where ‘down’ and ‘from’ 
combine to make ‘down from.’ Thus, for instance, is to be ex- 
plained ¢Barev kar’ abrijs dveuos rupwrixds (Ac. 27:14), where airis 
refers to Kpyrnv, and the meaning (cf. American Standard Revi- 
sion) is manifestly ‘down from’ Crete. In 1 Cor. 11:4, rpodnrebwv 
kata kepadjs éxwv, we have ‘down from’ again, the veil hanging 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178. 5 Hom. Gr., p. 145. 
2 Ib.; Moulton, Prol., p. 105. RL pare: 
PA Gia te pee iayet Ae Hap ae 7 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 760. 


4 Griech. Gr., p. 448. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 607 


down from the head. In Mk. 5:18 we find dSpuncer 4 ayédn Kata 
Tod Kpnuvod (Mt. 8:32=Lu. 8:33) where ‘down from the cliff’ 
is again the idea. 

5. With the Genitive. It is more usual with xaré than the abla- 
tive in the N. T. as in the earlier Greek.! The idea is ‘down upon,’ 
the genitive merely accenting the person or thing affected. A 
good example of this sense in composition followed by the genitive 
appears in xarakupietboas dudotrepwy (Ac. 19: 16). Some MSS. in 
Mk. 14:3 have xara with ris xedadjs, but without it xcaréxeev 
means ‘pour down on’ the head. In 2 Cor. 8:2, 4 kara Bddous 
mTwxeia, the idea is ‘down to’ depth. But with the genitive the 
other examples in the N. T. have as resultant meanings either 
‘against,’ ‘throughout’ or ‘by.’ These notions come from the 
original ‘down.’ Luke alone uses ‘throughout’ with the geni- 
tive and always with dédos. The earlier Greek had xaé’ 6dov 
(also alone in Luke in the N. T., Ac. 4:18), though Polybius 
employed xara in this sense. Cf. in Lu. 4:14 xa’ dds THs rept- 
xwpov; Ac. 9:31 xaé’ SAns rhs “lovdaias (so 9:42; 10:37). The 
older Greek would have used the accusative in such cases.. But 
cf. Polyb. iii, 19, 7, xara ris vncov dveordpnoav. The notion of 
‘against’ is also more common? in the xow7. But in the modern 
Greek vernacular xara (xa) is confined to the notions of ‘toward’ 
and ‘according to,’ having lost the old ideas of ‘down’ and 
‘against’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 105 f.). Certainly the preposition 
does not mean ‘against.’ That comes out of the context when 
two hostile parties are brought together. Cf. English vernacular 
“down on” one. This xara then is ‘down upon’ rather literally 
where the Attic usually had éri and accusative. Among many 
examples note xata tod ’"Incod waptupiay (Mk. 14:55), viudny xara 
mevoepas (Mt. 10:35), xara rod mvebyaros (Mt. 12:32), xara 70d 
IlavdAov (Ac. 24:1), ete. Cf. Ro. 8:33. Sometimes pera and xara 
are contrasted (Mt. 12:30) or xara and tzep (Lu. 9 : 50; 1 Cor. 
4:6). The other use of xara and the genitive is with verbs of 
swearing. The idea is perhaps that the hand is placed down on 
the thing by which the oath is taken. But in the N. T. God him- 
self is used in the solemn oath. So Mt. 26: 638, é£opxifw ce kata Tod 
deod. Cf. Heb. 6:18, 16. In 1 Cor. 15:15 éuaprupjocayey xara tod 
deo} may be taken in this sense or as meaning ‘against.’ 

6. With the Accusative. But the great majority of examples 

1 Delbriick, ib., p. 761. 


2 Jebb, in V. and D., Handb., etc., p. 313. 
8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 183. 


608 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in the N. T. use the accusative. Radermacher (NV. 7. Gr., p. 116) 
notes the frequency of the accusative in the papyri where zepi 
would appear in the older Greek. Farrar! suggests that xara with 
the genitive (or ablative) is perpendicular (‘down on’ or ‘down 
from’) while with the accusative it is horizontal (‘down along’). 
Curiously enough John has only some ten instances of xara and 
several of them are doubtful.?, On the whole, the N. T. use of the 
accusative with xara corresponds pretty closely to the classic 
idiom. With a general horizontal plane to work from a number of 
metaphorical usages occur. But it appears freely in local expres- 
sions like aaqNOe Kad’ ddAnY THY TOAW Knpvoowy (Lu. 8 : 39), dinpxovTo 
Kata Tas Kamas (Lu. 9 : 6), kava THY dor (Lu. 10 : 4), éyevero Aros KaTa 
Thy xwpav (Lu. 15:14), xara tiv Kidexiay (Ac. 27 : 5), BXérovta kata 
NiBa (Ac. 27 : 12), kara peonuBpiay (Ac. 8 : 26), kara mpdowrov (Gal. 
2:11), car’ d¢0arpots (Gal. 3:1), kara cxorov (Ph. 3:14). The no- 
tion of rest may also have this construction as kar’ ofxov (Ac. 2: 46). 
Cf. riv Kar’ otkov atris exxAnoiay (Col. 4:15). Cf. Ac. 11:1. In 
Ac. 18: 1a rather ambiguous usage occurs, kata Ti ovcay ExxAnolap 
tpopjrar. But this example may be compared with rév xara ’lov- 
datous Ov (Ac. 26 : 3), of kab’ buds rounrat (Ac. 17: 28, some MSS. 
Ka’ Auds), vowov Tod Kad’ buas (Ac. 18:15). This idiom is common 
in the literary xown and is one of the marks of Luke’s literary 
style. But this is merely a natural development, and xara with 
the accusative always expressed direction towards in the ver- 
nacular.4| Schmidt (de eloc. Joseph., p. 21f.) calls xara a sort of 
periphrasis for the genitive in late Greek. Cf. ra kar’ éué (Ph. 
1:12). It is more than a mere circumlocution for the genitive® 
in the examples above and such as tiv Ka’ buds riot (Eph. 1 : 15), 
To kar’ ue (Ro. 1:15), 76 xara capxa (Ro. 9: 5), 7a Kar’ eve (Eph. 
6:21; cf. Ac. 25 : 14), dvépaow rots cat’ ééoxnv (Ac. 25 : 28; cf. par 
excellence). Kara is used with expressions of time like kar’ éxetvov 
tov Karpov (Ac. 12:1), xara ro wecovixtioy (Ac. 16 : 25), Kad’ éxadorny 
nuepay (Heb. 3:18), xara wav ca4BBarov (Ac. 13:27). The notion 
of distribution comes easily with kara, as in kara rod (Lu. 8: 1), 
Kata Tas ovvaywyas (Ac. 22:19), car’ eros (Lu. 2:41), nad’ quéepav 
(Ac. 2 : 46), xa’ éva mavres (1 Cor. 14:31), kar’ dvoua (Jo. 10 : 38), 
ete.2 See, Mth 27 2.15 = M15 6 Chikara, 000 bam OSV noo 
(iii/A.D.). As a standard or rule of measure xara is very common 


1 Gk. Synt., p. 100. 2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 266. 
3 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 149; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 183. 
4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 384. 

’) Blass;:Gr. of Neila Glew pe loo: 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOQOEZEI2) 609 


and also simple. So kara 76 ebayyédvov (Ro. 16 : 25) with which 
compare the headings! to the Gospels like xara Ma@@atov, though 
with a different sense of ebayyeduov. Here the examples multiply 
like xara vouov (Lu. 2 : 22), cara dbow (Ro. 11 : 21), cara xapw (Ro. 
4:4), xara Oeov (Ro. 8: 27), xara Hy riotw (Mt. 9 : 29), xara dbvayey 
(2 Cor. 8:38), xa’ brepBornv (Ro. 7:13), kara cuvyvmunv (1 Cor. 
7:6), etc. Various resultant ideas come out of different connec- 
tions. There is no reason to call xara racayv airiay (Mt. 19:3) 
and xara ayvoravy (Ac. 3:17) bad Greek. If there is the idea of 
cause here, so in 1 Tim. 6:38, xar’ evdoéBeravy, the notion of tend- 
ency or aim appears. We must not try to square every detail 
in the development of xara or any Greek preposition with our 
translation of the context nor with classic usage, for the N. T. is 
written in the xown. This preposition is specially common in 
Acts and Hebrews. Kar’ iditav (Mt. 14:18) is adverbial. But 
KaTa& tpocwrov is not a mere Hebraism, since the papyri have it 
(Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 140). Asa sample of the doubling 
up of prepositions note ovveréorn kat’ atrdv (Ac. 16 : 22). 

(j) Meta. Most probably wera has the same root as peoos, Latin 
medius, German mit (midi), Gothic mip, English mid (cf. a-mid). 
Some scholars indeed connect it with agua and German samt. 
But the other view is reasonably certain. The modern Greek uses 
a shortened form ye, which was indeed in early vernacular use.? 
Some of the Greek dialects use 7eda. So the Lesbian, Boeotian, 
Arcadian, etc. Mera seems to be in the instrumental case. 

1. The Root-Meaning. It is (‘mid’) ‘midst.’ This simple idea 
lies behind the later developments. Cf. weraéd and dvayeca. We 
see the root-idea plainly in yerewpiftw (from per-ewpos, in ‘mid-air’). 
In the N. T. we have a metaphorical example (Lu. 12 : 29) which 
is intelligible now in the day of aeroplanes and dirigible balloons. 
The root-idea is manifest also in pér-wrov (Rev. 7:3), ‘the space 
between the eyes.’ 

2. In Composition. The later resultant meanings predominate 
in composition such as “with” in peradidwue (Ro. 12 : 8), weradap- 
Bavw (Ac. 2 : 46), werexw (1 Cor. 10 : 30); “after” in peraréurw (Ac. 
10 : 5); or, as is usually the case, the notion of change or transfer 
is the result as with peBiornue (1 Cor. 13 : 2), weraBatvw (Mt. 8 : 34), 
perapopdow (Ro. 12:2), perapedouar (Mt. 27:3), peravoew (Mt. 
Orie): 

3. Compared with ctv. Meré is less frequent in composition than 


1 Ib. 2 Jann., Hist. Gr. Gk., p. 388; Hatz., Einl., p. 153. 
3 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 342. 


610 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


civ, though far more common as a preposition. Simcox! thinks 
that it is useless to elaborate any distinction in meaning between 
mera and ctv. The older grammars held that ctv expressed a more 
intimate fellowship than wera. But in the N. T. wera has nearly 
driven ovy out. 

4. Loss of the Locative Use. Mera was originally used with the 
locative. It is common in Homer, but even with him the genitive 
has begun to displace it.2, Homer uses the locative with collective 
singulars and plurals. Mommsen‘ indeed considers that in Hesiod 
dua, wera and ovy all use the instrumental case and with about 
equal frequency, while wera with the genitive was rare. But in the 
N. T. wera, along with zepi and to, has been confined to the gen- 
itive and accusative, and the genitive use greatly predominates 
(361 to 100).° The idea with the locative was simply ‘between.’ ® 
With several persons the notion of ‘among’ was present also.” 

5. With the Genitive. In Homer it occurs only five times and 
with the resultant idea of ‘among.’ So once (liad, 13. 700, pera 
Bowr&v éuadxovro), where indeed the idea is that of alliance with 
the Boeotians. In Rev. 2: 16, etc., wera occurs with zoA\euew in a 
hostile sense, a usage not occurring in the older Greek, which 
Simcox® considers a Hebraism. But the papyri may give us ex- 
amples of this usage any day. And Thumb (Hellenismus, p. 125; 
cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 106) has already called attention to the 
modern Greek use of ve with roXevew. Deissmann (Light, p. 191) 
finds wera orpatiwrov with oikéw in an ostracon (not in hostile 
sense) and possibly with davridoyéw, ‘elsewhere.’ In Jo. 6:43 
pera occurs in a hostile sense with yoyyif{w and probably so with 
énrnows In Jo. 3:25, though Abbott? argues for the idea of alli- 
ance here between the Baptist’s disciples and the Jews to incite 
rivalry between the Baptist and Jesus. In 1 Cor. 6:6 f. we have 
the hostile sense also in legal trials, adedfos pera adeApod xpi- 
vera. Cf. Jo. 16:19. This notion gives no difficulty to English 
students, since our ‘‘with” is so used. But Moulton” admits 
a translation Hebraism in Lu. 1: 58, éueyaduvey Kipios ro ed\eos 
avtod per’ adras. But what about dca éroincery 6 eds per’ aitav 

1 Lang. of the N. T., p. 149. Cf. Thayer, under ot». 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 444. a9K-Gy Dane ode: 

4 T. Mommsen, Die Priip. ctv und wera bei den nachhomerischen Epikern, 
1879, p. 1 f. Cf. also Mommsen, Beitr. zu der Lehre von der griech. Priip., 
1895. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. 8 Lang. of the N. T., p. 150. 


6 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 741 f. * Jobs Gr. p: 207. 
7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 136. 10 Prol:, p. 106. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPO@EZEI2) 611 


(Ac. 14: 27) and reredeiwrat 4 ayarn ped’ Auav (1 Jo. 4:17)? 
Simcox! again finds a Hebraism in ‘‘the religious sense’? which 
appears in Mt. 1: 23; Lu. 1:28; Jo. 3:2, ete. But the notion 
of fellowship is certainly not a Hebraism. Mera has plenty of ex- 
amples of the simple meaning of the preposition. Thus rov ¢évra 
peta TeV vexpov (Lu. 24 : 5), Av wera Tdv Onpiwy (Mk. 1: 13), pera rv 
Tedwvav (Lu. 5 : 30), wera avouwv édroyicbn (Lu. 22: 37), an idiom not 
common to civ and found in the classical poets.?. Cf. also oxnv7) rod 
Geod pera Tov avOpwrwv (Rev. 21: 3), wera duwyyaev (Mk. 10: 30), gucéev 
peta T&V Ovordy (Lu. 13: 1), ofvov wera xodFs (Mt. 27:34). It is not 
far from this idea to that of conversation as in wera yuvaixds &\ddeu 
(Jo. 4:27), and general fellowship as with eipyvebw (Ro. 12 : 18), 
ovpdwvew (Mt. 20:2), Kowwviay éxw (1 Jo. 1:3), cvvaipw ddyov 
(Mt. 18 : 23), etc. Perhaps the most frequent use of werd is with 
the idea of accompaniment. So with dxodovdéw (Lu. 9 : 49), Nap- 
Bavw (Mt. 25 : 3), wapadauBavw (Mt. 12 : 45), eoyoua (Mk. 1 : 29), 
avaxwpew (Mk. 3:7), ete. Cf. Mt. 27:66. So with eiui (Mk. 3 : 14), 
but sometimes the notion of help or aid is added as in Jo. 3 : 2; 
8:29, etc. Cf. also 7) xdpis pcb’ tudv (Ro. 16:20) and often. 
The notion of fellowship may develop into that of followers or 
partisans as in Mt. 12:30. Sometimes the phrase of per’ abrod 
with the participle (Jo. 9 : 40) or without (Mt. 12 : 4) means one’s 
attendants or followers (companions). The idea of accompani- 
ment also occurs with things as in é£n\NOare jiera waxarpdv (Lu. 22: 
52), wera TOV Aaurddwv (Mt. 25:4), wera cddrvyyos (Mt. 24:31), 
peta Bpaxtovos tWnrod (Ac. 13:17), some of which approach the 
instrumental idea. Cf. wera érécews trav xepav (1 Tim. 4: 14), 
where the idea is rather ‘simultaneous with,’ but see wera dpxov 
(Mt. 14:7), wera dwras weyadns (Lu. 17:15). Still in all these 
cases accompaniment is the dominant note. See also pnéevr(a) 
dmoNevoba T&v wera otrov (‘in the corn service’), B.U. 27 (1i/A.D.). 
Certainly it is not a Hebraism in Lu. 1 : 58, for Moulton (Prol., p. 
246) can cite A.P. 135 (ii/A.D.) ri dé quety ovveBn wera TAY ApXoVTW; 
In later Greek the instrumental use comes to be common with 
pera (cf. English “with’’).2 In Lu. 10:37 6 woujoas 76 eos per’ ad- 
tov Debrunner (Blass-Deb., p. 134) sees a Hebraism. But see 
Herm. 8. V. 1, 1, éoince per’ Euod. The metaphorical use for the 
idea of accompaniment occurs also like wera duvapews kat dons (Mt. 
24:30), wera orovdjs (Mk. 6:25), wera daxptwy (Heb. 12:17), wera 


1 Lang. of the N. T., p. 150. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 133 f. 
$ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 387. For wera compared with rapa see Abbott, 
Joh. Gr., p. 268. 


612 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


oBov kal rpduov (2 Cor. 7:15), wappnaias (Ac. 2 : 29), OopiBou (Ac. 
24:18), etc. Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 64, 265) finds in the 
papyri examples of wera xat like that in Ph. 4:3. Cf. Schmid, 
Der Atticismus, III, p. 338. In the modern Greek vernacular yé 
is confined to accompaniment, means or instrument and manner. 
Time has dropped out (Thumb, Handb., p. 103 f.). 

6. With the Accusative. At first it seems to present more dif- 
ficulty. But the accusative-idea added to the root-idea (‘‘midst’’) 
with verbs of motion would mean “into the midst” or ‘‘among.” 
But this idiom does not appear in the N. T. In the late Greek ver- 
nacular pera with the accusative occurs in all the senses of pera 
and the genitive,! but that is not true of the N. T. Indeed, with 
one exception (and that of place), wera 76 debrepov Kataréracua (Heb. 
9:3), in the N. T. wera with the accusative is used with expres- 
sions of time. This example in Hebrews is helpful, however. The 
resultant notion is that of behind or beyond the veil obtained 
by going through the midst of the veil. All the other examples 
have the resultant notion of “after”? which has added to the root- 
meaning, as applied to time, the notion of succession. You pass 
through the midst of this and that event and come to the point 
where you look back upon the whole. This idea is “after.” Cf. 
pera dvo huépas (Mt. 26:2). In the historical books of the LXX 
pera Tadra (cf. Lu. 5 : 27) is very common.” Simecx? treats ot pera 
mo\Nas Tavtas nuepas (Ac. 1:5) as a Latinism, but, if that is not 
true of pd, it is hardly necessary to posit it of werd. Cf. pera 
juepas eixoot Herm. Vis. IV, 1,1. The litotesiscommon. Jannaris* 
comments on the frequency of vera 76 with the infinitive in the 
LXX and N. T. So pera 76 dvaoryva (Acts 10:41). Cf. 1 Cor. 
11 : 25; Heb. 10 : 26, ete. This comes to be one of the common 
ways of expressing a temporal clause (cf. ézei or é7e). Cf. pera 
Bpaxt (Lu. 22:58), wera pexpov (Mk. 14 : 70), adverbial phrases. 

(k) Ilapa. 

1. Significance. Delbriick’ does not find the etymology of zapa 
clear and thinks it probably is not to be connected with pdra 
(Sanskrit), which means ‘distant.’ Brugmann® connects it with the 
old word purd@ like Latin por—, Gothic fatira, Anglo-Saxon fore (cf. 
German vor). Giles’ thinks the same root furnishes zapds (gen.), 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 387. 3 Lang. of the N. T., p. 151. 
2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 266. 4° Hist GkeGr p. soe 

5 Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 755, 761. 

6 Kurze Vergl. Gr., II, p. 474; Griech. Gr., p. 446. 

7 Comp. Philol., p. 342. 


A —~ 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 613 


mapa (instr.), mapai (dat.), mepi (loc.). He also sees a kinship in 
these to répayv, répa, pos. 

2. Compared with rpos. In meaning! rapa and pds do not 
differ essentially save that mapa merely means ‘beside,’ ‘along- 
side’ (cf. our “parallel’’), while zpés rather suggests ‘facing one 
another,’ an additional idea of contrast. This oldest meaning 
explains all the later developments.? Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p. 116) thinks that the N. T. shows confusion in the use of apd 
(dueAoyitovro map’ [marg. of W. H. and Nestle, év in text] éavrots, 
Mt. 21:25) and duedoyitovro mpds éavrots (Mk. 11:31). But is 
it not diversity the rather? 

3. In Composition. The preposition is exceedingly common in 
composition, though with nouns it falls behind some of the others 
a good deal. Ilapa does not survive in modern Greek vernacular 
save in composition (like ava and é) and some of its functions go 
to amo and eis. All the various developments of rapa appear in 
- composition, and the simplest use is very common. Thus zapa- 
Bodn (Mk. 13 : 28) is a ‘placing of one thing beside another.’ So 
mapa-Badacoros (Mt. 4:13) is merely ‘beside the sea.’ Cf. also 
mapa-Onkn (2 Tim. 1:14), mapa-xabecbeis (Lu. 10:39), awapa-xarew 
(Ac. 28 : 20), mapa-xXnros (Jo. 14:16), mapa-heyouae (Ac. 27:8), 
map-advos (Lu. 6 : 17), tapa-yevw (Heb. 7 : 23; cf. werd kal rapa-yevd 
Ph. 1:25), mapa-rX\éw (Ac. 20:16), tapa-ppew (Heb. 2:1), zapa- 
rtOnue (Mk. 6 : 41), rap-erme (Lu. 13 : 1), ete. A specially noticeable 
word is map-o.vos (1 Tim. 3:3). Cf. also dvrti-rap-nd\ev in Lu. 
10:31f. Sometimes zapa suggests a notion of stealth as in zap- 
eva-ayw (2 Pet. 2:1), rap-ec-diw (Ju. 4), tap-eio-axros (Gal. 2 : 4), 
but in zap-e.o-épyouae in Ro. 5 : 20 this notion is not present. Cf. 
Mt. 14:15, 7 &pa bn rapqdOer, ‘the hour is already far spent’ (‘gone 
by’). Note also the Scotch ‘far in” like modern Greek zapapéoa 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 247). A few examples of the “perfective” use 
occur as in rapotbvw (Ac. 17 : 16), tapa-mixpaivw (Heb. 3 : 16), rapa- 
onuos (Ac. 28:11), mapa-rnpéw (Gal. 4:10, but in Lu. 14:1 the 
idea of envious watching comes out). With zapa-ppovéw the no- 
tion is rather ‘to be beside one’s self,’ ‘out of mind.’ Cf. also zapa- 
nimtw in Heb. 6:6, found in the ostraca (Wilcken, i. 78 f.) as a 
commercial word ‘to fall below par.’ For wapevoxdelv (Ac. 15 : 19) 
see tapevoxrciv Huds, P. Th. 36 (ii/B.c.). Tapa occurs in the N. T. 
with three cases. The locative has 50 examples, the accusative 60, 
the ablative 78.4 

1 K.-G., I, p. 509. ! 3 Thumb., Handb., p. 102. 
2 Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 130. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 


614 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


4. With the Locative. Tapa with the locative is nearly confined 
to persons. Only one other example appears, tornxecay rapa TO 
atavp@ (Jo. 19:25). This confining of rapa to persons is like the 
usual Greek idiom, though Homer! used it freely with both. 
Homer used it also as an adverb and in the shortened form 
aap. The only instance in the N. T. of the locative with zapa 
after a verb of motion is in Lu. 9:47, éornoev aird rap’ éauTa, 
though here D reads éavrév. The locative with zapa leaves the 
etymological idea unchanged so that we see the preposition in its 
simplest usage. Cf. dv adréXecrov rapa Kaprw (2 Tim. 4:13) as a 
typical example of the use with persons which is much like apud 
in Latin, ‘at one’s house’ (Jo. 1:40), ‘in his society,’ etc. So 
Kataddoat tapa (Lu. 19:7), wevw mapa (Jo. 14:17), Eevirw rapa (Ac. 
21:16). Cf Ac. 2128. In Revs 22138; Mt. 28:15, apa has the 
idea of ‘among.’ The phrase rapa 7G 0eG (Lu. 1:30) is common. 
The word is used in ethical relations,? also like zap’ éuoi (2 Cor. 


1:17). Cf. ri &muorov xpiverar rap’ byutvy (Ac. 26:8) and ¢pdrviyo . 


map’ éavtots (Ro. 12:16). Tapa with the locative does not occur 
in Hebrews. 

5. With the Ablative. But it occurs only with persons (like the 
older Greek). The distinction between zapa and a7é and é& has 
already been made. In Mk. 8:11 both wapa and azo occur, 
Cnrobvres tap’ avTod onueiov ard ToD ovpavod (cf. 12:2), and in Jo. 
1:40 we have both zapa and ékx, eis éx T&v d00 Tay axovodvTwrv Tapa 
‘Iwavov. In a case like Jo. 8:38 the locative is followed by the 
ablative,® éwpaxa rapa T@ TaTpi — jKovoaTe Tapa TOD tatpos, though 
some MSS. have locative in the latter clause also. But the abla- 
tive here is in strict accordance with Greek usage as in a case like 
axodoar mapa cod (Ac. 10:22). On the other hand in Jo. 6:45 f. 
we find the ablative in both instances, 6 dxovocas rapa Tod matpds — 
6 av rapa Tod Oeod (cf. 6 av eis TOV KOATOV TOD TaTpds in Jo. 1:18). 
But this last zapa implies the coming of Christ from the Father, 
like zapa tod ratpos é&fNOov (Jo. 16:27). Tapa with the ablative 
means ‘from the side of’ as with the accusative it means ‘to the 
side of.’ The phrase of rap’ airot therefore describes one’s family 
or kinsmen (Mk. 3: 21). In the papyri the phrase is very common 
for one’s agents, and Moulton* has found one or two like of zap’ 
nuav mavres parallel to of rap’ atvod in Mk. 3:21. Cf. also ra rap’ 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 134. 

2 Simcox, Lang. of N. T., p. 151. $ Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 271. 

4 Prol., p. 106. In G.H. 36 (ii/s.c.), B. U. 998 (ii/B.c.), P. Par. 36 (ii/s.c.). 
Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 138. 


petemet 2 ears ce 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIZ) 615 


aitav (Lu. 10:7) for one’s resources or property. Rouffiac (Re- 
cherches, etc., p. 30) cites éaravncey rap’ éavrod (cf. Mk. 5 : 26) 
from inscription from Priene (111, 117). Note also 4 aap’ éuod 
diadyxn (Ro. 11:27) with notion of authorship. With passive 
verbs the agent is sometimes expressed by zapa as in amecradpeévos 
mapa Oe0d (Jo. 1:6), Tots NeAaAnuEvors mapa Kvupiov (Lu. 1:45). Ce. 
Text. Rec. in Ac. 22: 30 with xarnyopetrar rapa t&v ‘lovéaiwy, where 
W.H. have io. Tapa occurs with the middle in Mt. 21:42, rapa 
Kuplov éyévero. In the later Greek vernacular rapa with the abla- 
tive helped supplant t7o along with amo, and both zapa and tmé 
(and éx) vanished! “before the victorious azo.” 

6. With the Accusative. It is not found in John’s writings at 
all? as it is also wanting in the other Catholic Epistles. The 
accusative is common in the local sense both with verbs of 
motion and of rest. The increase in the use of the accusative 
with verbs of rest explains in part the disuse of the locative.® 
One naturally compares the encroachments of eis upon é&. We 
see the idiom in the papyri as in of wapa ce Oeoi, P. Par. 47 (B.c. 
153). The use of zapa with the accusative with verbs of rest 
was common in Northwest Greek (Buck, Greek Dialects, p. 101). 
Thus in Mt. 4:18 we find repitarav rapa thy Oadaccay logically 
enough, but in 13:1 we meet éaOnTo rapa tiv Oadaccay, and note 
Kabhuevor mapa thy ddov (Mt. 20:80), éorTas mapa tHv Niwynv (Lu. 
5:1), éorty oixia rapa Oadaccay (Ac. 10: 6), didacKev rapa badaccapv 
(Mk. 4:1), dvareOpaypévos rapa rods wddas (Ac. 22:3). Cf. Ac. 
4:35. So no difficulty arises from épufav rapa rods rodas (Mt. 15: 
30). There is no example in the N. T. of zapa in the sense of 
‘beyond,’ like Homer, but one where the idea is ‘near to,’ ‘along- 
side of,’ as 7\Mev rapa tHv Oadraccavy (Mt. 15:29). But figura- 
tively rapa does occur. often in the sense of ‘beside the mark’ 
or ‘beyond.’ Once* indeed we meet the notion of ‘minus,’ as 
in reooapakovta mapa piay (2 Cor. 11:24). Cf. rapa radavrdv cor 
merpaxa, B.U. 1079 (a.p. 41), where rapa means ‘except.’ The 
modern Greek vernacular keeps mapa rtpixa, ‘within a hair’s 
breadth’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 98). The notion of ‘beyond’ is 
common enough in classic writers and is most frequent in He- 
brews in the N. T. It occurs with comparative forms like é:ado- 
pwrepov (Heb. 1:4), wdelovos (3:3), Kpeirrooe (9 : 23; cf. 12:24), 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 391. 

2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 270. 5 Blass, Gr, of: N. Ts, Gk p. 188; 

4 W.-Th., p. 404. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 138, less naturally explains 
mapa here as meaning ‘by virtue of,’ but not Debrunner. 


616 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with implied comparison like 7\atTwoas Bpaxb te (2:7), or with 
merely the positive like duaprwdot (Lu. 13:2; cf. 18:4). Indeed 
no adjective or participle at all may appear, as in ddederar 
évyevovro mapa mavras (Lu. 13:4; cf. 13:2). The use of the posi- 
tive with mapé is like the Aramaic (cf. Wellhausen, Hznl., p. 
28). Here the notion of ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ is simple enough. 
Cf. rapa after &\Xos in 1 Cor. 3:11 and jyepay in Ro. 14:5; Heb. 
11:11. The older Greek was not without this natural use of 
mapa for comparison and the LXX is full of it.t- In the later Greek 
vernacular the ablative and # both retreat before wapa and the 
accusative.2. In the modern Greek vernacular we find zapa and 
the accusative and even with the nominative after comparison 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 75). The notion of comparison may glide 
over into that of opposition very easily. Thus in Ro. 1: 25, 
éhatpevoay TH KTioe. mapa Tov Kticavta, where ‘rather than’ is the 
idea (cf. ‘instead of”). Cf. Ro. 4:18, rap’ édrida én’ édridc, where 
both prepositions answer over to each other, ‘beyond,’ ‘upon.’ 
So in 2 Cor. 8 :3 xara dbvauw and rapa divauw are in sharp contrast. 
Cf. Ac. 23:3. In Gal. 1:8 f. zap’ 6 has the idea of ‘beyond’ and 
so ‘contrary to.? .Cf) Ro.1192242 12 3731 6iel {7s Lovexceedants 
structions is often to go contrary to them. In a case like zapa 
vouov (Ac. 18:13), to go beyond is to go against. Cf. English 
trans-gression, Tapa-rTwua. Once more rapa with the accusative 
strangely enough may actually mean ‘because of,’ like propter. 
So in | Cor. 12 154. raped rovro: “Ct... Dine lu oe fe ees UIC 
writers used zapa thus, but it disappears in the later vernacular.’ 
The notion of cause grows out of the idea of nearness and the nature 
of the context. Farrar‘ suggests the English colloquial: ‘It’s all 
along of his own neglect.” 

(l) Ilept. There is some dispute about: the etymology of epi. 
Some scholars, like Sonne,® connect it in etymology and meaning 
with tzep. But the point is not yet clear, as Brugmann® con- 
tends. Whatever may be true about the remote Indo-Germanic 
root, wept belongs to the same stem as zapa and is in the locative 
case like pdri in the Sanskrit.7. Cf. also Old Persian party, Zend 
pairt, Latin per, Lithuanian per, Gothic fair—, Old High German 
far-, fer, German ver-. The Greek uses zépt as an adverb (Homer) 


1 O.-and §,)Ds oo ee DACke Gl De Do: 3 Tb., p. 390. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 389. GK pynot., p. 104 
5 K. Z., 14, pp. 1 ff. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 700. 

6 eatige: vergl. Gr., II, p. 475. 

7 Brug., Griech. Ge p. 447; Delbriick, veer Synt., I, p. 700. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI=) 617 


and the AXolic dialect? even uses wép instead of repi. The inten- 
sive particle wep is this same word. 

1. The Root-Meaning. It is ‘round’ (‘around’), ‘on all sides’ 
(cf. audi, ‘on both sides’). Cf. repré (Ac. 5 : 16), where the root- 
idea is manifest. Cf. Latin circum, circa. The preposition has 
indeed a manifold development,? but after all the root-idea is 
plainer always than with some of the other prepositions. The 
N. T. examples chiefly (but cf. Ac. 28:7) concern persons and 
things, though even in the metaphorical uses the notion of 
‘around’ is present. | 

2. In Composition. The idea of ‘around’ in the literal local 
sense is abundant. Cf. weprjyev (Mt. 4: 23), repracrpawar (Ac. 22: 
6), wepreat@ra (Jo. 11 : 42), reprédpayov (Mk. 6 : 55), wepipépew (Mk. 
6:55), mepi-epxouac (Ac. 19:13), dpaypov aitd mepieOnney (Mt. 
21:33). In mepi-raréw (Mt. 9: 5) epi has nearly lost its special 
force, while in zepreoyafouevous (2 Th. 3:11) the whole point lies 
in the preposition. Note in Mk. 3 : 34, zepi-BXePdpuevos robs repli 
avtov Kik\w Kabnuevous, Where xixkdw explains zepi already twice ex- 
pressed. Cf. also mepi-xuxAwoovoly ce (Lu. 19:43). The perfective 
idea of wepi in composition is manifest in zepi-edetv duaprias (Heb. 
10 : 11), ‘to take away altogether.’ Cf. repi-aavtwr rip & wéow Ths 
avAjs (Lu. 22 : 55), where note the addition of epi to év wéow. In 
Mk. 14: 65 wepi-cadir7w means ‘to cover all round,’ ‘to cover up,’ 
like wept-Kptr7w in Lu. 1:24. This is the ‘‘perfective”’ sense. Cf. 
mept-\uTos in Mt. 26:38. Per contra note zepiepyos (1 Tim. 5 : 13) 
for ‘busybody,’ busy about trifles and not about important mat- 
ters. In 1 Tim. 6:10 note zeprérerpay in the sense of ‘pierced 
through.’ But in 2 Cor. 3:16, wepiaipetrar, ‘the veil is removed 
from around the head.’ 7 

3. Originally Four Cases Used. These were the locative, ac- 
cusative, genitive, ablative. The locative was never common in 
prose and died out in the late Greek, not appearing in the N. T. 
Delbriick? is very positive about the ablative in some examples in 
Homer and the earlier Greek. Indeed he thinks that the true 
genitive is a later development after the ablative with zepi. I 
think it probable that some of these ablative examples survive in 
the N. T., though I do not stress the point.* 

4. With the Ablative. There is some doubt as to how to explain 


1 K.-G., I, p. 491. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 447. 

3 Die Grundl., p. 131 f.; Vergl. Synt., I, p. 711 f. 
4 Cf. also Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 447. 


618 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the ablative with zepi. In Homer! it is usually explained as like 
ablative of comparison. Cf. iaép. Thus zepi is taken in the sense 
of ‘beyond’ or ‘over,’ and is allied to wépa (repay) and trép, ac- 
cording to the original sense.2- Brugmann® cites also wepieyw and 
mepiylyvouat Where the notion of superiority comes in. With this 
compare mepixpatets yevecbar ris oxadys (Ac. 27:16), which would 
thus have the ablative in cxa¢dys. But Monro* admits that the 
origin of this notion with zepi is not quite clear. On the other 
hand, the use of epi in composition may throw light on the 
subject. In 2 Cor. 3:16, mept-arpetrar ro Kadvupa, ‘the veil is 
taken from around.’ Cf. also Ac. 27:20. The same notion 
occurs in qepi-Kadapua (1 Cor. 4:13) and zepivnua (ib.), ‘off-scour- 
ing’ and ‘off-scraping.’ The same idea of from around occurs 
in rept-pnéavres Ta tuatia (Ac. 16 : 22; cf. 2 Macc. 4:38). In Lu. 
10 : 40 this idea appears in a metaphorical sense with reptecraro, 
‘drawn away’ or ‘from around,’ ‘distracted.’ See zepiora, P. 
Brit. M. 42 (s.c. 168) for ‘occupy.’ Cf. also the notion of 
beyond in zepiepyos (1 Tim. 5:18), weprreirw (1 Th. 4:15), 
meprmevw (Ac. 1:4), meprotoros (Tit. 2:14), reprocedw (Jo. 6 : 12), 
mepiooos (Mt. 5:37). In the last example, 76 repiccdv rovTwv, note 
the ablative. ‘There remains a group of passages of a metaphorical 
nature where the idea is that of taking something away. These 
may be explained as ablatives rather than genitives. So in Ro. 
8:3, mepl auaptias, the idea is that we may be freed from sin, from 
around sin. Thayer (under zepi) explains this usage as ‘‘ purpose 
for removing something or taking it away.’ This, of course, is 
an ablative idea, but even so we get it rather indirectly with zept. 
See Xproros dak rept duapridv aweOavey in 1 Pet. 3:18. It is worth 
observing that in Gal. 1:4 W. H. read izép rather than zepi, while 
in Heb. 5:3 W. H. have wepi rather than trép. Cf. Mk. 14: 24. 
In Eph. 6:18 f. we have dence: rept ravrwv T&v ayiwv, kal brép E00, 
where the two prepositions differ very little. But in 1 Pet. 3:18 
(see above), irép ddixwyv, the distinction is clearer. Cf. Jo. 16 : 26; 
17:9. See Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 152f. D has trép with 
éxxvuvvouevoy in Mt. 26 : 28 rather than zepi. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk., p. 184. Cf. rept with tMacuds in 1 Jo. 2:2. The ablative 
with brep renders more probable this ablative use of zepi. 

5. With the Genitive. This: is the common case with zepi in the 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 133; Sterrett, The Dial. of Hom.in Hom. Il., N 47, 
2 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 714. Cf. weparrépw, Ac. 19 : 39, 

8 Griech. Gr., p. 448. Cf. Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 476, 

4+ HomaGreipalad. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 619 


N. T. If the genitive and ablative examples are counted together 
(the real ablatives are certainly few) they number 291 as against 
38 accusatives.' But in the later Greek the accusative gradually 
drives out the genitive (with the help of 6:4 also).2- The genitive 
was always rare with zrepi in the local or temporal sense. The N. T. 
shows no example of this usage outside of composition (Ac. 25:7), 
unless in Ac. 25:18 epi ot be taken with oraévres, which is 
doubtful.* Curiously enough the Gospel of John has the genitive 
with zepi almost as often as all the Synoptic writers and the accu- 
sative not at all in the critical text, Jo. 11:19 reading zpos rip 
Mépéav.t This frequency in John is due largely to the abundant use 
of uaprupéew, AEyw, Aadew, ypadw, etc. Cf. Jo. 1:7, 22; 7:13, 17, ete. 
Ilept may occur with almost any verb where the notion of ‘about,’ 
‘concerning’ is natural, like éorAayxvicOn (Mt. 9 : 36), ayavaxrynoapy 
(20 : 24), wérer (22 : 16), EXeyxouevos (Lu. 3:19), Cabuacay (Lu. 2: 
18), etc. The list includes verbs like axovw, ywaokw, duadoyifouat, 
evOvpéouar, eru(nrew, etc. The usage includes both persons, like 
mpocedxebe rept judy (1 Th. 5 : 25), and things, like wept é&vdbuaros 
Ti pepyuvare (Mt. 6:28). One neat Greek idiom is ra wepi. Cf. 
Ta wept THs db00 (Ac. 24 : 22), ra wept Incod (18 : 25; Mk. 5: 27), 
Ta Tept euavtod (Ac. 24:10). Blass® considers zovety rept abrod 
(Lu. 2: 27) “an incorrect phrase,” which is putting it too strongly. 
Cf. Aavxavw repli in Jo. 19: 24, like classical uaxouat rept. Sometimes 
mept appears rather loosely at the beginning of the sentence, zepi 
ths Noyias (1 Cor. 16:1), wept ’Amwod\d\w (16:12). Sometimes zepi 
is used with the relative when it would be repeated if the antece- 
dent were expressed, as in wepi ov éypaware (1 Cor. 7:1) or where 
mept properly belongs only with the antecedent, as in rept av dédwxas 
por (Jo. 17:9). In Lu. 19:37, rept racav ay efdov duvvauewv, the 
preposition strictly belongs only to the antecedent which is in- 
corporated. Ina case like rep! ravtwv ebyouae (3 Jo. 2) the subject- 
matter of the prayer is implied in wept as cause is involved in 
mept Tod Kabapiouod (Mk. 1:44) and as advantage is expressed in 
mept aris (Lu. 4:38). But this is merely due to the context. 

6. With the Accusative. This construction in reality occurs with 
much the same sense as the genitive. The accusative, of course, 
suggests a placing around. It is rare in the N. T., but in later 
Greek displaced the genitive as already remarked. But it does 
not survive in the modern Greek vernacular. With the accusative 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. 4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 272. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 392. BS Graoren. (baGkip Looe 
3 W.-Th., p. 373. 


620 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mept is used of place, as in cxa~w mept a’rnvy (Lu. 13:8), rept rov 
rorov éxetvov (Ac. 28:7). Cf. Mk. 3:8. So with expressions of 
time, as in wept tpitny dpav (Mt. 20:3). Note the use of rept with 
the different parts of the body, as wept rjv dadiv (Mt. 3:4), repli rov 
tpaxndov (18:6). Cf. Rev. 15:6. TIepi is used of persons as in zept- 
acrpayar wept eue (Ac. 22:6), efdav rept a’tols (Mk. 9:14). An 
ancient Greek idiom occurs in of epi Iat\ov (Ac. 13 : 13), like of 
Tepi ZevopavrTa (Xen. Anab. 7, 4, 16), where the idea is ‘Paul and 
his companions.’! But in a case dike of epi avrov (Lu. 22 : 49) the 
phrase has only its natural significance, ‘those about him.’ The 
still further development of this phrase for the person or persons 
named alone, like the vernacular ‘‘you all’ in the Southern States 
for a single person, appears in some MSS. for Jo. 11:19, apds ras 
mept Mapbav xat Mapiavy, where only Martha and Mary are meant,? 
the critical text being mpds 7yv Mapéav. Blass’ notes that only 
with the Philippian Epistle (2 : 23, ra wepi eve) did Paul begin the 
use of the accusative with zrepi (cf. genitive) in the sense of ‘con- 
cerning,’ like Plato. Cf. in the Pastoral Epistles, wept ryv riorw 
(1 Tim. 1:19), wept rHv adndeay (2 Tim. 2:18). But Luke (10: 
40 f.) has it already. Cf. epi ra roratra (Ac. 19: 25). But kixry 
in the LXX, as in the xow7, is also taking the place of epi (Thack- 
eray, Gr., p. 25). ’Audi could not stand before epi, and finally 
wept itself went down. The entrance of drép into the field of zepi 
will call for notice later. 

(m) IIpé. Cf. the Sanskrit prd and the Zend fra, Gothic fra, 
Lithuanian pra, Latin pro, German fiir, vor, English for (for-ward), 
fore (fore-front). The case of zpo is not known, though it occurs 
a few times in Homer as an adverb.t Cf. aré and td. The 
Latin prod is probably remodelled from an old *pro like an abla- 
tive, as prae is dative (or locative). 

1. The Original Meaning. It is therefore plain enough. It is 
simply ‘fore,’ ‘before.’ It is rather more general in idea than 
avrt and has a more varied development.® In po rs Aipas (Ac. 
12 : 6) the simple idea is clear. 

2. In Composition. It is common also in composition, as in 
mpo-av\vov (Mk. 14 : 68), ‘fore-court.’ Other uses in composition 
grow out of this idea of ‘fore,’ as mpo-Baivw (Mt. 4: 21), ‘to go on’ 
(‘for-wards’), mpo-xorrw (Gal. 1 : 14), mpo-ayw (Mk. 11:9; ef. axo- 
hovdéw in contrast), mpd-dydos (1 Tim. 5 : 24), ‘openly manifest,’ 

1 W.-Th., p. 406. 3 Ib. 


2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 134. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 149. 
6 K.-G., I, p. 454. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 716, 


Sos 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPO@ESEI2) 621 


‘before all’ (cf. Gal.3:1, rpo-eypadn); mpo-exw (Ro. 3: 9), ‘to sur- 
pass’; mpo-auapravw (2 Cor. 12:21), ‘to sin before,’ ‘previously’; 
mpo-opitw (Ro. 8:29), to ‘pre-ordain.’ Cf. pd-xpyua (1 Tim. 5: 
21), ‘pre-judgment.’ In these respects the N. T. merely follows 
in the wake of the older Greek.! One may illustrate zpé still 
further by the comparative mpé-repos and the superlative p&-ros 
(ef. Doric mpa-ros). Cf. also rpd-cw, mpo-répust. 

3. The Cases Used with rpo. These call for little comment. It 
is barely possible that otpavo6. pd in Homer may be a remnant of 
a locative use.2, Brugmann? thinks that a true genitive is seen in 
mpo 6608, but this is not certain. But the ablative is probably the 
case. In very late Greek zpéd even appears with the accusative.! 
It is not in the modern Greek vernacular. The ablative is due 
to the idea of comparison and is found also with the Latin pro.’ 
IIpo occurs only 48 times in the N. T. and is almost confined 
to Matthew’s and John’s Gospels, Luke’s writings and Paul’s 
Epistles (12 times). 

4. Place. Thus it occurs only in four instances, mpd ris Obpas 
(Ac. 12 : 6), rpd r&v Oupdv (Jas. 5:9), rpd rod mudAGvos (Ac. 12 : 14), 
apo THs Todews (14:13). Cf. Eurpoobey (Mt. 5 : 24), which is more 
common in this sense in the N. T. Some MSS. have zpé in Ac. 
5:23. In Cyprus (borrowing from the literary language) to-day 
we still have zpod xedadijs, ‘at the head of the table’ (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 98). 

5. Time. This is the more common idea with zpo in the N. T. 
Thus we find such expressions as trols mpd tudv (Mt. 5:12), po 
Katpod (8:29), mpd rod KataxAvouod (Mt. 24:38), mpd Tod dpicrov 
(Lu. 11:38), mpd rod racxa (Jo. 11:55), pd rdv aiwvwy (1 Cor. 
2:7), mpo xeudvos (2 Tim. 4:21). This is all plain sailing. Nor 
need one stumble much at the compound preposition (translation 
Hebraism) rpo rpocwrov cov (Mk. 1 : 2 and parallels). Cf. Ac. 13: 
24; Lu. 9:52. Nine times we have zpo 70d with the infinitive, as 
in Lu. 2:21; 22:15; Jo. 1:48. Here this phrase neatly expresses 
a subordinate clause of time (antecedent). Cf. ante quam. A real 
difficulty appears in zpo é& juepdv rod macxa (Jo. 12:1), which 
does look like the Latin idiom in ante diem tertium Kalendas. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 149. Cf. Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 182. The inscr. 
show the loc. also. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 393. 

3 Griech. Gr., p. 449. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 393. 

5 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 722. 


622 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Jannaris! attributes this common idiom in the late Greek writers 
to the prevalence of the Roman system of dating. This has been 
the common explanation. But Moulton? throws doubt on this 
“»lausible Latinism” by showing that this idiom appears in a 
Doric inscription of the first century B.c. (Michel, 694), po auepar 
déxa TOV wvoTnpiwv. ‘The idiom occurs also in the inscriptions, mpd 
té Kadavddv Avyotorwv, I.M.A. ii. 325 (4i/a.p.), and the papyri, 
mpa dvo huepov, F.P. 118 Gi/a.D.). So Moulton proves his point 
that it is a parallel growth like the Latin. Rouffac (Recherches, 
p. 29) re-enforces it by three citations from the Priene inscrip- 
tions. Cf. also mpd mwod\d\Gv Tobrwv huepGv Acta S. Theogn., p. 102. 
Moulton thinks that it is a natural development from the abla- 
tive case with zpo, ‘starting from,’ and refers to 6~é caBBarwv in 
Mt. 28:1 as parallel. May it not be genuine Greek and yet 
have responded somewhat to the Latin influence as to the fre- 
quency (cf. LX X and the N. T.)? Similarly po érév bexatecoapwv 
(2 Cor. 12:2), ‘fourteen years before (ago).’? Abbott? con- 
siders it a transposing of mpd, but it is doubtful if the Greek 
came at it in that way. Simcox‘ calls attention to the double 
genitive with zpo in Jo. 12:1, really an ablative and a genitive. 

6. Superiority. po occurs in the sense of superiority also, as 
in rpo ravTwy (Jas. 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:8). In Col. 1:17 po ravrwp 
is probably time, as in rpo éuod (Jo. 10:8; Rom. 16:7). Cf. po 
TovTwy mavrwy in Lu. 21 : 12. 

(n) IIpés. The etymology of mpés is not perfectly clear. It 
seems to be itself a phonetic variation® of rport which is found in 
Homer as well as the form zori (Arcad. 76s, 767 in Boeotian, etc.). 
What the relation is between zo7i and zpori is not certain. The 
Sanskrit prdti is in the locative case. The connection, if any, be- 
tween pds and rpé is not made out, except that mpo-ri and prd-ti 
both correspond to zpé and pra. Thayer considers —7i an adverbial 
suffix. | 

1. The Meaning.’ It is the same as zpori and mort. The root- 
idea is ‘near,’ ‘near by,’ according to Delbriick,® though Brug- 
mann® inclines to ‘towards.’ In Homer zpés has an adverbial 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 394. Cf. Viereck, Sermo Graecus, p. 12 f. 

2 Prol., pp. 100 ff. He refers also to the numerous ex. in W.Schulze, Graec. 
Lat., pp. 14-19. 

ro felave Ermygi ay, PEPE 5 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. 

4-Cang. ofsthe iN wie pss te 6 Tb. 

7 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 726. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 449. 

8 Die Grundl., p. 132. ® Griech. Gr., p. 449, 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 623 


use, mpds 6é, with the notion of ‘besides.’! ‘Near,’ rather than 
‘towards,’ seems to explain the resultant meanings more satis- 
factorily. The idea seems to be ‘facing,’ German gegen. Cf. 
mpoowmrov. In 6 déoyos jv mpos tov bedv (Jo. 1:1) the literal idea 
comes out well, ‘face to face with God.’ 

2. In Composition. Probably one sees the original notion in 
mpoo-edpevw, ‘to sit near’ (cf. Eurip., etc.). Some MSS. read this 
verb in 1 Cor. 9:13, though the best MSS. have zapedpebw.. But 
we do have mpoo-xepadaoy (Mk. 4 : 38) and mrpoo-perw (Mt. 15 : 32; 
1 Tim. 5:5). Cf. also rpoo-dayiov (Jo. 21:5), and rpoc-oppitw 
(Mk. 6 : 53). The other resultant meanings appear in composition 
also as ‘towards’ in rpoo-ayw (Lu. 9 : 41), ‘to’ in rpoc-Ko\d\aw (Eph. 
5:31), ‘besides’ in poo-ofeihw (Phil. 19), ‘for’ in mpdc-katpos 
(Mt. 13:21). This preposition is common in composition and 
sometimes the idea is simply ‘perfective,’ as in mpoo-Kxaprepéw 
(Ac. 1:14), zpdc-rewvos (Ac. 10 : 10). 

3. Originally with Five Cases. The cases used with zpés were 
probably originally five according to Brugmann,? viz. locative, 
dative, ablative, genitive, accusative. The only doubt is as to 
the true dative and the true genitive. Delbriick® also thinks that a 
few genuine datives and genitives occur. Green‘ (cf. xpd, 3) speaks 
of “the true genitive’’ with zpo; it is only rarely true of zpds and 
brep. The genitive with zpés is wanting in the papyri and the 
Pergamon inscriptions (Radermacher, N. 7’. Gr., p. 117). And 
in the N. T. no example of the genitive or dative appears. In 
Lu. 19 : 37 pos 7H KataBace. might possibly be regarded as dative 
with éyyifovros; but it is better with the Revised Version to sup- 
ply “even” and regard it as a locative. In composition (apoceéxere 
eavrots, Lu. 12:1) the dative is common. 2 Maccabees shows 
the literary use of zpés with dative of numbers (Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 188). 

4. The Ablative. There is only one example of the ablative in 
the N. T. and this occurs in Ac. 27:34, rot7vo mpos tis buerepas 
owrTnplas brapxe.. This metaphorical usage means ‘from the point 
of view of your advantage.’ It is possible also to explain it as 
true genitive, ‘on the side of.’ This is a classical idiom. So then 
mpos in the N. T. is nearly confined to two cases. Moulton® agrees 


1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, p. 728. pds, as well as pera, still appears as 
adv. in Polyb. Cf. Kaelker, Quest. de Eloc. Polyb., p. 283. 

2 Griech. Gr., p. 448 f. 

meV erglmoynt.,1, pa (oot: 

4 Notes on Gk. and Lat. Synt., p. 163. So Prol.paLoo.- 


624 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with Blass! that this is a remnant of the literary style in Luke. 
Moulton finds the genitive (ablative) 23 times in the LXX. The 
true genitive appeared in examples like zpés rod rorapyod, ‘by the 
river’ or ‘towards the river.’ In the modern Greek vernacular 
apos fades” before eis and azo as the ablative use is going in the 
N. T. It is rarely used of place and time, and even so the usage 
is due to the literary language (Thumb, Handbook, p. 106). 

5. With the Locative. Ilpés indeed occurs in the N. T. with the 
locative only seven times, so that it is already pretty nearly a 
one-case preposition. These seven examples are all of place and 
call for little remark. Cf. rpos 73 dpe (Mk. 5: 11), rpds 73 pvnuetw 
(Jo. 20:11). They are all with verbs of rest save the use with 
éyyitovros in Lu. 19:37. See under 38. The correct text gives 
the locative in Mk. 5:11 and Jo. 20:11, else we should have 
only five, and D reads the accusative in Lu. 19:37. These seven 
examples illustrate well the etymological meaning of pds as 
‘near’ or ‘facing:’ Moulton counts 104 examples of zpos and the 
dative (locative) in the LXX. Four of these seven examples are 
in John’s writings. Cf. especially Jo. 20:12. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 106) notes ‘‘P. Fi. 5 rpds 7G tuAGu, as late as 245 a.p.” 

6. With the Accusative. It was exceedingly common in Homer 
and always in the literal local sense. The metaphorical usage with 
the accusative developed later. How common the accusative is 
with zpos in the N. T. is seen when one notes that the number is 
679.4 This was the classic idiom® with zpos both literally and meta- 
phorically. It is not necessary to say that zpdés with the accusative 
means ‘towards.’ The accusative case implies extension and with 
verbs of motion zpés (‘near’) naturally blends with the rest into 
the resultant idea of ‘towards.’ This is in truth a very natural 
use of rpés with the accusative, as in avexwpnoev rpds TH O4daccar 
(Mk. 3:7). In Mk. 11:1 note both eis (Iepocddvua) and rpés (76 
8pos) with éyyifw. In Phil. 5 (W.H.) the margin has both with 
persons. Here Lightfoot (¢ loco) sees a propriety in the faith 
which is towards (zpés) Christ and the love exerted upon (eis) men. 
But that distinction hardly® applies in Ro. 3 : 25 f.; Eph. 4 : 12. 
Cf. Mk. 5:19. In Mk.9:17 W. H. and Nestle accent pds oé. 
There seems to be something almost intimate, as well as personal, 
in some of the examples of rpés. The examples of xpés with per- 
sons are very numerous, as in é£eropelero rpds atrév (Mt. 3:5), 

AiGreolNil, Gke pal4u: 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 106. 


a Jann poke Gt. Paaou: 6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 394. 
3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 142. 6 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 155. 


PREPOSITIONS (IPOOKSEIS) 625 


debre pos we (Mt. 11 : 28), etc. But one must not think that the 
notion of motion is essential to the use of zpés and the accusative 
(ef. eis and ev). Thus in Mk. 4:1, was 6 dxXos pds rv Oddaccar 
él ths ys noav, note both éwi and zpos and the obvious distinc- 
tion. Cf. also Oepuatvouevos rpds To bs (Mk. 14:54). It is not 
strange, therefore, to find zpos juds eioiv (Mt. 13 : 56), rpds oé rod 
To macxa (26:18). Cf. also ra arpds tiv OUpay in Mk. 2:2. The 
accusative with zpés is not indeed exactly what the locative would 
be, especially with persons. In Mk. 14:49 we find xafé’ Auépar 
hunv mpos buds &v TO tep@ diddoxwv. Abbott! properly illustrates 
Jo. 1:1, 6 NOyos Hv mpds Tov BOeov with this passage in Mk. and 
with 2 Cor. 5:8, événujoa: rpos tov kiprov. It is the face-to-face 
converse with the Lord that Paul has in mind. So John thus 
conceives the fellowship between the Logos and God. Cf. oréua 
mpos oroua in 2 Jo. 12, 3 Jo. 14 and mpdcwrov rpos trpdcwroyv in 
1 Cor. 13:12. But, while this use of zpds with words of rest 
is in perfect harmony with the root-idea of the preposition it- 
self, it does not occur in the older Greek writers nor in the 
LXX.? Jannaris’ is only able to find it in Malalas. Certainly 
the more common Greek idiom would have been zapa, while pera 
and oly might have been employed. Abbott, however, rightly 
calls attention to the frequent use of pds with verbs of speaking 
like Xeyw, Aadew, etc., and Demosthenes has it with f4w. So then 
it is a natural step to find zpds employed for living relationship, 
intimate converse. ‘Two very interesting examples of this personal 
intercourse occur in Lu. 24 : 14, wpidovy rpds ddANAovs, and verse 17, 
avTiBadrA€eTe Tpds AAXnAovs. Cf. also rpds with wepitarew (Col. 4 : 5), 
kowwvia (2 Cor. 6:14), dvabyxn (Ac. 3:25 as in ancient Greek), 
hoyos (Heb. 4:13), ete. Certainly nothing anomalous exists in 
mwimte. mpos Tous todas (Mk. 5:22) and mpockxowns pos didov (Mt. 
4:6). TIIpés is not used often with expressions of time, and the 
notion of extension is in harmony with the accusative case. Cf. 
mpos katpov In Lu. 8:18, pds Spay in Jo. 5:35, mpds ddtyas Huepas 
in Heb. 12:10. In zpos éorépay (Lu. 24 : 29) the resultant notion 
is ‘toward,’ rather than ‘for.’ Blass® points out that apds 76 
mapov (Heb. 12:11) is classical. The metaphorical uses of mpés 
are naturally numerous. Disposition towards one is often ex- 
pressed by pos, whether it be friendly as in waxpobupetre rpds Tavtas 
(1 Th. 5 : 14) or hostile as in év €Opa dvres pds abrovs (Lu. 23 : 12). 
John Gr, De2(o t. 27. Olen Gree Dane fat 


21h, PRG SOL tiles ke. aipenle og 
eeHist, Gk Gra pasgvo. 


626 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. yer’ &\dApd\wv (ib.). TIpos does not of itself mean ‘against,’ 
though that may be the resultant idea as in yoyyvopuos — mpos Tobs 
’EBpatous (Ac. 6:1). Cf. also rpos tAnopovjy THs capKos (Col. 2 : 23) 
and mpés tovs ktA. (2 Cor. 5:12). Sometimes zpos adds nothing 
to the vague notion of extension in the accusative case and the 
idea is simply ‘with reference to.’ Thus pds rots ayvedous 
Neyer (Heb. 1:7). Cf. also Lu. 20:19. Ids in the xown shares 
with eis and wepi the task of supplanting the disappearing dative 
(Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 112). In particular rpés abrév (-obs) 
takes the place of airé (-ots) after Néyw, efrov, aroKpivopyat, as 
shown by parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels, as in Lu. 
3:14, where MSS. vary between avrots and zpos abrovs. Adjec- 
tives may have zpés in this general sense of fitness, like dyads 
(Eph. 4:29), dvvara (2 Cor. 10:4), ixavds (2 Cor. 2: 16), dAevxal 
mpos Jepropov (Jo. 4:35), ete. Cf. also ra pds rov Oedv (Ro. 15: 
17). The phrase ri mpos juds; (Mt. 27:4) has ancient Greek 
support.1. The notion of aim or end naturally develops also as — 
in éypadn pds vovleciay nudv (1 Cor. 10:11), zpos ri etre (Jo. 
13 : 28), 6 pos THY éXenuoot’ynv Kabnuevos (Ac. 3:10). Cf. 1 Cor. 
14:26; 15:34. Some examples of the infinitive occur also in 
this connection, like apds 76 Oeabjvac a’rots (Mt. 6:1), mpos 76 
Kataxadoat avta (13:30), etc. In mpos 76 bety rpocebyecOar (Lu. 
18:1) the notion is hardly so strong as ‘purpose.’ But see 
Infinitive. Then again cause may be the result in certain con- 
texts as In Mwvofs mpds tiv okAnpoKapdlay buadv érerpever (Mt. 
19:8). There is no difficulty about the notion of comparison. 
It may be merely general accord as in pds 76 O€\nua aitod (Lu. 12 : 
A7), mpos Thy &djOeav (Gal. 2 : 14), or more technical comparison as 
In ok aia Ta Tabnuata ToD vdY KaLpod mpds THY weA\NOVoaY dd~aY aTrO- 
Kadudbjvac (Ro. 8:18). With this may be compared pos Odvor 
in Jas. 4:5, where the phrase has an adverbial force. 

(0) Xvv. The older form gy (old Attic) appears in some MSS. 
in 1 Pet. 4:12 (Beza put it in his text here). This form £édv is 
seen in fuvds. In pera-& both pera and £v(y) are combined.2 Del- 
briick? is indeed in doubt as to the origin of civ, but see Momm- 
sen,* and some (Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 348) consider giv and atv 
different. 

1. The Meaning. Thisisin little dispute. It is ‘together with.’® 


1 Blass, Gr: of N. 4k Gky; p.139. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 454. 3 Verel Synt.,. Ty p-c780. 

4 Vntwick. einiger Gesetze fiir d. Gebr. d. griech. Priip. werd, oby and dua, 
p. 444. 5 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 454. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 627 


Cf. Latin cum and English con-comitant. The associative in- 
strumental is the case used with oty as with dua and it is just that 
idea that it was used to express originally.!. It never departed 
from this idea, for when the notion of help is present it grows 
naturally out of that of association. The Attic, according to 
Blass,? confines ctv to the notion of ‘including,’ but the Ionic 
kept it along with pera for ‘with.’ 

2. History. Itis not without interest. In Homer it is sometimes 
an adverb (tmesis). Indeed it never made headway outside of 
poetry save in Xenophon, strange to say. The Attic prose writers 
use wera rather than oty. Thus in 600 pages of Thucydides we 
find pera 400 times and gv 37, while Xenophon has civ more than 
wera. In Demosthenes the figures run 346 of wera and 15 of ovr, 
while Aristotle has 300 and 8 respectively.? Monro# thinks that 
mera displaced otv in the vernacular while oty held on in the poets 
as the result of Homer’s influence and finally became a sort of in- 
separable preposition like dis— in Latin (cf. aud:-in N. T.). In the 
modern Greek vernacular civ is displaced by ye (uera) and some- 
times by agua. The rarity of ctv in the N. T. therefore is in har- 
mony with the history of the language. Its use in the N. T. is 
largely confined to Luke’s Gospel and Acts and is entirely absent 
from John’s Epistles and the Apocalypse as it is also from Hebrews 
and 1 Peter, not to mention 2 Thessalonians, Philemon and the 
Pastoral Epistles. It is scarce in the rest of Paul’s writings and 
in Mark and Matthew,® and John’s Gospel has it only three times 
(12:2; 18:1; 21:3). It occurs in the N. T. about 130 times 
(over two-thirds in Luke and Acts), the MSS. varying in a few 
instances. 

3. In Composition. Here civ is extremely common. See list of 
these verbs in chapter on Cases (Instrumental). Cf. Thayer’s 
Lexicon under civ. The use in composition illustrates the asso- 
ciative idea mainly as in cvy-dyw (Mt. 2:4), cvv-epxouor (Mk. 3: 20), 
though the notion of help is present also, as in ovy-avri-AauBavopat 
(Lu. 10:40), cuv-epyéw (1 Cor. 16:16). Cf. xalpw kal ovyxaipw 
(Ph. 2:17f.). The “perfective” use of civ is seen in ovp-xadirTw 
(Lu. 12:2), cvv-krelw (Ro. 11:32), ovv-xim7w (Lu. 13:11). Cf. 
ouvredew, auvTnpew, etc. In cbvoida the knowing may be either with 
another, as possibly Ac. 5 : 2, or with one’s self, as in 1 Cor. 4:4. 


1 Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 133. 

eeGre orn. L. Gk. ep3132. 4 Hom. Gr., p. 147. 

3 Cf. Mommsen, Entw. etc., p. 4 f. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. 
6 


Cf. on the whole subject Mommsen, Entw., p. 395. 


628 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The verb ovvéxw (Lu. 22:63; Ac. 18:5) is found in the papyri 
(Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 160. Cf. Moulton and Milligan, 
Expositor, 1911, p. 278). As already explained, the case used is 
the associative-instrumental. In the very late Greek the accusa- 
tive begins to appear with ovty (as indeed already in the LXX!) 
and both otv and dua show! examples of the genitive like pera. 

4. N. T. Usage. There is very little comment needed on the 
N.T. usage of the preposition beyond what has already been given.? 
The bulk of the passages have the notion of accompaniment, 
like obv cot arofavety (Mt. 26:35). So it occurs with pevew (Lu. 
1:56), xadicac (Ac. 8:31), etc. Cf. also ody Ody TH ExxAnota (Ac. 
15 : 22), where the use of oty may subordinate the church a bit 
to the Apostles (Thayer).* Cf. also Ac. 14:5; Lu. 23:11, where 
kai rather than oty might have occurred. As applied to Christ, civ, 
like é&, may express the intimate mystic union, as in Kéxpurrae ody 
tT Xpiotd & 7S OES (Col. 8:3). The phrase of ctv is used much 
like of rapa, of rept, of wera. Thus Teérzp0s xal of ctv atré (Lu. 9 : 32). 
Cf. Lu. 5:9 and Mk. 2:26. Once ov occurs in a context where 
the idea is ‘besides,’ a\\a ye kal oly mado Tovros (Lu. 24: 21). 
Cf. Neh. 5:18. So probably also Ph. 1:1. It appears in the 
papyri in this sense also. Cf. Moulton and Milligan, ‘‘ Lexical 
Notes on the Papyri,’”’ The Expositor, 1911, p. 276. In Mt. 8:34 
Text. Rec. reads eis cuvavtnow tS ’Inood where critical text has 
ix—. The case of ’Incod is associative-instrumental in either in- 
stance. MSS. give ovy— in other passages. The use of ody 77 
duvaper ToD Kupiov (1 Cor. 5 : 4) has a technical sense (‘together with’) 
seen in the magical papyri and in an Attic cursing tablet (iii/B.c.). 
Cf. Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 304f. See also Deissmann’s Die 
neut. Formel “in Christo Jesu” for discussion of civ Xpio7d, the 
notion of fellowship in Ph. 1: 23. He now cites a graffito with 
these words to a deceased person, edxouwar Kaya ev Taxv adv col eivat 
(Laght, “p./ 805). 3Ci Colw3’: oval neil hs 4: 7enotesaresas 
avrots and in 5:10 dua ody aire like our ‘‘together with,” which 
shows also the retreat of ctv before agua. For ovv-ert and xara see 
Ac. 16: 22. 

(p) ‘Yaép. In Homer, by anastrophe, sometimes we have izep. 
Cf. Sanskrit updri (locative case of upar), Zend upairi, Latin super, 
Gothic ufar, German tber, Anglo-Saxon ofer, English over. The 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 396 f.; Jour. of Hell. Stud., XIX, pp. 287-288. 
2 Cf. Westcott on Jo.1:2 for discussion of distinction between otv and 
pera. 


3 Cf. the use of oy xai in the pap. Deiss., B.8., p. 265 f, 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI=) 629 


oldest Indo-Eur. locative! was without 7. A longer comparative 
occurs in bzeptepos, and a superlative bzépraros shortened into 
braros. Cf. Latin superus, swummus, and English up, upper, upper- 
most. 

1. The Meaning. It is therefore clear enough. It is the very 
English word ‘over’ or ‘upper.’ Chaucer uses ‘over’ in the sense 
of ‘upper.’ As an adverb it does not occur in Homer, though 
Euripides (Medea, 627) has trép a@yav. Jannaris? calls tzep (Blass 
imép) &yw (2 Cor. 11: 23) “the monstrous construction,” which is 
rather overdoing the matter. The use of the preposition is not 
remarkably abundant in the N. T. 

2. In Composition. The N.T. has also the compound preposi- 
tions trepavw (Eph. 1:21), taepexrepiccod (Eph. 3 : 20), bepéxeva 
(2 Cor. 10 : 16) and the adverbs bzepXiav (2 Cor. 11: 5), barepBadddv- 
tws (2 Cor. 11 : 23). The literal meaning of izép (‘over’) appears 
in brep-avw (Heb. 9 : 5), brép airny (ib. D), taep-Gov (‘upper room,’ 
Ac. 1:18). The notion of ‘excess,’ ‘more than’ (comparison), 
appears in brep-aipw (2 Cor. 12 : 7), baep-exrepicood (1 Th. 3: 10), 
brep-exw (Ph. 4:7), baep-rixaw (Ro. 8 : 37), brep-vydw (Ph. 2: 9), 
brep-ppovew (Ro. 12:3). ‘Beyond’ is rather common also, as in 
vrép-axuos (1 Cor. 7:36), brep-avéayw (2 Th. 1:3), baep-GBaivw (1 Th. 
4:6), brep-exreivw in 2 Cor. 10:14, tbrep-exeva (10:16), and this 
grows into the “perfective” idea as in brep-ndavos (Ro. 1 : 30), bep- 
bywoev (Ph. 2:9), barep-oxn (1 Tim. 2:2), brep-rcovatw (1 Tim. 
1:14). Cf. English ‘over-zealous,’ ‘‘over-anxious,” etc. The 
negative notion of ‘overlook’ appears in trep-etéov (Ac. 17 : 30). 
The idea of ‘defence,’ ‘in behalf of,’ ‘bending over to protect,’ 
occurs in brep-evtvyxavw (Ro. 8 : 26). In the late Greek vernacular 
trép fades* before brepavw and 6a and already in the N. T. the 
distinction between zepi and trép is not very marked in some 
usages, partly due to the affinity in sound and sense.* Passages 
where the MSS. vary between trép and epi are Mk. 14 : 24; Jo. 
fou Ac, 12:5; Ro. 1:8; Gal. 1:4, etc. 

3. With Genitive? A word is needed about the cases used with 
brép. There is no trouble as to the accusative, but it is a mooted 
question whether we have the true genitive or the ablative. 
Brugmann® views the case as genitive without hesitation and 
cites the Sanskrit use of wpart in support of his position. But 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 146; Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 228. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 398. 

2 Jann., ib., p. 366. 4 Ib., p. 398. 
5 Griech. Gr., p. 451; Kurze vergl. Gr., II, p. 464. 


630 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


on the side of the ablative we note Kiithner-Gerth! and Monro,? 
while Delbriick*® admits that either is possible, though leaning to 
the genitive. Where such doctors disagree, who shall decide? 
The Sanskrit can be quoted for both sides. The main argument | 
for the ablative is the comparative idea in tzép which naturally 
goes with the ablative. On the whole, therefore, it seems to me 
that the ablative has the best of it with tzep. 

4. With Ablative. Certainly as between the ablative and the 
accusative, the ablative is far in the lead. The figures‘ are, abla- 
tive 126, accusative 19. On the whole, therefore, irép drops back 
along with tzo. There is no example of the strictly local use of 
brép in the N.T. unless of Barrifdpevor brép T&v vexpdv (1 Cor. 15 : 29) 
be so understood, which is quite unlikely.» This obscure passage 
still remains a puzzle to the interpreter, though no difficulty arises 
on the grammatical side to this or the other senses of trép. The 
N. T. examples are thus metaphorical. These uses fall into four 
divisions. 

The most common is the general notion of ‘in behalf of,’ ‘for 
one’s benefit.’ This grows easily out of the root-idea of ‘over’ 
in the sense of protection or defence. ‘Thus in general with zpoo- 
evxouar (Mt. 5:44), deouar (Ac. 8: 24), aywritoua (Col. 4 : 12), 
kabiorauar (Heb. 5:1), rpocdépw (2b.), etc. The point comes out 
with special force in instances where xara is contrasted with tzép 
as In eis brép Tod évds ductodabe Kata Tod érépov (1 Cor. 4:6). Cf. 
also Mk. 9:40; Ro. 8:31. We must not, however, make the 
mistake of thinking that b7ép of itself literally means ‘in behalf of.’ 
It means ‘over.’ 

It is sometimes said that av7it means literally ‘instead’ and tzép 
‘in behalf of.’ But Winer’ sees more clearly when he says: ‘‘In 
most cases one who acts in behalf of another takes his place.” 
Whether he does or not depends on the nature of the action, not 
on avri or brép. In the Gorgias of Plato (515 C.) we have trép cod 
for the notion of ‘instead.’ Neither does zpo (nor Latin pro) in 
itself mean ‘instead.’ In the Alcestis of Euripides, where the 
point turns on the substitutionary death of Alcestis for her hus- 


1 T, p. 486. 

2 Hom. Gr., p. 147. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. 
3 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 749. 5 Cf. W.-Th., p. 382. 

6 


Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 156. Winer (W.-Th., p. 38) implies the 
same thing. 
7 Ib. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 135, has nothing on this use of brép. 
Moulton, Prol., p. 105, merely calls trép “the more colourless” as compared 
with arti. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 631 


band, bzéo occurs seven times, more than davti and zpé together. 
Cf. Thucydides I, 141 and Xenophon Anab. 7:4, 9 for the substi- 
tutionary use of drép. In the Epistle to Diognetus (p. 84) we note 
AUT pov brép Hudv and a few lines further the expression is advra\\ayn. 
Paul’s combination in 1 Tim. 2:6 is worth noting, dvridurpov 
irép ravtwv, where the notion of substitution is manifest. There 
are a few other passages where tzép has the resultant notion of 
‘instead’ and only violence to the context can get rid of it. One 
of these is Gal. 3:13. In verse 10 Paul has said that those under 
the law were under a curse (676 karapav). In verse 13 he carries on 
the same image. Christ bought us ‘‘out from under”’ the curse 
(éx THs KaTapas TOD vouov) of the law by becoming a curse “over” us 
(yevouevos brép judy Katapa). In a word, we were under the curse; 
Christ took the curse on himself and thus over us (between the 
suspended curse and us) and thus rescued us out from under the 
curse. We went free while he was considered accursed (verse 13). 
It is not a point here as to whether one agrees with Paul’s theology 
or not, but what is his meaning. In this passage trép has the re- 
sultant meaning of ‘instead.’ The matter calls for this much of 
discussion because of the central nature of the teaching involved. 
In Jo. 11 : 50 we find another passage where trép is explained as 
meaning substitution, iva eis 4vOpwros arobavn brép Tod daod Kal m1 
ddov TO €Ovos amoAnTar. Indeed Abbott! thinks that “‘in almost all 
the Johannine instances it refers to the death of one for the many.” 
In Philemon 13, brép cod pos dtaxov7, the more obvious notion is 
‘instead.’ One may note éypava izép airod pi iddros ypdumata, 
P. Oxy. 275 (a.p. 66), where the meaning is obviously ‘instead of 
him since he does not know letters.’ Deissmann (Light, p. 152 f.) 
finds it thus (éypaev iép atrod) in an ostracon from Thebes, as in 
many others, and takes iwép to mean ‘for’ or ‘as representative 
of,’ and adds that it “is not without bearing on the question of 
brép in the N. T.” Cf. &ypava b[rép air|wd aypauparov, B.U. 664 
(i/a.D.). In the papyri and the ostraca irép often bore the sense 
of ‘instead of.’ In 2 Cor. 5:15 the notion of substitution must 
be understood because of Paul’s use of dpa of ravres aréBavoy as 
the conclusion? from eis trép ravrwy areOavev. There remain a 


Be OnGY., p.1270. 

2 Cf. Thayer, p. 3, under trép. In Pausanias (Riiger, Die Priip. bei Paus., 
1889, p. 12) izép occurs about twice as often as davri. A. Theimer (Beitr. 
zur Kenntn. des Sprachgeb. im N. T., 1901, p. 25), speaking of Jo. 11:50, 


says: “Der Zusatz mw) bdrov 7d vos amddnra die Bedeutung an Stelle 
anstatt.”’ 


632 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


number of passages where the notion of substitution is perfectly 
natural from the nature of the case. But in these passages one 
may stop in translation with ‘in behalf of’ if he wishes. But 
there is no inherent objection in brép itself to its conveying the 
notion of ‘instead’ as a resultant idea. In fact it is per se as 
natural as with ayvri. In the light of the above one finds little 
difficulty with passages like Ro. 5: 6 f.; 8 : 32; Gal. 2 : 20; Jo. 10: 
11, 15; Heb. 2:9; Tit. 2:14, etc. In Mk. 10:45 we have Xirpov 
avrTt moAAGv and in 14: 24 76 aiua wou — 76 éxxuvvoyevoy brép TOAAGDY. 
But one may argue from | Jo. 3:16 that b7ép in case of death 
does not necessarily involve substitution. Surely the very object 

of such death is to save life. | 

The two other uses of tzep may be briefly treated. Sometimes 
the resultant notion may be merely ‘for the sake of,’ as in tzép 
ths d0éns Tod Geod (Jo. 11:4), brép adnOeias Oeod (Ro. 15 : 8), brép rod 
ovouatos (Ac. 5:41), barép Xpicrod (Ph. 1: 29), etc. This is natural 
in relations of intimate love. 

A more general idea is that of ‘about’ or ‘concerning.’ Here 
brép encroaches on the province of zepi. Cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 23, bép 
Titov, 2 Th. 2:1, trép tis wapovaias tod kvpiov. Perhaps 1 Cor. 
15 : 29 comes in here also. Moulton! finds commercial accounts 
in the papyri, scores of them, with tzép in the sense of ‘to.’ We 
see the free use (‘concerning’) with verbs like xcavydouac (2 Cor. 
7:14), dpovew (Ph. 1:7), xpatw (Ro. 9:27), éowraw (2 Th. 2:1), 
etc. The Latin super is in line with this idiom also. - Cf. Jo. 1: 
30, brép ov éyw etrov. In 1 Cor. 10: 30, Ti BXacdnyoduar brép ov Eva 
evxapioT®, the preposition suits antecedent as well as relative. In 
2 Cor. 1:6 and Ph. 2:13 trép suggests the object at which one 
is aiming. Cf. brép av nBovdduca arecradxauev, P. Goodspeed 4 
(i1/B.c.); brép ov Neyar, P. Oxy. 37 (A.D. 49); brép dpaBdvos, P. Grenf. 
ii. 67 (A.D. 237), ‘by way of earnest-money.’ 

5. The Accusative with brép calls for little remark. The literal 
local use of tzép occurs in D in Heb. 9 : 5, brép & arn, ‘an unpar- 
alleled use,’’? in the sense of ‘above,’ the other MSS. having 
brepavw. The accusative with treo has the metaphorical sense of 
‘above’ or ‘over,’ as in ovk éoriv pabnrns brép Tov didacxadov (Mt. 
10 : 24). Cf. also 76 dvoya 76 brép wav dSvoua (Ph. 2 : 9), cehadny brép 
mavtra (Eph. 1 : 22), ovxere ws dod\ov adda brép Soddov (Phil. 16). 
This notion easily gets into that of ‘beyond’ in harmony with 
the accusative case. Thus trép & yeyparrar (1 Cor. 4:6), retpa- 
oOjvat brép 6 Sivacbe (1 Cor. 10:13). Cf. drép dtvayw (2 Cor. 1:8), 

1 Prol.,-p. 105. 2 Blass, Groot Nee oGke persia. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI=) 633 


brép moddovs (Gal. 1 : 14), brép THv Aaurpdrnra (Ac. 26:13). Clas- 
sical Greek only shows the beginning of the use of tzép with com- 
paratives,! but the N.T. has several instances. Thus the LXX 
often uses it with comparatives, partly because the Hebrew had no 
special form for the comparative degree.? But the xo.wy shows the 
idiom. So we find ¢povipwrepor brép Tos viovs (Lu. 16 : 8), rouwrepos 
irép Tacav uaxapay (Heb. 4:12). In Jo. 12:48 W. H. read Azep 
in text and brép in margin after uaddov. But dep has the compara- 
tive sense of ‘more than’ after verbs, as 6 ¢iAGv rarépa 7 puntépa 
veo eue (Mt. 10:37). In the LXX the positive adjective occurs 
with brép, as evdokos brép rods ddeAgots (1 Chron. 4:9). In Ro. 12:3, 
un vrepppoveitv map’ 6 bet dpovetv, note the conjunction of irép and 
mapa. Moulton (Prol., p. 237) cites trép éavrov d¢povetv, T.P. 8 
(ii/B.c.). Blass? doubts whether bzepXiav, brepexrepiccod can be 
properly regarded as compounds. He would separate irép as an 
adverb, trép Niav. But the modern editors are against him. It 
has disappeared in modern Greek vernacular before ya (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 105). 

(q) ‘Ym6. Little is called for by way of etymology since i76é is 
the positive of trep. Cf. the Sanskrit wpa, Latin sub, Gothic uf, 
possibly also German auf, English up, ab-ove. The form izé is of 
unknown case, but the Elean dialect* has tzra-, and Homer® has 
also trai (dative.) 

1. The Original Meaning. This was probably ‘upwards’ or 
‘from under.’ Unlike xara, ird never means ‘downwards.’ Asa 
matter of fact, ‘up’ and ‘under’ are merely relative terms. The 
very English word up is probably tro. Cf. tye ‘aloft,’ ba-rvos 
‘facing upwards,’ tz-aros ‘uppermost,’ tyoros. The meaning of 
under or beneath is common in the N. T., as b76 rov podtov (Mt. 
Drip): 

2. In Composition. Here iré appears simply with the notion 
of ‘under’ as in b70-Karw (Mk. 7: 28), br-wriatw (1 Cor. 9: 27), bzo- 
ypaupos (1 Pet. 2:21), bro-rddv0v (Mt. 5 : 35), bro-dew (MK. 6:9). 
Cf. also trdé-deyua (Jo. 13:15), bro-fivyuov (Mt. 21:5). In b7o- 
kptots (Mt. 23 : 28), bro-xpitns (Mt. 6:2) the notion of an actor 
under a mask lies behind the resultant idea. The idea of hos- 
pitality (under one’s roof) is natural with bzo-déxoua (Lu. 10: 
38), bro-auBavw (3 Jo. 8). In Ro. 16:4 bro-rifyu has the idea 
of ‘put under,’ as bro-fwvvum (Ac. 27:17), ‘undergird.’ In tzo- 

Selo pe LOS: 4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p.-452. 


2 C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 84. 5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 139. 
eGre0ieNe l-Gk pr lai. — e1b. Cia Brig mib: 


634 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


AaBav efrev (Lu. 10 : 30) the notion of interrupting or following a 
speech comes from the idea of ‘up’ in 76, taking up the talk, etc. 
The “perfective” idea appears in tzo-Aeirw (Ro. 11 : 3), ‘leave be- 
hind or over.’ So with b2o-rpéxw (Ac. 27: 16), ‘run under or past.’ 
Cf. bro-rAéw (Ac. 27:4, 7), ‘sail close by.’ But in bro-rvew (Ac. 
27:13) the preposition minimizes the force of the verb, ‘blow 
softly.’ Cf. our suspicion, the French sowpcon. So with under- 
estimate. In to-84\\w (Ac. 6:11) the notion of suggestion has an 
evil turn, but in bo-piurvnckw (Jo. 14 : 26) there is no such colour. 
The idea of subjection (note how these ideas appear in English 
usage all along) occurs in b-axobw (Ph. 2 : 12), b7-eikw (Heb. 13 : 17), 
etc. In b2r-avtaw (Mt. 8 : 28) the special force of b76 has rather 
disappeared. Cf. our vulgar “meet up” with one. So b7-evaytios 
(Cole2nn4ay: 

3. The Cases Once Used with tré. The locative was originally 
very common with i706, as in Homer, even with verbs of motion. 
Asamatter of fact, however, in the historical writers the locative 
and accusative with t76 are very rare as compared with the abla- 
tive,” though Appian and Herodian use the locative more than the 
accusative.’ But the locative retreated* before the accusative 
with do till in the N. T. and the modern Greek it has disappeared. 
In the N. T.® the accusative shows 50 examples and the ablative 
165, but in the vernacular of the Byzantine Greek the accusative 
with tro disappears before admroxarw and troxatw.6 In the modern 
Greek vernacular 476 has displaced tré (Thumb, Handb., p. 102). 
Brugmann’ even thinks that t76 once occurred with the instru- 
mental case, and he is clear that the ablative, as well as the geni- 
tive, was found with it. Delbriick® agrees to both ablative and 
genitive. Thus originally 76 occurred with five cases (loc., instr., 
ace., abl., gen.). In the N.T. we meet only the accusative and 
ablative. No example of the pure genitive with td occurs in 
the N. T. In Jo. 1: 50 we find efé6v ce broxatw ris cuxjs, but not 
iré. So also in some other N.T. passages where a genitive with 
iré6 might have been used. Cf. Mk. 7:28; Lu. 8:16, etc. The 
accusative with t76, as in évra bro tHv ovkqv (Jo. 1: 48), supplants 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 140. 

2 Helbing, Die Priip. bei Herod. und and. Histor., p. 22. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 63. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 399. Cf. Jebb in V. and D., Handb. to Mod. Gk., 
p. 313. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 105. 7-Griech. Gr., p. 452 f. 

6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 398 f. 8 Vergl. Synt., I, p. 698. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 635 


the genitive also in the N. T. The use of tro for agency and 
cause is ablative like the Latin usage with ab (a). 

4. With the Accusative. It is considered by Winer! to be the 
original use of ir. This indeed would accord with the notion of 
‘upwards,’ ‘up from under.’ But in the N. T., as in the later 
Greek, the accusative occurs with the notion of rest (cf. e/s).2 The 
accusative in the N. T. takes the place of the local use of tz6 with 
locative and genitive. Thus we find (motion) ridéacw abrov trod 
tov podtov (Mt. 5: 15), but also (rest) dévra bao rHv cuxqv (Jo. 1: 48). 
Other examples with verbs of rest are b76 rHv oKLdy KaTacKnvoty 
(Mk. 4 : 32), t16 rov otpavov (Ac. 4:12), with eiui, we have tro ra 
xetkn (Ro. 3:13), br6 vouov (Ro. 6:14f.), bd radaywyov (Gal. 
3:25), ete. These examples are as freely used as those like tva 
pov vro THY oTEeynv eicedOys (Mt. 8:8). The examples are both 
local as with ériovvayw (Lu. 13 : 34) and figurative as with rarewow 
(1 Pet. 5:6). Cf. Ac. 4:12 b26d Tov obpavov with tro Alia Tv “HXcov 
ért NiTpos P. Oxy. 48, 49, 722 (a.v. 86, 100, 91). Cf. Deissmann, 
Light, ete., p. 332. Only one instance of the use of t76 with time 
appears in the N. T., b76 rov dpOpov (Ac. 5: 21), where it has the 
notion of ‘about’ (or ‘close upon’) dawn. John uses t7o with the 
accusative only once* (Jo. 1:48) and with the ablative only five 
times (Jo. 14: 21; 3 Jo. 12 bis; Rev. 6:8, 18), an incidental ar- 
gument for unity of authorship. 

5. With the Ablative. In the sense of efficient cause or agent it 
was the commonest classical usage and it continues so in the N. T° 
The local and temporal uses do not occur, but only the metaphor- 
ical. These occur after passive or neuter verbs. Abbott® thinks 
that John preferred to represent the agent as performing the act 
and so avoided izé. The ancient Greek indeed used b76 chiefly in 
this sense of agent. The use of azofvncxw brd as the correlative 
of aoxreive: tis is well known.” In the N. T. once (Rev. 6:8) t7é 
actually occurs with the active of aroxreivw (amroxretvar ev poudaia — 
kal bd Tv Onpiwv). This is probably due to the desire to distin- 
guish between the living agent and the lifeless causes preceding.® 
But the N. T. has neuter verbs with izo, like arodAvpar (1 Cor. 
10 : 9), NauBavw (2 Cor. 11: 24), macxw (Mk. 5 : 26), bropuérw (Heb. 
12:3). In the case of passive verbs the usage follows the tradi- 
tional lines. Cf. Mt. 4:1 for two examples, avnxOn bro Tov rvet- 


feWevh:, p.407. 5 Simcox, Lang. of the N.T., p. 157. 
eral cistuGk, Grey pyo9s: oP JONs Groepeerg: 

8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 185. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 156. 

4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 278. 8 Simcox, Lang. of the N.T., p. 157. 


636 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Latos, Te.pacOjvar b7r0 TOD diaBddrov. It is to be noted that in Lu. 9:8 
bo is not repeated with a@\Awv. The bulk of the N. T. instances of 
iro occur of personal agency like éBarrifovro br’ aitod (Mt. 3 : 6), 
dteomaabat br’ a’tod (Mk. 5:4), etc. Sometimes, when 6:4 is added 
to wd, a distinction is made between the intermediate and the 
mediate agent, as in 7d pnOev bd kuplov 6a Tod tpodjrov (Mt. 1: 22). 
Cf. 2:15. There is nothing peculiar about the use of i76 in 2 Pet. 
1:17, dwvrijs evexOeions bro Tis pmeyadorperods ddéns.! But b76 is 
not the only way of expressing the agent. -Besides 61a for the in- 
direct agent azo is the most common? substitute for to, though ex 
and rapa both are found for the notion of agency. Radermacher 
(NV. T. Gr., p. 116) speaks of ao as “die eigentlich pridestinierte 
Partikel.’”’? The instrumental case and & and the locative must 
also be recalled. But 6a with the accusative (motive or cause) 
must not be confounded with this idea. Cf. Lu. 21:17 for imo 
with ablative and 6.a with the accusative. The prepositions will 
richly repay one’s study, and often the whole point of a sentence 
turns on the prepositions. In Lu. 5:19 eight prepositions occur, 
counting éurpoc#ev, and many such passages are found as Gal. 2: 
1, 2. Cf. Joy, On the Syntax of Some Prepositions in the Greek 
Dialects (1904). ) : 
VIII. The ‘‘Adverbial’’ Prepositions. The list in the N. T. of 
those prepositions which do not occur in composition with verbs 
is considerable. As already remarked in the beginning of this 
chapter, what are called ‘‘proper” prepositions were originally 
adverbs, fixed case-forms which came to be used with nouns and 
in composition with verbs. We have followed the varied history 
of this most interesting group of words. Homer? in particular 
used most of them at times merely adverbially. In Homer the 
“regular” prepositions often retain this adverbial force, as év 6e, 
mapa dé, and this separation from a verb is no longer considered a 
‘surgical operation”’ (tmesis). Cf. Seymour, Homeric Language and 
Verse, 25, 78. Some of these prepositions gradually disappeared, 
but the total use of prepositions greatly increased. This increase 
was due to the wider use of the remaining prepositions and the 
increasing use of so-called “improper” prepositions, adverbs with 
cases that never came to be used in composition with verbs. The 
Sanskrit* had no proper class of prepositions, but a number of 


1 W.-Th., p. 369. 

2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 126. But a7é occurs in this sense in Xen. Cf. 
W.-Th., p. 369. . 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 151. 4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 414. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 637 


adverbs which were sometimes used with cases. These adverbial 
prepositions varied constantly in the history of the Greek. Some 
of them, like avev, éyyts, &vexa, come right on down from Homer. 
Others drop by the way while each age sees a new crop coming on. 
But in the late vernacular a number of these prepositional adverbs 
are followed by the preposition! before the case, like adaoxdtw azo. 
In the modern Greek the improper prepositions are used either 
with the genitive (only with enclitic pronoun) or by the addition 
of ’s, aad, wé with the accusative. They are quite new formations, 
but made from ancient Greek material (Thumb, Handb., p. 107). 
From our point of view any adverb that occurs with a case may 
be regarded as a prepositional adverb,? like aéiws rod ebayyeXdiov 
(Ph. 1:27). Some of these prepositional adverbs, as already 
shown, occur both as adverbs, as @ua kcal édrifwy (Ac. 24: 26), and 
as prepositions, as dua atrots (Mt. 13: 29), while others appear only 
as prepositions with cases, as avev tod rarpés (Mt. 10: 29). But it 
is not necessary to make a separate list on this basis. -Blass,? who 
treats these words very scantily, is right in saying that no hard and 
fast line can be drawn between adverb and preposition here. The 
LXX shows some adverbial prepositions which do not occur in 
the N. T*4 Thus aravwhev (Judges 16:20) may be compared 
with érdavwhev (classical also), and broxatwhev (Deut. 9 : 14), which 
in ancient Greek is only an adverb. Simcox® carefully explains 
évwriov, SO common in the LXX, as a translation and imitation of 
"2993, but even Conybeare and Stock® surrender this word as not 
a Hebraism before Deissmann’s proof.’ The N. T., like the xouw7 
‘in general, makes free use of these prepositional adverbs. I have 
given the list in my Short Grammar of the Greek New Testa- 
ment (8 ed., 1912, p. 116 f.), forty-two in all, more than twice as 
many as the “regular” prepositions.’ ’Aéiws noted above is not in- 
cluded. Cf. dmraé rod éuavrod (Heb. 9:7). Conybeare and Stock 
(p. 87) even count éydueva wérpas (Ps. 140 : 6), but surely that is 
going too far. Cf. ra xpelocova Kal éxdueva owrnplas (Heb. 6:9). 
There is more excuse for claiming éowrepov rijs kodvuBnOpas (Is. 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 366. 


2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 150. 5 Lang. of the N. T., p. 159. 
BpreOre Ne baak apn. loo, tae ft. 6 Sel., p. 87. 
4 C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 86f. To RE Sree tors 


8 Krebs, Die Prapositionsadverbien in der spiiteren hist. Griic., I. Tl., p. 4f., . 
gives a list of 61, and 31 of his list do not appear in the N. T., while 12 are in 
the N. T. that he does not mention, viz. évavri, &amiov, KaTevavTt, KaTEvwMTLor, 
Kukhdbev, wécov, drlaw, swe, .mapardAnovov, TapeKktos, bTékewa, brepexTepicood. This 


list by Krebs shows the freedom in the xo.wy development of adv. prep. 


638 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


22:11). It will pay us to take up briefly these adverbial prepo- 
sitions. All of them use the genitive or the ablative case except 
dua (instrumental) and éyyts (dative). 

1. “Aya. It is probably in the instrumental case itself. Brug- 
mann! connects the word with the root of eis, uia, év as seen in 
a-mat, a-rdods, Cretan auaxs, Latin semel, Sanskrit sama, English 
same. Cf. also dyuod, é-xatov. It occurs in Homer with the associa- 
tive-instrumental case. The word occurs in the N. T. only ten 
times and usually as adverb, either merely with the verb as in 
Ro. 3.2.12, LX X, or with 6é.xcaii(l Tim: 5 213; Phils22). Ciexat 
in Col. 4:3. Three of the examples are with participles (Col. 4:3 
above and Ac. 24: 26; 27:40). Twice we find dua civ with the 
instrumental, a sort of double preposition after the manner of the 
later Greek (1 Th. 4:17; 5:10) and once Gua rpwi with adverb 
(Mt. 20:1). The use of agua civ Thayer explains by taking aya 
as an adverb with the verb. Only once does it occur as a simple 
preposition with the instrumental, agua abvots (Mt. 13:29). For 
the later revival of awa and use like pera see Jannaris.* In 2 Esdr. 
17: 3 Onis translated by agua. In the Acta Nerei dua is used only 
with the genitive (Radermacher, NV. 7. Gr., p. 119). 

2. "Avev. It is of uncertain etymology. Homer has another 
form, avevbev, the Eleatic avev-s, the Epidaurian avev-v, the Megarian 
avis. There is, however, no doubt as to the meaning, ‘without’ 
or ‘besides,’ and the case used is the ablative. There are only 
three examples in the N.T., not counting Mk. 13 : 2, where W. H. 
and Nestle reject avev yepav. Two of these (1 Pet. 3:1; 4:9) 
occur with abstract words, and one (Mt. 10 : 29) with 70d zarpos. 
The word is rare in the late Greek, especially with a case.® 

3. “Avtiuxpus (some editors avtuxpv). It is a compound form that 
originally meant ‘straight on,’ but in later Greek occurs in the 
sense of ‘opposite,’ ‘face to face.’ It was common in the ancient 
Greek as adverb of place or as preposition. In the N. T. we find 
it only once (Ac. 20 : 15) and the case used is the genitive, avrixpus 
Xiov. It occurs in modern Greek vernacular (Thumb, Handb., p. 
109). 

4. ’Avrimepa (avri-répav, Polybius, etc.). It is just avri and zépap 
combined. Thucydides uses avrirépas as adverbial preposition. 
Only one example occurs in the N. T. (Lu. 8 : 26), dvrimepa Tis 


1 Griech;’ Gr, pp. 85; 21157230. 

2. Monro, Hom. Gr.,'p: 151; Brug:, Griech. Gr., p: 456. 

8 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 397. 4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 456. 
5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 337. In Eleatic avevs occurs with the ace. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI) 639 


TaduAalas. The case is open to dispute, since avri comes with the 
genitive and zépay with the ablative. ‘Over against’ would be 
genitive, ‘on the other side of’ would be ablative. Either will 
make sense in Lu. 8: 26. Probably genitive is the case here. 

5. ’Arévayvte. It is a triple compound of azo, é&, avri. A number 
of adverbial prepositions were formed on avri as a base. In the 
N.T. we find also évayrt, &vavtiov, katévavTt. These are late, except 
évayriov (from Homer on. Cf. avra,é-avra). Polybius uses arévavre 
with the genitive, and it is common with this case in the LXX1! 
(cf. Gen. 3: 24). In the N. T. it occurs only six times, and in two 
of these (Mt. 27: 24; Mk. 12:41) W. H. put xazvévavre in the text 
and darévayre in the marg. Of the remaining four examples two 
(Ac. 3:16; Ro. 3:18) have the sense merely of ‘before,’ ‘in the 
sight or presence of.’ One (Mt. 27:61) has the notion of ‘oppo- 
site’ or ‘over against,’ while the fourth (Ac. 17:7) takes on a 
hostile idea, ‘against.’ These resultant ideas all come naturally 
out of the threefold combination. The other compounds with 
avrt will be noted later. 

6. "“Arep. This word is of unknown origin, but compare Old 
Saxon sundir, Old High German suntar, Sanskrit sanutdr. It is 
common in Homer and the poets generally. Later prose uses it. 
But it occurs only once in the LXX (2 Mace. 12:15) and twice 
in the N. T. (Lu. 22:6, 35). The case is clearly the ablative, 
and the meaning is ‘without.’ One example, arep dxAov, is with 
persons and the other, arep Baddarriov, is with a thing. 

7. "Axpt(s). It is related to pexpi(s) whatever its origin. Cf. 
usque in Latin and aypu es like usque ad. As a mere adverb it 
no longer occurs in the N. T., but it is common both as a prepo- 
sition and as a conjunction. In the form daypu od (Ac. 7:18) and 
axpe js juepas (Mt. 24:38) it is both preposition and conjunc- 
tion (resultant temporal phrase). Leaving out these examples, 
aéxpt is found 30 times in the N. T. (W. H. text) and some MSS. 
read a&ypt in Ac. 1:22 and 20:4, while in Mt. 18:30 the MSS. 
vary between ayp., wexpe and éws (W. H.). The meaning is ‘up 
to’ and the case used is the genitive. It occurs with place (Ac. 
13 : 6), persons (Ac. 11: 5), time (Ac. 18:11) and abstract ideas 
(Ac. 22:4, 22). It occurs mainly in Acts, Paul’s writings and 
Revelation. Cf. its use with the adverb axpc 70d vov (Ro. 8: 22). 

8. ’Eyyis. It is a mere adverb (see comp. éyyt’repov, superl. 
éyy.ora) possibly related to éy-yin. It is common in Homer both 
as adverb and with the genitive. The late Greek added the true 

1 C. and S., Sel. from the LXX, p. 86, 


640 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dative and all three uses (adverb, gen., dat.) occur in the N. T. 
There are nineteen examples of the pure adverb in the N. T. 
(cf. Mt. 24 : 32), one the comparative (Ro. 13:11) and the su- 
perlative in some MSS. in Mk. 6:36. There are eight examples 
of the genitive with éyyts (cf. Jo. 11:54). Only four times does 
éyyis have the dative (Ac. 9 : 38; 27:8), counting the indeclin- 
able ’Iepovoadhu (Lu. 19:11; Ac. 1:12), in which case Luke (4) 
would have the dative uniformly and John (6) and Heb. (2) the 
genitive (H. Scott). Once (Heb. 6 : 8) it is postpositive. 

9. ’Exrés. It is a combination of é& and the adverbial ending 
—ros with which may be compared Latin coelitus.1 The case 
used with it is, of course, the ablative and it is just a fuller 
expression of é, meaning ‘without.’ In the N. T. we find it only 
eight times, four of these with the ablative, as in 1 Cor. 6 : 18 (cf. 
with the relative in Ac. 26 : 22). Note position of éxros Neywy av 
in Ac. 26:22. Three times we have éxros ei un (1 Cor. 14:5; 15:2; 
1 Tim. 5:19), which is a pleonasm due first to the use of éxros ei. 
Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 118) cites an inscription of Mopsues- 
tia for ‘this jumbled phrase,” peculiarly apropos since Paul was 
Cilician, éxros ei uw [élav Mayva povn Oe[Anlon. Once (Mt. 23 : 26) 
éxros is probably a mere adverb used as a substantive, though even 
here it may be regarded as a preposition. 

10. "Eurpoobev. This is merely év and zpdc8ev which adverb 
used the ablative? when it had a case. In the N. T. it is still four 
times a mere adverb of place, as in Rev. 4:6, but it is usually a 
preposition with the ablative.. It occurs with words of place, as 
in Mt. 5:24, with persons (Mt. 5:16), and sometimes with the 
notion of rank (Jo. 1:15). As a preposition it appears 44 times 
inthe’ N.T | 

11. "Evayre. (Cf. &avra in Homer.) It is one of the év7i com- 
pounds and is found with the genitive case when it has a case. 
It is very common in the LX X even after Swete® has properly re- 
placed it often by évayriov. The old Greek did not use it. In the 
N. T., W. H. accept it in Lu. 1:8 and Ac. 8:21 (though some 
MSS. in both places read évayriov) and reject it in Ac. 7:10. It 
is not found in the N. T. as a mere adverb. 

12. ’Evayriov. This is, of course, merely the neuter singular of 
evaytios (cf. Mk. 6 : 48), and is common in the older Greek as in 
the LXX. For the papyri see évaytiov avipav tpiav P. Eleph. 1 

1 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 198, 254. 2 Tb., p. 456. 


3 C. and §., Sel. from LXX, p. 87. The LXX used a number of prep. to 
transl. 159. Cf. Swete, Intr. to the O. T. in Gk., p. 308. 





PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 641 


(p.c. 311). In the N. T. it does not occur as a mere adverb, but 
we find it five times as a preposition with the genitive (cf. Lu. 1 : 6), 
all with persons (cf. Latin coram). 

13. “Evexa. It occurs in three forms in the N. T., either &vexa 
(Lu. 6 : 22), &exev (9 : 24) or eivexey (18 : 29), but always as a prepo- 
sition (‘for the sake of’), never as mere adverb. These variations 
existed in the earlier Greek also. In the xown, évexev is the more 
usual (Schweizer, Perg. Inschr., p. 35). Only twice, however, is it 
postpositive in the N. T., and this after the interrogative (Ac. 19: 
32) or the relative (Lu. 4:18, LX X). The case used is the genitive. 
The etymology is quite uncertain, but the form eivexey is Ionic 
and partially in the xow7n supersedes the Attic.1 The preposition 
occurs 26 times in the N. T. Once (2 Cor. 7: 12) we find it 
used with rod and the infinitive. Cf. &vexey and dca Lu. 21:12, 17. 

14. ’Evros. It is like the Latin in-tus (opposite of éx76s) and 
has the same ending —7os. It means ‘within’ and as a preposition 
is used with the genitive. The word occurs only twice in the 
N. T., once as an adverb with the article (Mt. 23 : 26), though 
even this may be regarded as a preposition with the article and 
the genitive (cf. éxros, Mt. 23 : 26), and once as a preposition 
(Lu. 17 : 21) with the genitive. Thayer cites two passages from 
Xenophon where évrés may have the idea of ‘among’ and claims 
that this is the idea in Lu. 17: 21, because of the context. But the 
meaning in Xenophon is disputed and Liddell and Scott give only 
‘within’ for évrds. Besides, in one of the new Logia? of Jesus we 
have a similar saying in a context that makes ‘within’ necessary 
and would seem to settle the point about the passage in Luke: 
H Bacirela THY ov'pavdy evtos budv eoTiv. 

15. ’Evwriv. This is the neuter singular of the adjective 
évwrios which (Thayer) is from the phrase év wri (6 & wm ay). 
Homer uses ra évwria, but no example of the adverb or preposition 
évwmuov occurs before the time of the LX X. Deissmann? thinks it 
possible, but not probable, that it was first used in this sense as a 
translation of the Hebrew "253. A papyrus of the Thebaid from the 
second or third century B.c. has it also. As a preposition it is 
very common‘ in the LXX and in the N. T. also. Curiously 
enough it does not occur in Matthew and Mark, though very 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 457. 

2 C. Taylor, The Oxyrhyn. Sayings of Jesus, 1905, pp. 7, 11. Besides in 
Polyb. é&7és is always the opposite of éxrés. Cf. Thiemann, Quest. Polyb., 1882, 
Ds, 20. 

BG2o:, p. 213. 4 Ceand'S.,. Dace 


642 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


common in Luke’s writings and Revelation. The Gospel of John 
has only one example and the Johannine Epistles two. Cf. also 
katevwriov. In the N. T., évwrov is always a preposition with the 
genitive and it occurs 92 times. It appears sometimes with place 
(Rev. 4:10), but usually with persons (Lu. 5:25;12:9 bis), and 
especially of God (1:15). Sometimes the notion is that of judg- 
ment, as in 1 Tim. 2:3. See Wikenhauser, ’Evwmvos — erwriov — 
xatevwrov (Bibl. Z., 1910, pp. 263-270). | 

16. "Ef. It is an adverb from éé (cf. éow, és) and is probably 
in the ablative case like otrw(s). As adverb and preposition it is 
common-in the N. T. (16 times) as in the older Greek. It is 
found as preposition only with the ablative and that 19 times. It 
means ‘outside’ or ‘without’ and is used in the N. T. only with 
places, like é&w ris oixias (Mt. 10: 14). John’s Gospel has it 13 
times, first Ep. 1, Rev. 2; Paul has it 5, and only as adverb. 

17. "Egwbev. It is the same word plus the suffix —6ev, ‘from 
without,’ and was common in the poets (cf. éowfev). The case 
used is the ablative. In the N. T. it is much less frequent (13 
times) both as adverb and preposition than é&. Indeed, if 76 
éEwlev tod wornpiov (Mt. 23 : 25; Lu. 11:39) be not considered the 
prepositional usage, there would be only three left (Mk. 7:15; 
Rev. 11: 2; 14: 20). There is the same ambiguity in the two 
passages above that was noted about éxrés and évrds (Mt. 23 : 26= 
Ls 10940) S, Gii54 hav; 

18. ’Ex-ayw. This is just the preposition ézi and the adverb 
avw. It occurs in Attic Greek both as adverb and as preposition. 
As an adverb it is rare in the N. T. (4 times), once with the rel- 
ative adverb od (Mt. 2: 9), once with a numeral with no effect 
on the case (1 Cor. 15: 6; cf. Mk. 14: 5 where the case may 
arise from mpa6jvac), once where a pronoun is really implied 
(Lu. 11:44). As a preposition we find it fifteen times in the 
N. T. Cf. ézavw dpovs (Mt. 5:14) where it has the somewhat 
weakened! sense of ‘upon’ rather than ‘above.’ The case used 
is the genitive. Modern Greek vernacular uses it as (a4)7avw ’s 
(Thumb, Handbook, p. 109). 

19. ’Eréxewa. It is merely éri and ée?tva. Thayer suggests the 
ellipsis of wépn. It occurs in the Attic Greek both as adverb and 
as preposition. In the N. T. it appears only once in a quotation 
from Amos 5: 27 and as a preposition with the ablative in the 
sense of ‘beyond’ (Ac. 7:43. Cf. brepexewa). 

20. "Eow. It is the adverb of és (cf. €&w) and is in the ablative 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 129. 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEIS) 643 


case. The form eiow (eis) does not occur in the N. T. nor in the 
LXX. Indeed the word éow is found only nine times in the N. T. 
and only one, éow ris ads (Mk. 15 : 16), is the prepositional use. 
The case used with it is the genitive. This, however, is a gen- 
uine example, while éow#evy (12 times) is never a preposition in 
the N. T., unless in Lu. 11:39, 76 éowbev tudv (see p. 642). Cf. 
écwrepov THs KoAvuBHOpas (Is. 22:11). 

21. “Ews. In Homer it is both demonstrative and relative ad- 
verb (from eios, etws).' Cf. ds and ws. The use of éws as a prep- 
osition appears in Demosthenes, Aristotle, Polybius, ete. In 
Northern England and Scotland ‘while’ is used as ‘till’? (Lid- 
dell and Scott) and illustrates how éws as conjunction is used in 
the N. T. It is more common in the N. T. as preposition than 
conjunction, if the phrases éws ot, éws drov be treated as conjunc- 
tions, as indeed they are, though technically composed of the 
preposition é€ws with the genitive of the relative. It is in the 
later Greek mainly, therefore, that it appears as a preposition (cf. 
LXX and papyri). . The case used with it is the genitive (but 
very late Greek shows accusative sometimes), and it is found 86 
times in the N. T. and 51 of the examples are in the Synoptic 
Gospels. The preposition is used with places, like éws aédov (Mt. 
11:23), éws obpavod (Lu. 10:15), éws ’Avrioxeias (Ac. 11: 22); with 
persons, like éws avrod (Lu. 4 : 42); with expressions of time, like 
éws Ths onuepov (Mt. 27:8), ws dpas evarns (27: 45); with abstract 
expressions, like éws davarov (Mt. 26 : 38); with notion of measure, 
like é€ws nuicovs (Mk. 6: 23). See Rom. 3:12 ews évds (LXX). 
Cf. ar6 — éws in Mt. 1:17; 20:8; 27:51. Seventeen of the ex- 
amples are uses of éws with an adverb, like éws xarw (Mt. 27: 51), 
éws apte (Jo. 2: 10), while seven instances of éws wore occur, like 
Mt. 17:17. Four times éws occurs with another preposition, like 
éws moos (Lu. 24: 50), éws éri (Ac. 17: 14), éws em (21:5). In Mk. 
14 : 54 note éws éow eis. Once (cf. Demosthenes, Aristotle, LX-X) 
we find it with the article and the infinitive éws rod edbety (Ac. 8: 
40). In éws réd\ous (2 Cor. 1:13), the phrase is almost adverbial. 
In D (Ac. 19: 26), éws ’Edéoov, Blass? finds the notion of ‘within.’ 
In the LXX 2 [Heb.] Esdr. 6 : 20, éws ets mavres, and 1 Chron. 5: 
10 A, éws ravres, Deissmann (B. S., p. 139) sees a Hebraism. 

22. Karevavre. It is not found in the older Greek, but appears 
in the LXX and the N. T. It is especially frequent in the Book of 
Sirach.2 But in poetry we find xarévavra and the word is merely 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 151. $1C. and_-S., p.-87. 
Serr eOLaN cs bi, Gir apiako se 


644 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT ~ 


the threefold preposition xara, év, avrt. The MSS. in the N. T. 
often vary! between xarevayre and azevav7e as in Mt. 21: 2; 27: 24; 
Ac. 3:16, etc. In Mt. 27: 24 and Mk. 12:41 W. H. put azevavre 
in the margin. Karevaytiov, found in Hesiod and Herodotus, does 
not occur in the N. T. There are only nine examples of karévayre 
in the N. T. One of these (Lu. 19 : 30) is merely adverbial, while 
the rest are prepositional. The idea is ‘before,’ ‘over against,’ 
‘in the presence of,’ and the case used with it is the genitive. It 
occurs with place (Mk. 13:3) and persons (Mt. 27: 24). Cf. 
katévavte Oeod év Xpior (2 Cor. 2:17; 12:19) and the attraction 
of relative (é) in the dative to the genitive case of cod, the incor- 
porated antecedent (Ro. 4:17). 

23. Karevwriov. It is just evwmov (see above) and xara. Homer 
uses katévwira with the genitive, but xarevwmuov appears in the LX X. 
The N. T. shows only three examples (cf. the frequency of évwztov), 
two with persons (Eph. 1:4; Col. 1:22), one with abstract word 
(Ju. 24). The case used is the genitive and the word means ‘in 
the presence of.’ 

24. Kuxdodev. It is an old adverb in -0e that occasionally 
occurs in the LX X (Jer. 17: 26) as a preposition. In the N. T. it 
appears as a preposition twice with the genitive Opdvov (Rev. 4: 
3 f.) and once as an adverb (4 : 8). 

25. Kixd\w is, of course, merely an adverb in the instrumental 
case and is common from Homer down. In the LXX it is extremely 
frequent and occasionally as a preposition with the genitive (Is. 
6:2). In the N. T. it is merely an adverb except with rod Opdvov 
(Rev. 4:6;5:11;7:11). Cf. xikdw péexpre (Ro. 15 : 19). 

26. Meoov. As a preposition it occurs in Herodotus 7, 170, but 
was not common. It appears in the late Greek writers and the 
papyri.2, Many adverbial phrases were made from pécov which were 
used as prepositions, some of which survive in the N. T., like ava 
pecov, dia pécou (—ov), els wécov (and els 76 pécov), év wéow (and & TO 
Méow), éK pécov, Kata wecov. But these will be discussed later. The 
_ adjective yéoos occurs with the genitive (Lu. 22:55; Jo. 1: 26), 
so that it is not strange to find the adverb with the genitive as 
in Ph. 2:15, péecov yeveds. In Mt. 14: 24 W. H. put pecor in the 
margin and D reads péoov in Lu. 8:7; 10:3. See Hatzidakis, 
Einl., p. 214, for examples. Cf. Homeric weconyis. The mod- 
ern Greek vernacular uses péoa’s, we’ aro (Thumb, Handbook, 
p. 108). 7 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 128. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 374. 


PREPOSITIONS (IPOOEZEI®) 645 


27. Meraév. Like so many of the adverbial prepositions, it is a 
compound (era, Evy). As a mere adverb, we meet it only twice in 
the N. T., once in the sense of ‘meanwhile’ (Jo. 4:31), once in 
the sense of ‘afterwards’ (Ac. 13 : 42), as commonly in the later 
Greek.! Cf. twofold use of wera. As a preposition it occurs seven 
times in the N. T., with places (Mt. 23 : 35), persons (Mt. 18 : 15) 
and in abstract relations (Ro. 2:15). A good example occurs in 
Ac. 15:9 where both 6:4 and peraéd appear. 

28. Mexpr. Like aypc and éws, it is both preposition and con- 
junction as well as originally adverb. No example of the mere ad- 
verb is found in the N. T., as it was rare in the older Greek. The 
form is akin to axpe and the sense is the same. If péxpis ot be treated 
as a conjunction (cf. adxpe ot, éws ov), the preposition with the 
genitive appears fifteen times with another doubtful reading in 
Mt. 13:30. It is used with places (Ro. 15:19), persons (Lu. 
16 : 16), time (Ac. 10 : 30), abstract expressions (Ph. 2:8). Like 
axpt, the notion of ‘measure’ or ‘degree’ is sometimes present 
(Heb. 12:4). 

29. “Omricbev. It is of uncertain etymology, perhaps related to 
éri. .It occurs in Homer both as adverb and as preposition. In 
the N. T. we find it five times as adverb and twice as preposition, 
and some MSS. have it in Rev. 1:10. The case used with it is 
the ablative. So émodev rod ’Incod (Lu. 23 : 26). It means ‘from 
behind’ and so ‘after’ (Mt. 15 : 23). Itis the opposite of éumpocbev. 

30. ’Oricw. It is the opposite of rpdcw (cf. réppw) and is an 
ablative adverb from éms (as above). It is very common in the 
older Greek as an adverb, but it is extremely common in the LX X 
as a preposition.2 In the N. T. dzicw occurs alone as an adverb 
only twice (Mt. 24: 18; Lu. 7: 38), though we meet ra éricw seven 
times as in Mk. 13:16. But asa preposition we find it 26 times, 
mostly with persons, as in the common déziow wou (Mt. 3:11). 
It is used with the ablative, ‘behind.’ Cf. dedre oricow pov in 
Mt. 4:19. 

31. ’Ové. This word seems to be another variation of éms and 
occurs in the ancient Greek, both as an adverb and as a preposition 
with the genitive (Thuc. 4, 93) with the sense of ‘late on.’ But 
Philostratus shows examples where oyé with the ablative has 
the sense of ‘after,’ like é¥é robrwy= ‘after these things.’* Philos- 
tratus uses it also in the sense of ‘late on.’ The papyri use it in 
the sense of ‘late on’ with the genitive.t So dye rijs Spas P. Par. 


me Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk,, p. 129. $ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 312. 
2 C. and §., p. 87. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 72 f. 


646 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


37 (ii/B.c.). Hence in Mt. 28:1, ove caBBarwy may be either late 
on the Sabbath or after the Sabbath. Either has good support. 
Moulton! is uncertain, while Blass? prefers ‘after.’ It is a point 
for exegesis, not for grammar, to decide. If Matthew has in mind 
just before sunset, ‘late on’ would be his idea; if he means after 
sunset, then ‘after’ is correct. Cf. dis rod caBBarov (Lu. 18 : 12). 

32. Ilapa-rdjovov. It is merely the neuter of the adjective 
mraparAnows. This adjective usually had the associative-instru- 
mental, seldom the genitive. But the one example of the adverbial . 
preposition in the N. T. (Ph. 2 : 27), @avarov, has the genitive. See 
ana tov. 

33. Ilap-exrés. It is a late compound for the earlier zapex. It 
appears in the N. T. only three times, save in the margin of Mt. 
19:9 of W. H.’s text. Once it is a mere adverb (2 Cor. 11: 28), 
and twice it is a preposition with the ablative (Mt. 5: 32; Ac. 
26 : 29) meaning ‘without.’ 

34. Ilépav. It comes from the root zep (cf. repaw, ‘fare,’ ‘ferry,’ 
etc.). Ionic zépnv. It is an adverb (cf. adv. épa), probably 
accusative case. Both as adverb and as preposition with ablative 
(sometimes with accusative), it survives from Homer. In the 
N. T. it occurs ten times as an adverb in the phrase els 76 répay 
(Mt. 8:18). Itis found 13 times as a preposition with the abla- 
tive, chiefly in the expression zépav tod ’Iopdavov (Mt. 4 : 15). 

35. IIAnv, Doric dav. It is probably from mXéor, ‘more,’ and so 
is used with the ablative. In the N. T. it occurs only four times 
as a preposition with the ablative and in one of these we find )éov 
— adj tovtwy (Ac. 15:28). Twice it is a mere adverb, rAjv dre 
(Ac. 20:23; Ph. 1:18), unless indeed the 67: clause is in the 
ablative. Cf. English “except that.” In all the other rather 
numerous instances wAnv is an adversative conjunction at the 
beginning of a clause (cf. 6€) as in Mt. 11:22. These three 
usages come on down from the older Greek. 

36. ID\nciov, Doric mAatiov. The word is allied to zé\as and is 
neuter adj. from mAncios. In the older Greek the adverb occurs 
absolutely or with the art. 6 wAyciov, ‘neighbour,’ as in the N.T. 
(Mt. 5:48). As a preposition it appears with the associative- 
instrumental or with the genitive. But in the N. T., it is found 
only once and with the genitive in Jo.4:5. In Lu. 10: 29, 36, the 
genitive is also found with zAnciov, but the word here has more of 
the substantive idea (‘neighbour’) than the prepositional usage. 

37. ‘Trep-avw. It is a simple compound that in the late Greek 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 72 f. 2 Gr. oF N. «be Gkipede: 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI2) 647 
eradually displaced! tzép. It occurs in writers from Aristotle on 
both as adverb and as preposition and is common in the LXX.? 
In the N. T. we find it only three times and with the ablative each 
time. Twice it occurs literally of place (Heb: 9 : 5; Eph. 4°: 10) 
and once of rank (Eph. 1: 21). 

38. ‘Yrep-exeva. It is merely trep and the pronoun éetva (cf. 
éx-éxewva in Ac. 7: 43) which appears in the Byzantine Greek. It 
occurs only once in the N. T. (2 Cor. 10 : 16), eis ra brepéxerva budr, 
with the ablative in the sense of ‘beyond,’ ‘into the (regions) 
beyond you.’ : 

39. ‘Trep-ex-repicood. It is written separately in Liddell and 
Scott and some N. T. editors print it brép éxrepiccod. It is found 
in Dan. 3:22 (Ald., Compl.). W.H. read it three times (Eph. 
3:20; 1 Th. 3:10; 5:13), though in the last passage tzepex- 
mTepiooas 1s put in the margin by W. H. Asa preposition with the 
ablative, we find it only in Eph. 3: 20 (av attracted to case of 
omitted antecedent). 

40. ‘Tro-xaTw. It is another compound word which in the an- 
cient Greek was used both as adverb and as preposition and es- 
pecially in the xowy writers (Polybius, Diodorus, Plutarch). In 
the late Greek it gradually? displaced izo. In the LXX both trep- 
avwlev and brepxatwhev occur as prepositions as well as xarémucbev.* 
In the N. T. it is no longer adverb, but appears as preposition 
eleven times with the ablative, five of them with réav moddv (as 
Mk. 6:11). The examples are all literal, not metaphorical. Cf. 
broKkaTw Tis TpaTevns (Mk. 7: 28). 

Al. Xapw. This word is just the accusative of xapis and it is 
still common as the substantive in the accusative (Lu. 1: 30). 
The ancients used it freely with the genitive and with the posses- 
Sive pronoun, éujv xapu. The idea of ‘for the sake of’ (cf. Latin 
gratia) may be due to apposition originally. The usage continues 
in the late Greek. Among the ancients it was generally post- 
positive, but in the LXX it is now one way, now the other. In 
the N. T. it occurs nine times, and is postpositive (as Gal. 3:19) 
always except 1 Jo. 3:12 with interrogative. It is only once in 
the Gospels (Lu. 7: 47). 

42. Xwpis. It is of doubtful etymology (cf. xaw, xnpa), but ap- 


1 Jann.; Hist. Gk: Gr., pp. 367, 397. 3 Jann., Hist. Gk: Gr., p. 366. : 

gaCiaDeiss.,.B. 5.,p. 283 f. 4 C.and6., p. 86f. . 

5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 337. Xdpw as a prep. is in poetry till 50 B.c., when 
it appears first in prose. Cf, Meisterh., p. 222. He gives an interesting ex. of 
the prep. in Attic inscr. 


648 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pears in Homer freely as an adverb and in Pindar as a preposition. 
It holds on steadily in both senses. In the N. T. we have only one 
pure adverbial use (Jo. 20:7), while as a preposition with the 
ablative we find it 40 times. The usage is chiefly with persons 
(Mt. 14: 21) or abstract relations (Mt. 13 : 34), though it may be 
used with place (Lu. 6: 49). In Ro. 10: 14 note xwpls knpiccovtos 
without the article. It is postpositive once, ob xwpis (Heb. 12: 14). 
Ramsay, C. and B., II, 391 (No. 254), cites from the inscriptions 
xwpls et un Te 7a0y (Moulton, Prol., p. 239). 

Of these 42 words in the N. T. the following are only used as 
prepositions: avev, avrimepa, arevartt, aTEp, EvayTt, veka, Evwmwov, eT e- 
Kea, KATEVWITLOV, TapaTAnoLov, drEpeKelva, UTEpavw, VroxaTw. Of the 
rest pécov is also adjective; xaprs substantive; rAnciov substantive 
and adjective; axpu, ws, uexpt, ANY conjunctions; and the rest are 
also adverbs. 

IX. Compound Prepositions. A considerable number of these 
adverbial prepositions are compound words. So are ayvri-xpv(s), 
GYTi-TEpa, AT-EV-avTL, Eu-Tpoobev, Ev-avTt, Ev-avTiov, év-wirlov, ET-AVW, 
ém-exeva, weta-£l, Tapa-mTANTLOV, TAap-EKTOS, UTEP-AVW, VITEP-EK-TEPLTGOD, 
jro-xatw. The modern Greek vernacular shows similar forms in 
amokaTw amd, amoticw ano, amegw ard (Thumb, Handb., p. 110). 
See chapter XII, vr. 

X. Prepositional Circumlocutions. Blass calls these Hebraisms 
and it is true that the frequency of these phrases in the LXX 
and the N. T. is due to the influence of the Hebrew idiom. But 
the construction itself is good Greek, though not so common, as 
the papyri show. 

(a) Méoov. This word furnishes a number, one of which, ava 
peoov, “has turned up abundantly in the papyri.”’? In the N. T. 
we find this compound preposition only four times. Moulton 
thinks that in 1 Cor. 6:5, dtaxpivar ava wécov Tod adeddod, the text is 
corrupt, but probably the phrase is not to be taken too literally 
and etymologically (cf. 6 here). Aca pecov is read once (Lu. 
17:11) and 61a péecov once in W. H. (Lu. 4: 380). Els pwéoov (Mk. 
14:60) appears once, but eis 7d wecov (Lu. 4 : 35) six times. ’Ex 
peoov, like all the circumlocutions with yécor, is followed by the 
genitive (Mt. 13 :49) and it occurs 7 times. Kara pécor is found 
once (Ac. 27:27). The commonest (27 times) of these circum- 
locutions is év péow (éupéow some MSS.) as in Mt. 10:16. ’Ery 7G 
péow (Mt. 14:6; Ac. 4:7) is not a prepositional phrase. Cf. & 70d 
pegou (Col. 2:14). See also chapter XII, x, (0). 

1 Gr. of N. T..Gk,; p. 129'f. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 99 f. 


er 


PREPOSITIONS (IIPOOEZEI®) 649 


(6) "Ovoua. It is sometimes adduced as an example of a prep- 
 ositional circumlocution and as a pure Hebraism. Deissmann! 
has given abundant illustrations from the papyri to show that the 
use of eis 7d dvoua, &Y TS OvVOmare is Common enough in the vernacular 
xown Where, as in the LXX and the N. T., dvoua represents the 
person. It is more than doubtful if we are justified in considering 
these phrases as mere prepositional circumlocutions with the gen- 
itive. The examples that come nearest to it are eis dvoua mpopyrov, 
eis Svoua dtxatov, eis dvoua walnrod (Mt. 10:41 f.), but even here 
dvoua brings out the notion that one has the name or character 
of prophet, righteous man, disciple. In Mt. 28 : 19, dvoua has the 
idea of ‘the authority of.’ 

(c) IIpocwrov. This word also furnishes a number of such 
phrases which in the LXX seem to be based on Hebrew originals 
(translation Hebraisms).? Thus a76 rpocwrov rod xupiov (Ac. 3 : 19) 
is like "3572, while rpé rpoowrov cov is like "255, and kara rpdcwrov 
- Tlearov (Ac. 3: 18) Blass? finds like "253. Cf. zpdcwrov pds 

mpoowrov (1 Cor. 13 : 12). 

(d) Yroua. This again is a Hebraism in the LXX due to trans- 
lation. In Mt. 4:4 we have é:a créuaros deod, a quotation from 
Deut. 8:3. In Mt. 18:16, él orduaros Sto papripwy is likewise 
from Deut. 19:15. So in Mt. 21:16, é orouaros vyntiwy is from 
Ps. 8:3. Cf. also ar6 70d orépuatos abrod (Lu. 22 : 71), &v tS ordyari 
gov (Ro. 10:8 from Deut. 30:14). But this picturesque phrase- 
ology belongs to all language as a matter of fact. 

(e) Xeip. It shows several similar examples. Thus 61a yxeupds 
alrav (Ac. 15 : 23), dua r&v xerpdv airdv (Ac. 14:38), eis xefpas (Lu. 
24:7), els tHY xEtpa adrod (Lu. 15 : 22), &k yerpds ravtwy (Lu. 1:71), 
évy TH xetpt attod (Jo. 3:35), civ xept ayyédou (Ac. 7:35). Here 
again the Greek idiom follows the Hebrew particularity, but with 
perfect ease. The classical Greek is not without examples‘ of 
this use of xeip and one may note the English idiom also.’ See 
2 Sam. 15:2, ava xeipa ris 6500 rhs wbAns. 

See also €& évaytias ai’trod (Mk. 15:39) and mapexrds Noyou zop- 
velas in the margin (W. H.) of Mt. 19:9. 


1 B.S., pp. 146 f., 197. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 100. See also Heitmiiller’s 
proof, Im Namen Jesu, pp. 100 ff. 

2 Moulton, Prol., pp. 81, 99; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 129 f. Se Alley 

eeblass Gr. of N, T.Gk., p. 130. 

’ Cf. for the LXX, Swete, Intr. to O, T. in Gk., p. 308. 


CHAPTER XIV 
ADJECTIVES (’ENIOETA) 


I. Origin of Adjectives. This matter was touched upon in 
the chapter on Declensions, but calls for a further word here. 
There is no absolute line of cleavage between substantive and ad- 
jective either in form or sense. The Alexandrian grammarians 
had no special treatment of the adjective. ‘The division line be- 
tween substantive and adjective, always an uncertain one in early 
Indo-Kuropean language, is even more wavering in Sanskrit than 
elsewhere.”’? Indeed it is not difficult to conceive the time when 
there was no distinct adjective. The substantive would be used 
in apposition as in English, brother man, church member. Cf. 
the common use of titles also like doctor, president, governor, etc. 
This attributive use of the substantive is not a peculiarity of any 
language, but belongs to Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, English, 
etc. It is out of this use of the substantive that the adjective as 
a separate part of speech developed.? The adjective is not there- 
fore a mere variation of the genitive, though, like the genitive, it 
is descriptive. The term noun (évoua) is used to cover both sub- 
stantive and adjective, but many substantives continue to be 
used in a descriptive or adjectival sense and many adjectives in a 
substantival sense. The term adjective covers words of one, two 
or three genders, and indeed includes numerals and some of the 
pronouns also. But the pronouns require treatment in a separate 
chapter. Participles are verbal adjectives. See later. The close 
relation between adjective and substantive is well illustrated by 
dodAa (Ro. 6:19). Cf. doddor. 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 111. 

3 “Tt is this change from subst. in apposition to adj. which according to 
Delbriick is the explanation of the numerous Gk. adjectives in o.”’ Giles, Man., 
etc., p. 239. 

4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 117. Cf. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. 
nach den Alten, 1862, p. 15, where he makes the quality of the thing essential 
to the idea of noun. 

. 650 


veo 





ADJECTIVES (’EIIOETA) 651 


II. The Adjectival or Appositional Use of the Substantive. 
Examples have already been given in the chapter on the Sentence. 
Let one suffice here: év 7G ’lopéavyn roraud (Mt. 3: 6).! Cf. further 
Lu. 24:19; Ac. 1:16; 38:14. This idiom is common enough in 
the N. T. I must demur, however, at this point to Winer’s idea 
(Winer-Thayer, p. 236) that “a notion which should naturally be 
expressed by an adjective as an epithet, is sometimes, by a change 
of construction, brought out by a substantive.’ What I object 
to is the word ‘‘should.” He is right in saying that “the N. T. 
is by no means poor? in adjectives,’ but wrong in urging that the 
N. T. ought to use more. As already observed, substantives con- 
tinued to be used in a descriptive. sense not only in apposition, 
but also in the genitive. This original use of the substantive 
never ceased. Hence it is useless to talk of “this substitution of 
a substantive for an adjective’’ and to explain it as ‘‘a Hebraistic 
mode of expression”’ due to “the want of adjectives in Hebrew” 
and to ‘‘the peculiar vividness of the Oriental languages” (p. 237). 
He admits, however, that the matter is not arbitrary, but the prin- 
cipal word stands in the genitive. There is this difference between 
the adjective as an epithet and the genitive. The two substan- 
tives do not merge into one idea quite so completely. Winer’s ex- 
amples illustrate this point well: unde 7Amixevar Ei wAOUTOUV adndAOTNTL 
(1 Tim. 6:17), tva qyels & Kawornre Cwis TepiTatnowpev (Ro. 6:4), 
Brérwv TO oTEepewua THs TioTews (Col. 2:5), Aoyous THs xapeTos (Lu. 
4:22), oixovouov tis aduxias (16:8), xpuris Tis dduxias (18 : 6), rab 
ariuias (Ro. 1 : 26), 7S pnuare THs dvvayews (Heb. 1:3), etc. It was 
just the shade of difference between the substantive in the genitive 
and the adjective that led to the expressions above. Phrases like 
Ta TvevpaTiKa THs Tovnpias (Eph. 6 : 12) are analogous to the use of 
the adjective as substantive to be discussed directly. The use of 
vids or réexvov with the genitive is exactly like the Hebrew idiom 
with 2 and is extremely common in the LXX and fairly so in 
the N.T. Thus viots dmeias (Eph. 2 : 2), réxva dwros (Eph. 5 : 8), 
etc. But this “Hebraistic circumlocution” turns up in inscrip- 
tions and on coins,’ so that it is clearly not un-Greek. Deissmann, 
however, since the idiom is so common and many of the N. T. 


1 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 88; K.-G., I, p. 272 f.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 415. 
On the later distinction between adj. and subst. see Schroeder, Uber die 
formelle Untersch. der Redet., 1874, pp. 195 ff. 

2 But his notion of adjs. “formed by the apostles themselves” vanishes 
sadly in the light of the papyri. 

3 Deiss., B. S., p. 165 f. So vids ris yepovatas, vids rijs ToAEws, ete, 


652 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


examples are quotations from the LXX or translations from the 
Aramaic, admits that the majority in the N. T. are due to “trans- 
lation Hebraisms’’ and the rest to analogical formation. 

III. The Adjective as Substantive. Simcox! thinks that the 
N. T. shows a more frequent use of this idiom than the earlier 
Greek. But the earlier Greek shows abundant evidence of the 
use of the adjective without the substantive as a practical sub- 
stantive, usually with the article, but not always.? 

(a) ANY GENDER. Such adjectives may be of any gender, 
according to the gender of substantive. So 6 xadds, 7) Epnuos, Td 
xpnorov. This is no peculiarity of Greek alone, though it has its 
own development in the substantival use of the adjective. Indeed 
the participle was often used as a substantive. Thus 6 o7zelpwr 
(Mt. 13 : 3), 7yobuevos (Mt. 2:6). In Ph. 3:8 we have the parti- 
ciple used as a substantive with the genitive, ro brepexov Tijs yraoews. 
Cf. Lu. 16:1, ra trapxovra attod. So ro éuavtod cbudopov (1 Cor. 
10 : 33) where the adjective, like a substantive, has the genitive. 

(6) Witra MascuLinE AbsectTives. With masculine adjectives 
the substantives naturally suggest themselves out of the con- 
text or the nature of the case. Thus in Mt. 11:5, tuddol ava- 
Br€rovew Kal xwAol mepiratodow, kTrA. Cf. of ayo (1 Cor. 6: 2), 
auaptwrovs (1 Tim. 1:15), dcxaiov and 70d ayabotd (Ro. 5: 7), éxNexrav 
Geod (8 : 33), Tov aAnOwov (1 Jo. 5: 20), 6 aywos Tod Oeod (Jo. 6: 69) 
and probably rod zovnpod (Mt. 6:13). In Jas. 5:7, mpdtpov kat 
dyiuov, supply vevov. Sometimes only the context can determine 
the gender, as in Eph. 6:16; 1 Jo. 3:12). 

(c) WitH FEMININE ADJECTIVES. These are usually exam- 
ples of the ellipsis of 666s, xelp, v7, yuvn, Nuépa, yA@oou. I follow 
Blass* mainly in these examples. Thus y7 is responsible for the 
feminine gender in tiv énpay (Mt. 23:15; Heb. 11:29), 4 zepi- 
xwpos (Mt. 3:5), tHv dpewvny (Lu. 1:39), 7H Epjuw (Mt. 3:2), rijs 
oixovperns (Ro. 10:18), etc. In ék ris bad Tov obpavdy (Lu. 17 : 24) 
Blass prefers yepidos to ys and urges that we do not refine too 
sharply over é& évayrias (Mk. 15:39; Tit. 2:8). As examples of 
the influence of 666s note e’deias (Lu. 3:5), wolas (5:19), éxeivns 
(19:4). For xeip observe 7 apicrepd and 7 deEa (Mt. 6 : 3), & dea 
(Ro. 8 : 34), 77 de&aG (Ac. 2:33). But é& defdv (2:34) may be 
compared with eis 7a defa pepn (Jo. 21:6). The ellipsis of Ayépa is 
noticed by Blass in rf éxouévp (Lu. 13 : 33), 7H éxvotcy (Ac. 16 : 11), 

1 Lang. of the N. T., p. 91. 
2 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 414; K,-G., I, p. 266 f. 
¢ Blass, Gr. of N, T, Gk., p. 140. 4 Jb., p. 140 f. 





ADJECTIVES (’EILIOETA) 653 


TH érepa (20 : 15), rH Eratprov (Mt. 27: 62), 7H Tpiry (Lu. 13: 32), rijs 
+ €Bdouns (Heb. 4:4), 7H med rdv caBBatwy (Ac. 20:7), wéexpe ris 
anuepov (Mt. 11: 23), ad’ fs (2 Pet. 3:4), 7H é&fs (Ac. 21:1). But 
Blass rightly supplies ®pa with a¢’ js in Lu. 7:45, as with dias 
(Mt. 8 : 16), mpwias (Mt. 27:1). To conclude the list of feminine 
examples with 77 mveotvon (Ac. 27:40) supply aipa, with & 77 ‘E)- 
Anvuxj (Rev. 9:11) supply yAwoon (but cf. 7H "EBpatés diadéxrw, Ac. 
22 : 2), with woddas and oXlyas (Lu. 12 : 47 f.) supply mAnyas, with 
amo mids (Lu. 14:18) insert dws. But Kar’ idlay (Mk. 6:31) and 
idta (1 Cor. 12:11), though stereotyped, may refer to 656. Cf. 
also xara povas (Mk. 4 : 10) as an instance of 666s. So dnuocia (Ac. 
16 : 37). Words like cwrnpuos (Tit. 2:11), aiwmov (Jo. 6 : 47), ebre- 
piotatov (Heb. 12 : 1) are, of course, feminine, not masculine. See 
chapter on Declensions. 

(qd) Wirth tHE Neuter. The neuter furnishes a number of 
interesting examples. Thus zornpiov yuxpod (Mt. 10: 42), where 
Ydaros is referred to. So téwp is meant by 76 yAukd Kal 7d muxpdv 
(Jas. 3:11). With & devots (Jo. 20 : 12), one must insert iuarious 
as with év wadaxots (Mt. 11:8). Cf. ropdvpodty in Rev. 18: 16. 
With 70d dtorerods (Ac. 19:35) Blass! suggests ayaduaros, and with 
TO Tpitov THs yas (Rev. 8: 7) we must supply yépos (‘not classical,” 
Blass). Cf. els ro fepov (Mt. 21:23). In Mt. 6:18, a6 70d rovnpod, 
most likely 6.aGoXos is meant,? not mere evil. In Mt. 19:17 we 
have epi rod ayafod explained by 6 ayabds, though the American 
Standard Version gives it ‘that which is good.’ But cf. Ro. 5: 7. 
The number of these neuter adjectives used substantively in the 
N. T. is large and varied, but the older Greek shows abundant 
illustrations’ of the same thing, especially in philosophical discus- 
sions. With prepositions in particular we meet with this use of the 
neuter. Thus es 76 wécov (Jo. 20 : 19), &v 7B xput7g (Mt. 6 : 4), els 
gdavepov (Mk. 4 : 22), werd prxpov (Mt. 26 : 73), ev peow (Mt. 10 : 16), 
ev odtyw (Ac. 26 : 28), ev weyadw (26 : 29), wera Boaxt (Lu. 22 : 58), 
etc. Cf. eis adyaba (Jer. 24:6). Very common is the adverbial 
usage of this neuter like Bpayt (Ac. 5 : 34), wuxpov (Mt. 26 : 39), 
povov (Mt. 8:8), 76 mpdrov (Jo. 12: 16), but the adjective’s rela- 
tion to the adverb will receive special treatment. See x1. Cf. 7é 
ovtt. Sometimes the neuter singular was used in a collective sense 
for the sum total (cf. English ‘‘the all’’). Thus in Jo. 6 : 37, 39, 
may 6, 17:24 6, where persons are meant. The neuter plural is 


1 Ib., p. 141. 
2 So Rev. Vers. uniformly. Cf. Green, Handb. to Gk. N. T., p. 268. 
3 W.-Th., p. 235. 


654 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


common in this sense like 7a ravta (Col. 1: 16) where the universe 
is thus described. Cf. 7a 6vra and 7a mi dvra (1 Cor. 1:28). Bin 
the LXX (Helbing, p. 51) frequently has rév=7avra (ace. sing. 
masc.). (Cf. also Ps. of Sol. 3:10; 8: 23 V; Test. xii, Pat. Reub. 
1:10 av dprov, Gad 3:1 may vouov.) See also the common collec- 
tive neuter in the LX X (Thackeray, Grammar, p. 174 f.). Usually 
the neuter plural is concrete, however, as in ra dpara kai ddpara 
(Col. 1:16), where zavra is thus explained. Cf. 7a Babéa (Rev. 
2:24), dpxata (2 Cor. 5:17). In Ro. 1:20, as Winer! points 
out, Ta adpara makes more concrete 4} Te dtdvos divayis Kal evorns. 
But one must confess that in Eph. 3:10, év rots éroupavios, it is 
not clear what the idea is, whether places, things or relations. 
In Jo. 3:12 ériyea and ézovpavia seem to refer to truths. In 
1 Cor. 2:13, rvevparixots rvevuatixad ocurkpivortes, a like ambiguity 
exists, but the presence of Adyos inclines one to the notion that 
Paul is here combining spiritual ideas with spiritual words. The 
neuter singular with the article is very common for the expression 
of an abstract idea. One does not have to say that the adjective 
is here used instead of the abstract substantive, but merely as an 
abstract substantive. Cf. English “the beautiful and the good” 
with “beauty and goodness.” This is good ancient Greek. Cf. 
also in the papyri 76 dixaov Tb.P. 40 (B.c. 117) and (ib.) ra 
kaOynxovra. Winer? was troubled over 76 doxiucov ris riotews (1 Pet. 
1:7) and said that no such adjective existed and therefore this 
was a mere substantive. There was none in the lexica, but 
Deissmann? has found a number of instances of the adjective in 
the papyri. So xpuvcod doxiwiov, P.E.R. xii. 6 f. (93 a.p.), ‘good 
gold.’ One need not be troubled over 76 yrworov (Ro. 1:19) any 
more than over the other neuter adjectives. Cf. 7d xpnardv Tod 
Jeod (Ro. 2:4), 7d uwpov rod Geod and 76 dobevés rod Oeod (1 Cor. 1: 
25), TO dueraderov ths Bovrkns (Heb. 6:17), 7d EXadpov THs OAtWews 
(2 Cor. 4:17), 76 adtvarov Tod vouou (Ro. 8 : 3), 7d duvvardv aitod (9 : 
22). It is thus frequent with the genitive. Cf. also 76 kar’ ue 1pd- 
Ovyov (Ro. 1:15). See Heb. 7:7. In Lu. 12: 23, 4 wx mretov 
éoTi TiS Tpopns, We have w\elov because the abstract idea of thing 
is expressed. This also is a frequent Greek idiom. Cf. ovdév 
(1. Corn7i19) vols Contipes lO) sratra:CiCorao een): 

IV. Agreement of Adjectives with Substantives. 

(a) In NumsBer. It is not necessary to repeat what has been 

1 W.-Th., p. 235. Cf. lateness of the forms in -:xés (only two in Hom.). 


Hoffmann, Uber die Entw. des Begr. des Griech. bei den Alten, p. 2. In 1 
Tim. 5:17 note d&:rdjjs (from —éos). 2 Ib. soBan. preod ite 








ADJECTIVES (’EIIOETA) 655 


said on this subject in chapter X, vu, (b), on concord between 
adjective and substantive in number. The normal thing is for 
adjective and substantive to agree in number. But one must not 
get the idea that “construction according to sense’ of the gram- 
marians is an anomaly. ‘The term is unobjectionable, provided 
we remember that constructions according to the meaning are 
generally older than those in which meaning is overridden by 
idiom or grammatical analogy.’’! Thus there is no cause for as- 
tonishment in seeing ékOau8or with 6 dads in Ac. 8:11, nor rdAjOos 
xpatovtes in Ac. 21: 36. 

(6) In GENDER. For concord in gender see chapter X, VIIt. 
Here again the construction according to sense is normal like orpa- 
Tas ovpaviov aivovytwr (Lu. 2:13), but o’paviov in the same phrase 
is the feminine (cf. aiwvios, ete.). The N. T. does not have the 
Attic idiom with juovs of agreement with the gender of the gen- 
itive substantive, though it is still in the LXX. Cf. ras fyicers 
Trav auaptiav (Ezek. 16:51). Instead see ews quicous tis Baotdelas 
pov (Mk. 6 : 23). But airy and davyaory in Mt. 21:42 (Mk. 12 : 11) 
are probably due to the Hebrew nxt, the Hebrew using the fem- 
inine for abstract ideas, since it had no neuter. But even here in 
Ps. 117: 23 the context has cedadjv ywvias.2 One other remark is 
to be made which is that when an adjective occurs with more than 
one substantive it may agree with the gender of the nearest, as in 
Tacay 7odw Kat Torov (Lu. 10:1), be repeated with each, as in raca 
ddats ayabh kal wav dwpynya Tedrecov (Jas. 1:17) and éy zoia duvaye 7 
év rotw ovouate (Ac. 4:7), or agree with the masculine rather than 
the feminine or neuter, as in yuuvoi (Jas. 2:15). With the same 
gender there may be repetition (Mt. 4 : 23; 9:35) or not (Mt. 
Perro 1)? 

(c) IN Case. For concord in case see chapter X, rx. The main 
instances of variation here belong to the participle as in Ac. 15: 
22 f.), and in particular the Book of Revelation furnishes illustra- 
tions (Rev. 3 : 12, etc.), as already shown. 

(d) Two or More ApsectTIvES. When two or more adjectives 
occur together the conjunction may be used as in roa kal Bapea 
aitwwuara (Ac. 25:7) and even zoAdd kai a&dAda onueta (Jo. 20 : 30), 
as in Latin.? But see érépwv roddGv (Ac. 15 : 35) and the repetition 
of the adjective with the article (Rev. 2 : 12). 

V. The Attributive Adjective. The adjective (from adjaceo) 
is a word joined on to another (ériferov). The adjective is by no 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 118. 
2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 238; Moulton, Prol., p.59.  % Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 87. 


656 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


means the only attribute used with substantives. Thus the attri- 
bute may be substantive in apposition with another substantive, 
like 4vOpwrw oixodesroTy (Mt. 13 : 52), or a genitive, like 7 rod be0d 
uakpobuuta’ (1 Pet. 3:20), or an adverb, like ris avw kAnoews (Ph. 
3:14), or an adjunct, like 7 kar’ exoynv mpdbeots (Ro. 9: 11), or a 
pronoun, like 76 éudv dvoua (Mt. 18: 20).1 When the article is used 
before the adjective or participle it is, of course, attributive, as in 
6 kadrds (Jo. 10:11), & 7H rapovon adnOeia (2 Pet. 1:12). But ad- 
jectives and participles may be attributive when no article is 
used. Thus with orparids obpaviov (Lu. 2:18), téwp fav (Jo. 4:10. 
Cf. 76 vdwp 76 Hv in verse 11), wovoyerys eds (Jo. 1:18). The un- 
usual position of the attributive adjective, like 6 dxXos odds (Jo. 
12:9), where the substantive and adjective form “‘a composite 
idea” (Jebb, Soph. O. T., pp. 1199 ff.), may be illustrated from 
the papyri, O.P. 99, rijs brapxovons at7G unrpikis olkias TpioTeyou 
(Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154). Cf. also é« rs paratas tudv 
avactpopis matporapadorov (1 Pet. 1: 18), where, however, zarpo- 
mapaddtov may very well be predicate (see vi). Cf. French La 
République Francaise. 

VI. The Predicate Adjective. The adjective (like the par- 
ticiple) is common as a predicate, as is the substantive. Monro? 
considers the substantive in the predicate adjectival. Cf. pro- 
noun, adverb, etc. As examples note zodd\oi (Mk. 5:9), duola 
(Mt. 18:31), owrnpuos (Tit. 2:11), éroma (Lu. 14:17), Badd (Jo. 
4:11), out of many. But adjectives are predicate without a 
copula, as in Ti pe reyes ayabov (Mk. 10:18), 6 rounoas pe byrq 
(Jo. 5:11; cf. 7:23), adaravov Onow 76 ebayyedvov (1 Cor. 9: 18), 
peyadn TH duvy (Ac. 26:24), amapaBarov exe tHv lepwovvnv (Heb. 
7224). - CheMk.8 87a) Geb 35 el COL ls eee Sear 
of the verbal in —ros take aafyréds (Ac. 26:23) and yvrwordr 
(Ac. 4:10) with which last compare the attributive use in 
Ac. 4:16 yrwordyv onuetov. Cf. Mk. 3:1. As further interesting 
examples of the predicate adjective, note dros (Jo. 9:34), ddxcuor 
gavepuev (2 Cor. 13 : 7), byens (Mt. 12 : 13), rp&zos (Jo. 20 : 4), édpaitos 
(1 Cor. 7:37), dp0os (Ac. 14:10), pwovos (Lu. 24:18; ef. Mt. 14: 
_ 23), ete. Cf. drov in Lu. 13:21. The distinction between the 
attributive adjective and the predicate adjective lies in just this, 
that the predicate presents an additional statement, is indeed the 
main point, while the attributive is an incidental description of 
the substantive about which the statement is made. Cf. Ac. 4 : 10 
and 16 above for both uses of yrwaordv. Cf. rabras in Ac. 1:5. 

1 Cf. K.-G., Tipp? 268 ff: 4' Hom: Gr..p. 117. 


ADJECTIVES (‘EIIIOETA) 657 


This distinct predication! with the adjective in an oblique case is 
seen in todro adnbes elpnxas (Jo. 4:18) and is a classical idiom.? 
Note the use of zavra as predicate for 6 6eds in 1 Cor. 15: 28 as 
with Xprords in Col. 3: 11 for the totality of things. 

VII. Adjective Rather than Adverb. See ch. XII, rx, for dis- 
cussion of this subject. A few items are added here. Cf. rpd&ros 
Mwvofs ever (Ro. 10:19), ‘Moses is the first who says,’ with 
mpa@tov drardaynOe TO a6eAPG cov (Mt. 5: 24), ‘Be reconciled with 
thy brother as the first thing that you do.’ In Mt. 10 : 2 rp&ros 
DYivwy means that first in the list is Simon, whereas zpGrop, in Jo. 
1:41, means that Andrew finds his brother Simon as the first 
thing which he does. IIp&rov ixéiv (Mt. 17: 27) means the first 
fish that came up. Cf. & éuol rpwrw (1 Tim. 1: 16), ‘me as chief.’ 
The exact idea of rpwrn in Lu. 2 : 2 is not certain, but most prob- 
ably Luke’s idea is that there were two enrolments under Cyrenius. 
Cf. Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? With povos and 
povov a like distinction is to be observed. Take dveywpnoev radu 
eis TO Opos avtos povos (Jo. 6:15) and od povos raporxets ’lepovoadhu 
(Lu. 24:18). The difference is much like that between the Eng- 
lish ‘‘alone” and “only.” So in Lu. 9:36, ebpé0n "Incods podvos, 
‘Jesus was found alone,’ and in Mt. 17:8 (cf. Mk. 9: 8), ovd&a 
eldov ef py adrov "Incody pdvov, it is adjective; not adverb. Cf. 
ovx eiui povos (Jo. 16 : 32) with od povoyv in Ac. 21:18. Cf. 2 Jo. 
1. Contrast uovoy in Mt. 8 : 8 with povos in Mt. 14:23. There are 
some examples where either adverb or adjective would make good 
sense,’ as in Mk. 6:8, under ei py paBdov wovov, where D reads porny; 
Ac. 11:19, undevi ei uy povor ’Lovéaiors, where D has povors; and 1 Jo. 
5:6, ovk év TS VOaTe povov, where B reads povw. But this is not all. 
The Greek often uses an adjective where other languages prefer 
adverbs or prepositional phrases. Latin and English have similar 
expressions for other ideas.4. Naturally this idiom is common in 
Homer.® For time note devrepator iOouev (Ac. 28 : 13), ‘we came 
second-day men’ (‘on the second day’). Cf. rerapratos Jo. 11: 
39. D has likewise weurrato in Ac. 20:6. So yevouevar opOpiwat 
él TO pvnuetov (Lu. 24:22), ériarH epvidios (Lu. 21:34), a’Oaiperos 
(2 Cor. 8:17), dxranuepos (Ph. 3:5). 

VIII. The Personal Construction. This matter belongs more 
properly to indirect discourse and the participle, but it calls for 


1 Monro, ib., p. 119. Paley 

Sess ot Ol Nees Crk. 141. 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 89. 

5 Seymour, Hom. Lang. and Verse, p. 79. On the relation between adj. 
and adv. see Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 416 f.; Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 40 f. 


658 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


just a word here. The Greeks were more fond of the personal 
construction than we English are. Farrar! indeed doubts if Greek 
has a true impersonal verb. But éyévero in a passage like Lu. 1:8 
comes close to it. Cf. Lu. 1:23. We have fewer examples in the 
N. T. of the personal construction, none in truth with either 67Xos 
(1 Cor. 15 : 27 is impersonal construction) or with davepds. But 
we do have ¢avepobpevor bre éoré EmtotoA} Xpiotod (2 Cor. 3:38). 
Cf. Xpuoros xnpbooerac bre in 1 Cor. 15:12. Note also aéos iva 
iow (Jo. 1:27), but the impersonal construction is found with 
dixacov in Ph. 1:7. See also ixavds va in Mt. 8:8. Avvards oc- 
curs with the infinitive (2 Tim. 1:12). This personal construction 
is probably due to assimilation of gender by analogy.? Cf. doxe? 
copes etvat (1 Cor. 3:18), perfectly regular predicate nominative. 
See good example in 1 Cor. 15:9. 

Ix. Adjectives Used with Cases. Examples were given under 
the various oblique cases of adjectives that were construed with 
the several cases. A mere mention of the matter is all that is re- 
quired here. Thus the genitive appears with évoxos davarou (Mt. 
26 : 66), the ablative with f€vor T&v dvabyxav (Eph. 2 : 12), the da- 
tive (Mt. 20:1) and accusative with déyo.os viov avOpmmrov (Rev. 
14 : 14), the acc. with micrds Ta rpos tov Oedv (Heb. 2 : 17), the da- 
tive with évoyos rH Kpice. (Mt. 5:21) and xadov coi éorw (Mt. 18: 
8), the instrumental with icous qutv (Mt. 20 : 12), the locative with 
Bpadets TH xapdia (Lu. 24:25). Cf. locative in Col. 2:13f. The 
adjective is, of course, used with various prepositions, as 76 ayabov 
mpos tavtas (Gal. 6:10), rioros ev EXaxiorw (Lu. 16 : 10), deeat eis 
opynv (Jas. 1:19). 

X. Adjectives with the Infinitive and Clauses. If cases can 
occur with adjectives, it is natural that the verbal substantive 
known as the infinitive should come within that idiom and be in 
a case. The case of the infinitive will vary with the adjective. 
Thus in @éos xdAnOqvar (Lu. 15: 19) the infinitive is probably in 
the genitive case. Cf. also a£&tos tva Vow (Jo. 1:27). With duvaros 
kwrdoat (Ac. 11:17) we have the accusative of general reference. 
In the case of tkavos Bacracar (Mt. 3:11) we may see either the 
accusative of general reference, as above, or the dative, according 
to the original idea of the form and the common case with ixavés. 
Cf. also tkavos tva eicéNns (Mt. 8:8). The instances of both in- 
finitive and tva are numerous in the N. T. As specimens of the 
infinitive and preposition after the adjective, take raxvs eis 76 
akodoar, Bpad’s eis 7d AadAfoa (Jas. 1:19). Indeed the genitive 

1 Gk. Synt., p. 89. 2 Middleton, Anal. in Synt., p. 15. 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIOETA) 659 


article rob with the infinitive occurs with adjectives where it would 
not naturally be looked for, as in érocuot eopev Tod avenety (Ac. 23: 15). 
Cf. érowuos eiur topebecOar (Lu. 22:33). But see further Bpade?s 70d 
muoreve (Lu. 24: 25). 

XI. The Adjective as Adverb. This subject has been treated 
in the chapter on the Cases as well as in the one on Adverbs. 
Hence a few words will suffice here. The border line between ad- 
jective in the nominative and adverb gets very dim sometimes. 
Thus in English we say “I am well,” “He spoke well.” Farrar! 
even says that it is “‘more correct”’ to use an adverb than an ad- 
jective in a phrase like écpevos buds efdov. But that is going too far 
even if we call it antimeria. He quotes Milton (Par. Lost, vii, 161), 
‘Meanwhile inhabit lax,” and Shakespeare (Taming of Shrew, I, 
i, 89), “Thou didst it excellent.’”’ We can see the difference be- 
tween avacrnht dphos (Ac. 14:10) and dp6as expwas (Lu. 7 : 48). 
But, as already observed, the difference between pdvoy and pdr 
grows faint in 1 Jo. 5:6 and similar examples. Hence it becomes 
very easy for the adjective form in the accusative to be used 
indiscriminately as adverb where the adjective idea disappears. 
Thus only the context can tell whether povoy is adjective (Jo. 
8 : 29) or adverb (Gal. 1 : 23).. So as to pexpdv (Jo. 7: 33 and 16: 
19), wodd (Lu. 12:48 and Ro. 3:2), ddiyor (Mk. 1:19), ete. 
IIp&rov, for instance, is very common as an adverb (cf. Mt. 7:5, 
and even 76 prov is found, Jo. 10 : 40), but mpwtws occurs only 
once (Ac. 11: 26). It is needless to multiply here examples like 
these. Other cases are used besides the accusative to make ad- 
verbs from adjectives, as the ablative in zpwrws above, the geni- 
tive as ouod (Jo. 4:36), the associative-instrumental as dnyocia 
(Ac. 16:37). Cf. wo\Xd (Ro. 5:9). All degrees of comparison 
furnish adverbs, thus vod’ (Ro. 3:2; 2 Cor. 8: 22), rdéov (Jo. 21: 
15), wadtora (Ac. 20:38). The accusative singular of the com- 
parative is the common adverb of that degree as mepiccdrepov 
(Heb. 7:15), but see mepiccorépws (2 Cor. 1:12). In the super- 
lative both the singular as rpérov (Lu. 6:42) and the plural as 
uaduora (above). These examples sufficiently illustrate the prin- 
ciples involved. 

XII. The Positive Adjective. 

(a) RELATIVE Contrast. In discussing the positive adjective 
first one must not get the idea that the positive was originally 
the absolute idea of the adjective as distinct from the compara- 
tive or superlative. This notion of absolute goodness or great- 

1 Gk. Synt., p. 90. 


660 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ness, etc., is itself later than the notion of comparison.!. Indeed 
the adjective itself has a relative sense and suggests the opposite, 
as light implies darkness. And then many of the oldest com- 
parative forms have no positive at all and never did have, like 
auporepos, apiaTepos, BEATEpos, SevTEpos, etc. More of this under the 
comparative. The point to get hold of just here is that the ad- 
jective per se (like many other words) implies contrast, and that 
originally this is what the comparative form meant. Thus in 
Homer some comparatives in —7epos have no notion of greater or 
less degree, the idea of duality, but merely contrast, like 6nAvrépa 
as opposed to male, dpéarepos as opposed to valley, aprarepds op- 
posed to right, de€irepos opposed to left, nuerepos opposed to buerepos 
and vice versa.2 Cf. the comparative idea (and ablative case after) 
In 76 Tepicoov TovTwy (Mt. 5 : 37). 

(6) USED AS COMPARATIVE OR SUPERLATIVE. With this no- 
tion of the relative contrast in the adjective and the first use of 
the comparative one is not surprised to find the positive still used 
alongside of the comparative. In Lu. 1 : 42, etAoynuern od & y- 
vartiv, we do not have a mere Hebraism, though a very natural 
one in this translation from the Aramaic talk of Elizabeth. The 
Hebrew has no degrees of comparison at all and has to resort to 
circumlocutions.2 But Homer and other early Greek writers show 
a similar idiom, like 6ta Oeawv, Sta yuvarxév (Eurip., Alc., 471).4 
Other examples occur in the N. T., like ayia ayiwy (Heb. 9:2 f., 
frequent in the LX X), roia évroA} peyadyn ev 7S vouw (Mt. 22 : 36). 
Cf. Bacirels Baordewy (Rev. 19 : 16), xbpros rv Kkvprevdvrwy (1 Tim. 
6:15), rod aiavos r&év aiwvev (Eph. 3:21). The vernacular xow7 
uses repetition of the adjective, as in peydadou peyador, B.U. I, 229, 
peyadov xkal peyadwy ayabav, Inscription of Thera (Herm. 1901, 
p. 445), Oepua Oepya, Herondas IV, 61. Cf. Radermacher, JN. T. 
Gr., p. 57. The positive suggests contrast clearly in rév wod\dOv 
(Mt. 24:12). Cf. of woddAot in Ro. 5:15, 19; 1 Cor. 10:33. Here 
the majority is the idea, a comparative notion. Cf. Paul’s use of 
tovs melovas (1 Cor. 9:19) and Matthew’s 6 mXetaros dbyXos (21: 8). 
See also Mk. 12: 37 6 wodds bxdos and Lu. 7: 11 dxXos odds, and in 
2 Cor. 8:15 76 rodt and 76 odiyov. Hence it is not surprising in 
Lu. 16:10 to see é é\axiorw and év roddG side by side (cf. & ddtyw 
kal €v weyadw in Ac. 26:29), as in Mt. 5:19 also €&dyuoros and 


1 Cf. Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, 1893, p. 7 f. 
2 Seymour, Hom. Lang. and Verse, p. 60. Cf. K.-G., II, p. 21. 
3 C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 64. 

* Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, p. 9, 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIOETA) 661 


peyas are set over against each other. Cf. also Mt. 22:38. In 
Ac. 26 : 24, ra moda Ypduyata, we have an implied comparison.! 

(c) WitH Prepositions. ‘The positive may be used with prep- 
ositions also where comparison is implied. Thus duaprwrot rapa 
mavtas Tovs T'advAatous (Lu. 13:2). Winer? properly compares this 
idiom with the use of ws in Heb. 3: 2, for in the next verse the 
author uses zAetovos 60&ns as the sense of verse 2. But in the LX X 
this is a very common idiom? and it is found in the classical Greek. 
The correct text in Lu. 18:14 (NBL) has also dedctkawwpyévos rap’ 
éxecvov. Cf. &&a mpds in Ro. 8: 18. 

(d) ComMpaRIsSON IMPLIED BY 7. Once more the positive may 
occur with 7. It is not necessary, in view of the preceding dis- 
cussion, to suggest the “omission” of waddov.* It is true that we 
have only one such example in the N. T., xadov cot ecru eicedbetv 
7 BAnOjvac (Mt. 18:8). Cf. Mk. 9:48, 45. But the LXX again 
furnishes many illustrations? like \evxol 7 (Gen. 49:12). The ancient 
Greek also is not without parallels. And there are N. T. examples, 
as in LXX, of verbs so employed like #é\w 7 (1 Cor. 14:19) and 
Avottedec # (Lu. 17:2) and substantives as xapa éorar } (Liu. 15: 
7). Older Greek writers show this idiom with substantives and 
verbs.2 In Mt. 18:8 we have the positive adjective both before 
and after 7 as xvA\ov 7 xwdov. But cf. 2 Tim. 3:4 for compara- 
tive before and positive after. 

(e) IN ABSOLUTE SENSE. After the three grades of comparison 
were once established, analogy worked to form and use positive, 
comparative and superlative. And sometimes the positive oc- 
curs in the absolute sense. So we find Christ discussing the ab- 
solute meaning of the positive ayaos in Mt. 19 : 17 (Mk. 10: 18). 
Thus it comes to pass that sometimes the positive is more abso- 
lute than comparative or superlative which are relative of neces- 
sity. God is alone éya6és in this sense, while others are BeArloves 
and BeAtioro. Our God, 6 ayabds feds, is higher in ideal and fact 
than Jupiter Maximus or Zev’s dpiotos 76€ weytoros.” Of xaddos the 
opposite is od kadds and this is not the positive attribute alcxpos. 
-In Mt. 17:4 we find Peter saying fervently xadov éorw quads ade 
etvat. ‘The positive represents the highest absolute idea of a 
quality and cannot therefore be increased.”’ ® 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 148. 

2 W.-Th., p. 240. $C. and S., p. 64. 

4 Though Blass does, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 143. 

5 C. and S., p. 64; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p..143; W.-Th., p. 241. 

6 W.-Th., p.240f. 7 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Hefti, p.9.° *& Ib., p. 19. 


662 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


XIII. The Comparative Adjective (ovykptTiKov Gvopa). 

(a) ConTRAST OR Duatity. On the forms see chapter VII, n, 
3. As already observed, the first use of the comparative form 
was to express contrast or duality.!. This is clear in 7 dprorepa 
(Mt. 6:3), though 7 de&a& occurs in the same verse. But Homer 
uses de£irepos as comparative. Cf. also duddrepos, huéTepos, buere- 
pos, €Tepos, éxkaTEpos, dmoTEpos, TOTEpos, Where the notion of two is 
accentuated. Contrast between two or duality, therefore, is clear 
in these pronouns. They will receive separate treatment later. 
Here they are merely used to illustrate the origin of the compara- 
tive form. ”AdXos (Latin alius) is also comparative,” *&d-1os. So 
is de£-cds*? which explains the disappearance of defirepos. One of 
the comparative endings is —.os. This leads one to remark that 
the oldest comparative forms are not formed from positives as 
such, but from their own roots. Thus é6evrepos, which is obviously 
comparative and expresses duality, has no positive form. Cf. 
audotepos and the examples just mentioned.? This original com- 
parative need not be formed from an adjective at all, but from a 
substantive like Bao.devrepos, xbytepos, etc., in Homer where the 
comparative expresses the possession of the quality “in contra- 
distinction to objects which are without it’? (Monro, Homeric Gr., 
_ p. 82). So apdrepos (from the adverb pd) is not ‘more forward,’ 
but ‘forward’ in opposition to torepos, ‘backward.’ Cf. Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr., p. 415. Cf. edretepos, ‘free to come.’ So é&wrepos 
is ‘outside,’ not ‘more outside.’ These oldest forms represent 
the original meaning which was not the comparison of greater 
or less, not a matter of degree, but a question of contrast or 
duality. So Bédrepos, aueitywy have no positive forms. There is 
indeed a distinct weakening of this original duality in adjectives 
as in pronouns.’ Cf. the dropping of the dual endings. Thus in 
the N.T. zpérepos as an adjective occurs only once, xara rH rporépay 
avactpopnv (Eph. 4:22). It is rare in the papyri (Moulton, Prol., 
p. 79). Elsewhere zp&ros holds the field when only two objects 
or persons are in view, like mp&7rés pov (Jo. 1:15), rpadros and 
&\dos (20 : 4), ete. Cf. our ‘first story’ when only two stories are 
contemplated, ‘first volume,’ etc. And as an adverb zpérepoy sur- 
vives only ten times (cf. 2 Cor. 1:15), while rpérov is very com- 


1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 77 ff. 2 Brug., Grundr. vergl. Gr., II, i, p. 420. 
8 Ib. Transl. (Comp. Gr.), vol. IT, p. 132. 

4 Schwab, Hist. Synt. d. griech. Comp., Heft i, p. 5. 

5 Tb., pp. 4 ff. 

86 Moulton, Prol., p. 77 f.; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439; 1903, p. 154. 


; 





ADJECTIVES (’EMIOETA) 663 


mon. Luke does not use mporepos (adjective or adverb) so that 
mp@ros in Ac. 1:1 with ddyos does not imply rpiros. Moulton! 
finds rporepos only once in the Grenfell-Hunt volumes of papyri so 
that this dual form vanishes before the superlative ztpéros. Winer 
(Winer-Thayer, p. 244) sees this matter rightly and calls it a 
Latin point of view to insist on “‘former”’ and “latter” in Greek, 
a thing that the ancients did not do. 

(b) Drarer. The next step was for the notion of degree to 
come into the comparative. The notion of “‘two-ness’”’ remained, 
but it had the added idea of more in degree. They run along 
then parallel with each other. The comparative form, therefore, 
has two ideas, that of contrast or duality (Gegensatz) and of the 
relative comparative (Steigerung), though the first was the origi- 
nal.?. Relative comparison is, of course, the dominant idea in 
most of the N. T. examples, though, as already remarked, the 
notion of duality always les in the background. Thus davexrorepov 
éotat (Mt. 10:15), BeBardrepov (2 Pet. 1:19), eis 7d Kpetooov (1 Cor. 
11:17), codwrepov and ioxvpdrepov (1 Cor. 1:25). 

(c) WitHouT SuFFIxEs. But the comparative did not always 
use the comparative suffixes, though this was usual. Sometimes 
paddov was employed with the positive, though this idiom is not 
very frequent in the N. T. Thus we find paddov with xados (Mk. 
9 : 42), with paxaprov (Ac. 20:35), with dvayxata (1 Cor. 12 : 22), 
with woAd\éd (Gal. 4:27). Once indeed (2 Tim. 3:4) paddor oc- 
curs with one adjective before 7 and not with the other after 7. 
The Greeks preferred to put both qualities in the comparative 
degree when two adjectives were compared.? But here we have 
pirndovor uaddov % diddder. ‘In Jo. 3:19 waddov — 7 is used with 
two substantives” (H. Scott). In Phil. 16 we have a distinc- 
tion drawn between padtora and paddov with adeddhov ayarnrov. No 
example occurs in the N. T. of two comparatives with 74, but in 


Ro. 9:12 we have 6 pelfwy dovdeboe 7S EXdooorr and in Heb. 1:4, 


TOTOUTY KpElTTWY YEvOuEVos b60q StapopwTeEpor. 

(d) DouBLE COMPARISON. Sometimes indeed paddov occurs 
with the comparative form itself. This applies to adjectives and 
adverbs. Thus paddov repiccdrepov (Mk. 7: 36), repuscoreépws uaddov 
(2 Cor. 7:13). Cf. ére waddov kai waddov (Ph. 1:9), wrepicodrepov 
ért xatadndov (Heb. 7:15). Recall also the double comparative 
form like vernacular English “lesser,” wecforepay (3 Jo. 4), and the 
comparative on the superlative é\axvororepos (Eph. 3:8. It oc- 


Se Proly De 9: 
2 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft 1, p. 21 f. 3 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 42. 


664 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


curs in Test. xii, Pat. Jos. 17:8). All this is due to the fading 
of the force of the comparative suffix and the desire for em- 
phasis. Homer has xevpdrepos, Adschylus pevfovwrepos and btzepre- 
pwrepos, Xenophon écxarwrepos, Aristophanes mporepaitepos. Cf. 
Schwab, Hist. Syntax etc., Heft iii, p. 60. Modern Greek verna- 
cular has rdedrepos and yeporepos. The papyri give illustrations 
like azpeoBurepwrépa (Moulton, Prol., p. 236). Cf. Latin double 
comparative dex-ter-or, sinis-ter-ior. See list in Jannaris, Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 147. This double comparative is due to analogy and 
weakened sense of the form (Middleton, Analogy in Syntax, p. 38). 
Other means of strengthening the comparative were the accusa- 
tive adverb zodv, as in Heb. 12:9, 25 (cf. 2 Cor. 8 : 22), and in 
- particular the instrumental 7zod\\G, as in Lu. 18:39. In 1 Cor. 
12 :22 we have woAXG uaddov Over against acbeveorepa. But in 
Ph. 1:23 note aoA\G paddov Kpetcoov where all this emphasis is 
due to Paul’s struggling emotion. The ancient Greek used all 
these devices very often. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax, etc., Heft 
iii, pp. 59 ff. Blass (Gr. of N. T’. Gk., p. 143) rightly observes that 
in 2 Cor. 12:9 févcTa waddXov are not to be taken together. The 
older Greek used also peya and yaxpd to strengthen the comparison. 
Cf. Mayer, Verstdrkung, Umschreibung und Entwertung der Com- 
parationsgrade in der dlteren Grdcitdt, 1891, p. 16 f. 

(e) WirHouT OBJECT OF COMPARISON. Sometimes the com- 
parative form is used absolutely. It is beside the mark to say 
with Clyde! that this idiom occurs “through politeness for the 
positive.”’ It is not used for the positive. It is true that no ob- 
ject of comparison is expressed, but that is because the context 
makes the point perfectly clear. -In rapid familiar conversation 
this would often be true. Blass? also thinks that sometimes the 
comparative is no more than a positive. Winer* more justly holds 
that the point of comparison may ‘ordinarily be gathered from 
the context.’”’ The point is always in the context. Thus 6 govets 
Toinoov taxeov (Jo. 18:27) may mean more quickly than Judas 
would have done but for the exposure. Note that this is a con- 
versation and Judas would understand. In Heb. 13:19 zepiccore- 
pws and raxevov correspond easily, and in verse 23, éav Taxevov Epxnrat, 
perhaps it means ‘if he come before I leave.’ None of the examples 
of Blass are convincing, for rpecBirepos, though used of an official, 
is one who is older (elder) as compared with vewrepos, and the bishop 
is not to be a neophyte (1 Tim. 3:6). The point, of course, lies 


1 Gk. Synt., p. 41. 
2°Gr. of INL MGke pee: 3 W.-Th., p. 242. 


ADJECTIVES (‘EIIOETA) 665 


more in length of experience than of age. Deissmann (B. S., p. 
154 f.) finds in the papyri 6 rpecBirepos 6 kwuns, an Official title. 
Pap. Lugd. A, 35 f. (Ptol. Per.). In Ac. 17: 21 xawwdrepov means, 
of course, something newer than what they had recently heard. 
Socrates said to Hippocrates when he came in (Plato, Protagoras 
309 C): un te vewrepov ayyeddes; Then again, in Ac. 17: 22, deo- 
datuoveorepous is more religious (or superstitious, as the case may be, 
a matter for exegesis. I prefer religious) than ordinary or than I 
had supposed. One does not need to deny the ‘‘elative’’ compara- 
tive sense of “‘very’’! here and elsewhere. The elative compa- 
rative is still comparative. But Blass? denies even the elative 
comparative in a number of these examples. This is to a certain 
extent to surrender to translation the true interpretation of the 
Greek idiom. In Ac. 18:26 dkpiBécrepov e¢fevro teaches that 
Apollos received more accurate information than he had previously 
had. Cf. é£eracOnoerat rept tovrov axpiBecrepov, B.U. 388 (11/A.D.). 
Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 489. So in Ac. 24:22 axpiBéorepov 
eldws Means that Felix more accurately than one would suppose, 
and in verse 26 zuxvotepov shows that he sent for Paul more fre- 
quently than he had been doing before. Ac. 25:10 xadXvov érryt- 
ywokers 1S an interesting example. Paul hints that Festus knows 
his innocence better than he is willing to admit. Cf. BédXriov od 
ywookes (2 Tim.1:18), ‘better than I.’ BeAviwy occurs in the papyri 
as adjective, though not in the N. T. Thus one could go through 
all the rather numerous examples of elative comparative adjectives 
and adverbs in the N. T. and show that with proper attention 
to the context the point of comparison appears plainly enough. 
The comparative even without the expressed object of comparison 
is not just the positive. So in Ac. 27:13 docov rapedeyorro clearly 
means ‘nearer than they could do before’ (cf. tapadeyouevor in verse 
8). Again in Jo. 4:52 xouorepov éoxev (note the construction) is 
‘better than before the word of Christ was spoken.’ As further 
illustrations, not to overdo the point, note waddov in 2 Cor. 7:7 
(cf. Ph. 1 : 12), crovdatdrepos in 2 Cor. 8: 17 (cf. 2 Tim. 1 : 17) and 
arovdatotépws in Ph. 2 : 28 (cf. 1 Th. 2:17), toAunporépws (Ro. 15: 
15), wetfoves (2 Pet. 2:11), ckarwrepa in Eph. 4:9. The common 
expression of m\elous (Ac. 19:32), and rods rdelovas (1 Cor. 9 : 19) 
for ‘the majority’ should occasion no difficulty. In free trans- 
lation one may sometimes use ‘very’ or ‘rather,’ but this is 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 236. He notes some “‘elative comparatives” in D, 


in Ac. 4:16 davepérepov, 10 : 28 Bédriov. 
ase Of Ne L..GE p42: 


666 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


merely the resultant idea. Cf. érépors Aoyous wAeloow (Ac. 2: 40). 
The older Greek shows this idiom.! 

(f) FoLLowEp By 7 This # is merely the disjunctive conjunc- 
tion. But 4 isnot common in the N. T. in this connection. Indeed 
Blass? considers that it does not occur where any other construc- 
tion would be perfectly clear. As is well known in the ancient 
Greek, 7 is not common after wAelwy and éAarTwy with numerals. 
This use of the comparative as a mere parenthesis is in the papyri. 
Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 488. O.P. 274 (1/A.D.) rreiw rHxets 
evvea. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Syntax, Heft ii, pp. 84 ff. Cf. also 
éravw in Mk. 14:5 and 1 Cor. 15 : 6, where it has no effect on the 
construction. In Mt. 5:20 there is an ellipsis (rAetov trav Pap.), 
‘than that of the Pharisees.’ So in Mt. 26 : 53 mdelw dwdexa NeyiO- 
vas occurs with no change in the case of Aeyidvas. In Ac. 4 : 22; 
23 : 138; 24:11 likewise 7 is absent without change of case. So in 
Ac. 25 : 6 ob mXelous 6x7 4 6éxa, for 7 here does not go with mXelovs. 
But in Lu. 9:13 we do find ovk eiciv july wrelov 7 Apro erTe. 
And in 1 Tim. 5:9 the ablative construction occurs. In justifi- 
cation of Blass’ point? above, he points out that with two adjec- 
tives we have 7 (2 Tim. 3:4); with a conjunction, as éyytrepor 7} 
dre (Ro. 13 : 11); with an infinitive, ev’xorwrepov eiceNOety 7 (eicedOetv 
to be repeated, Mt. 19:24. Cf. Ac. 20:35); with a genitive 
(same form as the ablative would be if 7 were absent), like tudv 
axovey uaddov 7} TOD Beod (Ac. 4:19); with a dative, like avexrérepov 
YH Loddouwy H 7H wore exeivn (Mt. 10:15). These are all pertinent 
and striking examples. There remain others (against Blass’ view) 
which are not so justified, like w\eiovas pabnras rove? 7 *Iwavns 
(Jo. 4:1), nyarnoay paddov 76 oKxoTos 7} TO dds (Jo. 3:19), ete. 
But it remains true that 7 is becoming rare in this usage in the 
INeLe 

(g) FoLLOWED BY THE ABLATIVE. The ablative is the most 
common means of expressing the standard of the comparison: so 
we must take the case, and not as genitive. As remarked in the 
chapter on the cases, this ablative construction seems rather more 
common in the N. T. than in the papyri. It is found in Homer. 
In the old Sanskrit the ablative was found with comparatives,® 
though occasionally the locative or the instrumental appeared. 


1 Schwab, Hist. Synt. etc., Heft ii, p. 178; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 148. 
2° Gr. OLIN, sles GKe rp alu aes 

3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 316, sustains him. 

4 Monro, Hom., Gr., p. 109. 

5 Ziemer, Vergl. Synt. der Indoger. Comp., 1884, pp. 29 ff. 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIOETA) 667 


Indeed the various constructions after the comparative (particle 
like 4, case, preposition) occur in the other Indo-Germanic lan- 
guages.1 Schwab? estimates that in Attic prose the ablative after 
the comparative stands in relation to # as 5.5 to 1 and in poetry 
18 tol. Blass* thinks that in the xowy the ablative is three times 
as common in this idiom as in Attic prose. So in the N. T. this 
is the usual construction after the comparative. As further ex- 
amples observe peifwy robrwy (Mk. 12:31), weifwr rod rarpos Huav 
(Jo. 4:12), md€ov totrav (Jo. 21:15), codwrepov trav avOpwrwv 
(1 Cor. 1:25), etc. Cf. 1 Jo. 3:20; Heb. 7:26. Sometimes the 
comparison is a little complicated, as in Mt. 5:20, tuav % dixaro- 
obtvn TrElov TEV Ypaypatéwv, Where ‘righteousness’ is dropped in the 
second member. Note rdeloy as a fixed or stereotyped form. Cf. 
also Jo.5:36. In Mt. 21:36, d&ddous dotdAous reiovas TSv rpwrwr, 
note the use of comparative and superlative side by side. 

(h) FoLLOWED BY PREPOSITIONS. Prepositions occur not in- 
frequently after the comparative. We have already seen the 
positive so used with apa, and zpos. Wellhausen® considers this 
positive use like the Aramaic. In the classical Greek we see begin- 
nings of this usage. In the modern Greek, the normal’ way of 
expressing comparison is to usé 476 with the accusative and occa- 
sionally wapa with the nominative. The examples of the use of 
mapa are chiefly in Luke and Hebrews. Thus Lu. 3 : 13, undév rrEov 
Tapa TO dtateraypevoyv buiv; Heb. 1:4, duadopwrepov rap’ adrovs; 3 : 3, 
mretovos d0&ns rapa Mavojv; 9 : 23, kpeitroor Ovaiats mapa tav’tas. So 
Heb. 11:4; 12:24. Examples of bzép in this sense occur likewise 
in Lu. 16:8, dpoviuwrepor brép Tovs viols; Heb. 4:12, rouwrepos brép 
macav paxarpay. In the LX X® comparison was usually completed 
by means of zapa or breép. 

(1) THE COMPARATIVE DISPLACING THE SUPERLATIVE. This 
increase of the comparative in contrast to the corresponding de- 
crease of the superlative is one of the most striking peculiarities of 
the adjective in the xown. Indeed one may broadly say with Blass,° 
that in the xow7 vernacular the comparative with the article takes 


PeLGrpeeL: 2 Hist. Synt. etc., Heft ii, p. 92. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 8329. The abl. is sometimes used with personal pro- 
nouns after the comp. in mod. Gk. (Thumb, p. 76). 4 Blass, ib., p. 108. 

5 Hinl. in die drei ersten Evang., p. 28. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 236. 

§ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 108. 7 Thumb, Handb., p. 75 f. 

8 C. and S., Sel., pp. 84ff. For various prepositions so used in older Gk. 
see Schwab., Hist. Synt., Heft i, pp. 45 ff. 

9 Hermeneutik und Kritik, p. 199. 


668 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


over the peculiar functions of the superlative. In the modern 
Greek vernacular the comparative with the definite article is the 
only idiom employed for the true superlative.!.| The form in —rartos 
in modern Greek is rare and always elative. Moulton? finds the 
papyri supporting this disappearance of the superlative form be- 
fore the comparative to a certain extent. “It seems fair to con- 
clude that (1) the superlative, apart from its elative use, was 
dying, though not dead; (2) the comparative had only sporadically 
begun to be used in its place.’’? He reminds us that the literary 
use had as much weight as the vulgar idiom. As a matter of fact 
the superlative form is not essentially necessary. The Armenian 
has no superlative and is like the vernacular modern Greek. The 
root-difference between the comparative and the superlative is that 
between ‘‘twoness” and “moreness.’’ As the notion of duality 
vanished or was no longer stressed, the need for a distinction be- 
tween the comparative and superlative vanished also. Both are 
in reality comparative in relation to the positive. In the N. T. 
therefore we see this blurring of distinction between comparative 
and superlative. Cf. 1 Cor. 13:13 petfwy 6€ robrwy 7 ayarn where 
three things are compared. In English we say ‘“‘greatest of these.” 
Sir W. M. Ramsay gives ravrwy wetfov in a Christian inscription.® 
In Mt. 18:1 we have Tis dpa peifwv, ete. Cf. Mk. 9:34. So in 
Mt. 11:11 (cf. Lu. 9 : 48) note 6 6€ wxporepos (but note also peitwr 
avrov). In Lu. 7:42 f., wdetov and 76 wXe?ov do indeed refer to the 
two debtors (verse 41), though it is questionable if that fine point 
is here insisted on. But in 1 Cor. 12 : 23 the comparatives have 
their usual force. Moulton® cites from O.P. 716 (i1/A.D.) ri dpel- 
vova aipecw d.ddvrt, ‘to the highest bidder.’ Winer’ indeed finds 
similar examples in Demosthenes and Athenagoras. Note the 
adverb torepov ravtwv (Mt. 22:27), obviously as superlative. So 
in 1 Tim. 4 : 1, & borépors karpots. In Eph. 4:9, 7a xarwrepa pépn is 
likewise in the superlative sense. The Epistle of Barnabas shows 
similar examples. Blass* reminds us that the Italian does not dis- 
tinguish between the comparative and the superlative. The mod- 
ern Greek to-day says 6 codwrepos ard ddous ‘the wisest of all.’ ® 

1 Thumb, Handb., p. 73. 

2 Prol., p. 78; Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 489; 1904, p. 154. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk.,'p. 33: 

3 Ib., Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439. Cf. Schwab, Hist. Synt. ete., Heft ii, pp. 172, 


ATi 4 Ib., Heft i, pp. 17 ff. 
5 Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, II, p. 525. 
6 Prol., p. 78 f. ® Gry of NoLe GK. oo. 


7 W.-Th., p. 242. ® Jebb, V. and D.’s Handb., p. 309. 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIIOETA) 669 


Moulton! notes the fact that, while xpeirrwy and yelpwy in the N. T. 
are strictly comparative, they have no superlative, but he notes 
(p. 236) that the papyri show xelpioros, as Tb.P. 72 (ii/B.c). 

XIV. The Superlative Adjective (ttrepQetiKOv dvona). For 
the forms see chapter VII, u, 3, (c). As already set forth, the 
superlative is moreness rather than twoness. 

(a) THE SUPERLATIVE VANISHING. As already remarked, the 
superlative forms are vanishing in the N. T. as in the xo. gener- 
ally. Blass? observes that éoxaros and rp&ros are the only excep- 
tions to this disappearing tendency. Under the weakening of 
dualism zpérepos goes down. Usually écyaros refers to more than 
two, the last of a series or last of all, like év éoxarn nuépa (Jo. 11: 
24), éoxarov® ravtwy (1 Cor. 15:8). Sometimes first and last are 
contrasted, like 7 éoxarn mAdvn xElpwy THs mopwrns (Mt. 27: 64). 
Note comparative also. Cf. Mt. 19:30. So 6 rpé&ros kal 6 éoxaros 
about Jesus (Rev. 1:17). In the LXX écxaros occurs as com- 
parative (cf. in Deut. 24:3), and even as an adverb meaning 
‘after’ in Deut. 31:29. Cf. Thackeray, p. 184. Even more com- 
mon than écxaros 18 mpétTos. It is used in the usual sense often 
(Mk. 12: 20), but is also common where only two are concerned 
(1 Cor. 15:45; Jo. 20:4) as already shown. Sometimes spéros 
expresses mere rank as in Ac. 17:4. In Mt. 22 : 38 note 7 weyady 
kal mpwrn évtodn. Cf. rpwrn ravrov in Mk. 12:28 (note gender 
also).4. These are true superlatives. Sir W. M. Ramsay (H£xpos- 
ator, Nov., 1912) shows that mpwrn in Lu. 2:2 is not in sense of 
mpotepos. It is first of a series of enrolments as we now know. But 
this proves nothing as to Ac. 1:1. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 
60) quotes I Gr. XII, 5, 590, ¢¢0acas adaxov rpdros, where two are 
compared. 

(b) A Frew TRUE SUPERLATIVES IN THE N. T. But a few other 
true superlatives survive in the N. T. Thus 6 édaxuoTos in 1 Cor. 
15:9 is a true superlative, ‘the least.’ But it is elative in Lu. 
12:26. Cf. Mt. 2:6; 5:19. Moulton® finds éaxicros as a 
true superlative in a papyrus of second century B.c. Thb.P. 24. 
But there are very few true superlatives in the papyri.® In Ac. 
17:15 as raxto7Ta is a true superlative. “TyYuoros is a true super- 


1 Prol. pata: 2 Gr. of N. T; Gk., p. 141 f. 

* On this word cf. Gonnet, Degrés de signif. en Gree et en Lat., 1876, p. 181. 

4 On zpéros in older Gk. for not more than two see Schwab, Hist. Synt. ete., 
Heft ui, p. 175. be Prole pad: 

6 Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 439; 1904, p. 154. See rv écopuernv mrelorny teujqv. Th.P. 
105 (ii/B.c.). 


670 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


lative both when applied to God, 70d tWiorov (Mk. 5:7), and the 
abode of God, & rots tWicros (Mt. 21:9). Some MSS. (D, etc., 
W. H. marg.) have é¢yyiora in Mk. 6:36, which is a true super- 
lative. In Ac. 20:38 pddora, ‘most of all,’ is probably a true 
superlative. In 1 Cor. 14:27 76 r\etarov, ‘at the most,’ is a true 
superlative. In Mt. 11:20 af rde?orar duvvapmers we probably have 
the true superlative. Cf. 79 aywrarn budv riore (Ju. 20) and ryv 
axpiBectarnv atpecw (Ac. 26:5), true superlatives in —raros. In 
Rev. 18 : 12; 21:11 tipuwraros is probably elative. Cf. povwraros, 
1 Ki. 8:39. The list is indeed very small. 

(c) THe ELATIVE SUPERLATIVE. In the sense of ‘very’ or ‘ex- 
ceedingly’ it comprises the great majority of the superlative forms 
that survive in the N. T.!. In the papyri the immense majority 
of superlative forms are elative. Cf. Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, 
p. 439. Kpdaricros is elative always in the N. T. and is indeed 
merely a sort of title.2 So xpatucre In Lu. 1:3. So fércra is only 
elative (2 Cor. 12 :9, 15). Méyioros occurs only once (2 Pet. 1:4) 
and is elative, 7a ria kal peéyiota Huivy érayyeduata (permagnus, 
Blass). In Lu. 12 : 26 €&\axuc7ov is elative as also in 1 Cor. 4:3; 
6:2, while in Eph. 3:8 the comparative superlative é\ax.76- 
repos is doubtful.? yetoros, generally elative in the papyri,‘ is 
so in Mk. 4:1, dyXos rNe?oT0s. Madrora occurs some 12 times and 
is usually elative, as in Ph. 4 : 22. 

(d) No DouBLE SuPERLATIVES. The scarcity of the superla- 
tive in the N. T. removes any ground for surprise that no double 
superlatives occur. In Eph. 3:8 é\axuororepw is indeed a super- 
lative strengthened by the comparative. In Gal. 6 : 10 the elative 
superlative uaduora occurs by way of repetition with 76 dyabov, as 
in Phil. 16 it does with ayarnrov. Schwab® gives a considerable 
list of double or strengthened superlatives from classic writers, like 
mwretaoTtov Hovoros (Kurip., Alc.), weyrotov exAioros (Eurip., Med.), 
padtota didratos (Kurip., Hippol.), uadiora dewotatos (Thuc.), ete. 
Cf. Latin minimissimus and English ‘‘most straitest sect,” ‘‘most 
unkindest cut of all,”’ ete. 

(e) FoLLOwED By ABLATIVE. The superlative, like the com- 
parative, may be followed by the ablative.6 Thus with mpa&rov 
budv (Jo. 15:18), mpdzos wou (Jo. 1:15), and possibly in én’ éoxarou 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 33. Blass considers r9# dywrarn (Ju. 20) 
elative. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 78. 

2 Daxpresb: 5 Schwab, Hist. Synt. ete., Heft iii, pp. 70 ff. 

paler vey 7kt) 6 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 11 ff. 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIOETA) 671 


T&V nuep@v Tovtrwv (Heb. 1 : 2), though this passage may be merely 
the genitive. 

(f) No “Hepraistic” SUPERLATIVE. It is gratuitous to con- 
sider aotetos TG Oe (Ac. 7: 20) and similar passages superlatives. 

XV. Numerals. For the general discussion of the forms see 
chapter VII, mr. The ordinals are indeed adjectives, as are the 
first four cardinals and all after two hundred. The syntactical 
peculiarities of the numerals are not many. 

(a) Kis anp II[p@tos. The use of eis rather than zpéros is one 
of the most striking points to observe. Before we can agree with 
Blass! that this is “undoubtedly a Hebrew idiom,” who follows 
Winer,” we must at least hear what Moulton® has to say in reply. 
To begin with, in modern Greek ‘‘the cardinals beyond 4 have 
ousted the ordinals entirely.’’4 Then we learn from the inscriptions 
that this usage of cardinals as ordinals is as old as the Byzantine 
Greek.> Moulton® also quotes from papyri of the second and third 
like yd Kal eixade 700 wnvos in Haggai 2:1.’ The Germans, like the 
English, can say “page forty.’’® In the N. T. we only find this sub- 
stitution of the cardinal in the case of eis, while in the modern 
Greek the matter has gone much further. In the classic Greek 
no real analogy exists, though eis stands in enumerations when 
devrepos or &\dos follows, and in compound numerals a closer par- 
allel is found, like eis xat tpaxoords, though even here the case is 
essentially different.? Cf. Latin wnus et vicésimus, ‘a case of the 
formation of the ordinal being imperfectly carried out.’’® Cer- 
tainly then it was possible for this development to have gone on 
apart from the Hebrew, especially when one considers that zp&ros 
is not derived from eis, though Moulton” admits that the Hebrew 
has the same peculiarity. Moulton" further objects that if Semitic 
influence had been at work we should have had rf 7révve in the 
modern Greek, since the Hebrew used the later days of the month 
in cardinal numbers.” Still, the striking fact remains that in the 
LXX (cf. Numb. 1:1) and in the N.T. the first day of the month 
is expressed by pia, not by tpwrn. This was obviously in harmony 
with the xow? of a later time, but the first evidence of its actual 


pe Grete Ns lore ps L44., 7 C. and S., Sel., p. 31. 

2 W.-Th., p. 248 f. 8 W.-Th., p. 249. 

29Prol Davo t: 9 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. 
sib. Cis Loumbeiiandbarete., p.s2. 4° Prol., p. 96. 

5 Dieterich, Unters. etc., p. 187 f. 1t Tb. 

6 


Prol., p. 96. 12 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. 


672 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


use so far is in the LXX, and it is in exact imitation of the Hebrew 
idiom on the point. It is hard to resist the idea that the LXX at 
least is here influenced by the Hebrew. And, if so, then the N. T. 
naturally also. Later on we need not attribute the whole matter 
to the Hebrew influence. In the N.T. indeed we once have rpwrn 
caBBarov (Mk. 16:9), which belongs to the disputed close of the 
Gospel.! Cf., on the other hand, eis piay caBBarwv (Mt. 28 : 1), 
apwt [rH] wea Tov caBBarwv (Mk. 16:2), rH wea Tov caBBarwy (Lu. 
24:1; Jo. 20:1; Acs 20:7); kara play caBBdrov (1 Cor. 16: 2). 
There is nothing peculiar in the use of évavrov cat pavas €& (Ac. 
ISL) Revei2i 

(b) THe SIMPLIFICATION OF THE “TEENS.” This began in the 
classical period as is seen in the Attic inscriptions.” Hence from 
the third century B.c. on we usually find ‘simplified ordinals from 
13th to 19th.”’? So we have rprckadexatos, TeaoapeckadeKatos, etc. 
So the papyri* usually have déxa rpets, déxa €£, and even déxa do 
rather more® frequently than dadexa. Cf. reccapeckxatdexatn in Ac. 
27:27, 33. Hence xai is not always inserted when the smaller 
number precedes and ‘omitted’? when the larger comes first. It 
was never a uniform custom (Winer-Thayer, p. 250), least of all 
in the N.T. Cf. Gal.3:17, etc. But three numerals may ap- 
pear without xai, as in éxatov mrevrnkovta tprdy (Jo. 21:11). Cf. 
Rev. 7:4; 14:3; 21:17. See further chapter VII, 111, 2, (0). 

(c) THe INCLUSIVE ORDINAL. Cf. adrés rpitos, ‘he and two 
others.’ It has one illustration in the N. T., dydoov Nae (2 Pet. 
2:5), ‘Noah and seven others’ or ‘Noah an eighth.’ The idiom 
is classical enough, though the ancient writers usually had airés 
also.6 Moulton’ finds one parallel in the papyri, tpitos dv in 
P.P. i. 28, though the literary xow7 writers (Plutarch, Appian) 
use it. Moulton expresses no surprise at this idiom in 2 Peter 
where “we rather expect bookish phrases.’”? He comments also 
on the ‘translation English’”’ in the Authorized Version’s render- 
ing ‘Noah the eighth person,” and uses it as an illustration of 
the way that the LX X often rendered the Hebrew, though un- 
like the misprint “strain at a gnat,” it did not gain currency 
in English. | 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144, remarks that Eusebius quotes the verse 
as TH med. 

2 Meisterh., Att. Inscr., p. 160. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 96. 

4 Ib. Aéxa occupies first place from thirteen upwards, but with ordinals the 
reverse is true. 


5 Like the LXX. C. and S., p. 30. 
6 W.-Th., p. 249, 7 Prol., pp. 98, 107. 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIOETA) 673 


(d) Tur Distrisutives. There is no trouble over the classic 
use of ava (Mt. 20 : 9) and cava (Mk. 6 : 40) in this sense. We have 
already (chapter XIII, ava and xara) discussed ava eis (Rev. 21: 21) 
and xaé’ eis (Ro. 12:5). The point here that calls for comment 
is whether é6vo d6to in Mk. 6:71is a Hebraism. Cf. ava dbo [dvo] 
in Lu. 10:1. Winer! termed it “properly Hebraistic,’’ while 
Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 145) more guardedly described it as 
“after the Semitic and more colloquial manner.”’ The repetition 
of the numeral is a Hebrew way of expressing the distributive 
idea. Cf. in the N. T. also cuuroota cuprocia (Mk. 6 : 39), rpacral 
mpacvai (verse 40). Moulton? cites also decuds decuds, as the read- 
ing of Epiphanius for Mt. 13:30. But Winer® had himself cited 
Adschylus, Persae, 981, wvpia pvpia, and Blass‘ compares in Eris, 
the lost drama of Sophocles, piavy piay. The Atticists had cen- 
sured this as ‘colloquial,’ but at any rate “it was not merely a 
creation of Jewish Greek.’ Deissmann® besides quotes rpia pia 
from the Oxy. Papyri. W. F. Moulton® had already called atten- 
tion to the fact that modern Greek shows the same usage. Hence 
we must conclude, with Moulton’ and Thumb,’ that the xow7 de- 
velopment was independent of the Hebrew. Moulton® comments 
also on the reading of B in Lu. 10:1, ava dbo dto, and notes how 
in the papyri peyadou yeyadou=the elative superlative peyicrov. 
See also xara dvo dvo in P. Oxy. 886 (ili/A.D.). 

For the proportionals the N. T. has only -—mAaciwv, not the 
classic —Adotos. Cf. éxatovtatdAaciwy, Mk. 10 : 80 and Mt. 19 : 29 
NCDX; zodAardaciwy, Lu. 18:30 and Mt. 19:29 BL. Cf. 
Blass-Debrunner, p. 38. 

(e) THe CARDINAL Esra. With ¢Bdounkovtaks érra (Mt. 18 : 22) 
rather than érraxs D the rendering ‘until seventy times seven’ is 
certainly possible in itself and follows literally the Greek words. 
The identical expression (€8dounkovraxis ér7a) Occurs in Gen. 4 : 24 
(where the Revised Version renders it ‘seventy and seven fold’) 
and in Test. xii, Pat. Ben. 7:4. The margin of the Revised 
Version for Mt. 18 : 22 gives ‘‘seventy times and seven’ which 

1 W.-M., p. 312. 

2 Prol., p. 97. 4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 330. 

3 W.-Th., p. 249; W.-M., p. 312. ° Theol. Literaturzeit., 1898, p. 631. 

6 W.-M., p. 312 note. Cf. Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 310. Rader- 
macher (N. T. Gr., p. 57) cites o¢d5pa opddpa from the LXX and eddds eddis 


from the Byz. Gk. 
ZeProls pr Olean 8 Hellen., p. 128. 


9 Prol., p. 97. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 330, cites from Gosp. of Pet. 35, 


ava dvo dvo, 


674 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Winer! interprets as “seventy-seven times.’’ Moulton? considers 
rightly that the passage in Genesis settles the usage in Matthew 
to which an allusion may be made. He cites a possible parallel 
from the Iliad, xxii, 349, dexaxus[re] Kal Feixooe: 

(f) SUBSTANTIVE NOT EXPRESSED. Sometimes with numerals 
the substantive for money is not expressed. Thus apyuptou pvpiddas 
mevre (Ac. 19:19), but in Mt. 26:16 note apytpua. The use of 
tpirov rovdro (2 Cor. 13:1) is merely an instance of the adjective 
used absolutely without a substantive. Cf. the neuter 70 debrepov 
(2;Cors 132): 

(g) ADVERBS wITH NumMpRALS. They have no effect on the 
construction. Thus zpaéjvat érdvw tprakociwy dnvapiwv (Mk. 14 : 5), 
wopbn éravw mevrakocios adeAdots (1 Cor. 15:6), ws duoxidvor (Mk. 
5:13), det revraxioxidroe (Mt. 14 : 21), éxarovraerns tov (Ro. 4 : 19). 
In the case of ws and waei we really have conjunctions.? In éws 
ertaxis (Mt. 18:21) we have, of course, the preposition. Cf. 
Winer-Moulton, p. 313, for classical parallels with €\arrov, weor, 
els, &V, TEpl, UTEP, MEXPL. 

(h) Kis as INDEFINITE ARTICLE. The Greek, as a rule, had 
no indefinite article. The older Greek did occasionally use zis 
with no more apparent force than an indefinite article, but usually 
nothing was used for that idea in Greek. Still in Aristophanes 
(Av. 1292) Moulton‘ rightly sees eis kaarndos, as an example of the 
later xown idiom. Aristophanes indeed preserves much of the 
colloquial speech. In the modern Greek é&as may be used.® Eis 
became naturally more popular than 71s since it has all three 
genders. Moulton’ finds numerous papyri illustrations. The 
modern languages have followed the Greek model here, for the 
English an (Scottish ane) is really one, like the German ein and 
the French un. It is therefore hardly necessary to fall back on the 
Hebrew precedent® in the use of 198, though it here coincided 
with the xow7n idiom. Hence N. T. usage on this point is in full 
accord with the development of the Greek. Cf. e?s ypaupa7eds 
(Mt. 8:19), wia mardioxyn (26:69), uia xnpa mrwyn (Mk. 12:42), eis 
oderrerns (Mt. 18 : 24), etc. In Jo. 6:9 some MSS. have é& with 
madapiov, but the sense.is not materially altered either way. Cf. 
nKkovoa évos aetod (Rev. 8:13), idav ouxqyv uiay (Mt. 21:19), ete. 


1 W.-Th., p. 251. 4° Prol spades 
2 Prol., p. 98. _ Cf. W.-M., p. 314. 5 Thumb, Handb., p. 81. 
’ Cf. Green, Handb., etc., p. 276. 6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 170. 


7 Prol., p. 97. Cf. Wellhausen, Einl., p. 27. 
8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 144. 


ADJECTIVES (’EIIIOETA) 675 


Moulton! properly criticizes Meyer on Mt. 8: 19 for his “exegeti- 
cal subtleties” in denying this idiom for eis in the N. T. 

(i) Kis=Tis. Sometimes indeed eis stands alone with prac- 
tically the same sense as 71s, as in Mt. 19:16; Mk. 10:17, though 
in the parallel passage (Lu. 18:18) tvs &épxwv occurs. The use of e?s 
with genitive (or ablative), like évi ry rodtrav (Lu. 15:15), & wma 
Tov huepov (Lu. 8: 22), or the ablative, like eis é& tudv (Jo. 13: 21), 
is, of course, merely the same idiom expanded. Cf. eis ris, Lu. 
22:50; Jo. 11:49. In Mk. 14:10, 6 ets rap dwdexa, the article at 
first looks incongruous, ‘the one of the twelve,’ but the early 
papyri give illustrations of this usage also2 It is as a pronoun 
that eis is to be construed here and in the rather frequent alterna- 
tive expressions eis — ets (Mt. 24 : 40), wia — pia (verse 41), rov eva 
— tov érepov (Mt. 6 : 24), évds — rod Erépou (ib.), ets — Tod évos (1 Cor. 
4:6). Cf. eis cai ets (Mt. 27: 38) and the reciprocal use in 1 Th. 
5:11. Cf. eis &aoros, Mt. 26: 22. 

(j) THE DisTRIBUTIVE UsE or Eis. So & xaé’ & in Rev. 4:8 
and the ‘barbaric’? (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 247) eis xara ets (Mk. 
14 : 19), 7d Kad’ eis (Ro. 12 : 5), ava eis Exaoros (Rev. 21:21). This 
“barbaric” idiom came to be very common in the later Greek. 
Cf. modern Greek xade, kabevas = éxacros. The free adverbial use 
of prepositions like éws, ava, mapa, xara 1s copiously illustrated in 
Winer-Schmiedel, p. 247, from the LX X and the late Greek writers. 
For the use of ovdeis, otfeis, undeis, uneis see next chapter on Pro- 
nouns. Cf. also there ol — ras and was — od. 


Re LTOl is OD) 2 Ib. 


CHAPTER XV 
PRONOUNS CANT ON TMIAI) 


For the antiquity and history of pronouns see Iv in chapter 
VII (Declensions). We are here concerned, not with the form, 
but with the use of pronouns.! As a matter of fact all pronouns 
fall into two classes, Deictic (decxrtxai) and Anaphoric (avadopixat). 
They either “point out” or they ‘refer to” a substantive. So we 
get the modern terms, demonstrative and relative (cf. Monro, 
Homeric Gr., p. 168 f.). But some pronouns may be demon- 
strative or relative according to the context. The demonstrative 
or deictic was the original usage. For practical purposes we have 
to follow a more minute division. 

I. Personal Pronouns (tpwtétutot 7 TpocwmiKkal dvtTwvuptat). 
The personal pronouns (first and second persons) are deictic (I, 
thou). The reason for the use of pronouns, as already explained, 
was to avoid the repetition of the substantive. In Jo. 11:22 note 
the repetition of #eds. Cf. also Lu. 6:45. 

(a) THe Nominative. As already explained, the verb uses the 
personal pronoun as personal suffixes, so that as a rule no need 
was felt for the separate expression of the pronoun in the nom- 
inative. All verbs had the personal endings like ei-yi, éo-ci, éo-rt. 
The use of the personal pronoun in addition to the personal end- 
ing of the verb was due to desire for emphasis. Then the sepa- 
rate expression of the pronoun led to the gradual sloughing off 
of the personal ending. In modern English this process is nearly 
complete. In Greek this process was arrested, though in modern 
Greek all verbs save eiuac are -w verbs. In most cases, therefore, 
in Greek the existence of the personal pronoun in the nominative 
implies some emphasis or contrast. But this is not quite true of 
all examples. ‘‘The emphasis of the first and second persons is 
not to be insisted on too much in poetry or in familiar prose. 


1 Cf. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten, p. 95: “Die 
Nomina benennen die Dinge nach ihren Qualitiiten, die Pronomina bezeichnen 
sie nach ihren Verhiiltnissen.”’ 


676 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 677 


Notice the frequency of éy@da, éy@uat.’’! In conversation it was 
particularly common to have the personal pronoun in the nomina- 
tive. In the later Greek generally the personal pronouns show 
a weakening of force,? but never to the actual obliteration of 
emphasis, not even in the modern Greek.? Moulton‘ agrees with 
Ebeling® that there was “‘no necessary emphasis in the Platonic 
qv 0 e€ya, ebnv eyw, ws od dys.’’? Clearly then the frequency of the 
pronoun in the N. T. is not to be attributed to the Semitic influ- 
ence. Even Conybeare and Stock® see that it is not necessary to 
appeal to the well-known Hebrew fondness for pronouns for this 
usage. But Blass’ thinks that some of the MS. variations may 
be due to Semitic influence. We are free therefore to approach 
the N. T. examples on their merits. 

1. The First Person, éyw and jets. It is easy to find in the N.T. 
numerous examples where éyw shows contrast. So éya xpelav 
éxw brd cod Barricbjvac (Mt. 3:14), eyo 6€ Aeyw (5 : 22), eyw ce 
éddéaca (Jo. 17:4). Cf. yw and ov in Jo. 17: 23. The amount of 
emphasis will vary very greatly according to circumstances and 
may sometimes vanish entirely so far as we can determine. Differ- 
ent shades of meaning appear also as in b7ép ob éyw efrov (Jo. 1: 30), 
‘I, myself.’ Cf. kaya otk qédev abrov (Jo. 1: 33) and Kaya éwpaka 
Kal weuaptvpnka (verse 34) and-note absence with second verb. Cf. 
Jo. 6:48; 16:33; 1 Cor. 2:1,3. Note absence of éyo in Mt. 
5:18, 20, \eyw buiv. Cf. also ris dcOeve? xat otk dobevd; (2 Cor. 
11 : 29) with ris cxavdadiferar Kal ok &ya tupoduat; (7b.) as proof that 
the point must not be pressed too far in either direction.®. Further 
examples of éyw may be seen in Ro. 7:17; Jo. 5:31, 34; 10:30; Eph. 
5:32; Ph.4:11. For the plural jyets see juets tpocxvvodper (Jo. 
4 : 22) in opposition to tyets, but then follows merely 6 oléayuev. So 
in Ac. 4: 20 note od duvapucba jyuets & eidauer and ri Kal hyets Kivdv- 
vevonev; (1 Cor. 15:30). Cf. Mt. 6:12. The “editorial” ‘we’ has 
already received discussion (cf. The Sentence) and may be merely 
illustrated here. Blass’ considersita “wide-spread tendency among 
Greek writers, when they speak of themselves to say jets instead 


1 Gildersleeve, Synt. of Cl. Gk., part i, p. 35. 


2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 348. 5 Gildersleeve Studies, p. 240. 
3 Thumb, Handb., etc., p. 59 f. ' 6 Sel. from the LXX, p. 65. 
47 Prola poo: fare OLN Gk pe olo, 


8 In general the N. T. follows the classic idiom. W.-Sch., p. 194. 

9 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 194. ; 

10 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 166. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 86 f., who leaves the 
matter to the exegete. 


678 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of éyw.’”’ This is not always true in Paul’s Epistles (Ro. 1:5), for 
sometimes he associates others with him in the address at the 
beginning. There are undoubted examples in the N. T. like oiot 
éopev (2 Cor. 10:11), weBoueba (Heb. 13 : 18), ypadouev (1 Jo. 1:4). 
But sometimes the plural merely associates the readers or hearers 
with the writer or speaker. So édopécayer (1 Cor. 15 : 49), duorwow- 
pev (Mk. 4:30). Sometimes the first person singular is used in a 
representative manner as one of a class (cf. the representative 
article like 6 adya0os). Blass! does not find this idiom so common in 
Greek as in other languages, but it occurs in Demosthenes and 
certainly in Paul. So ri ére kaya ws aduaptwdds Kpivouar; (Ro. 3 : 7). 
Cf. in next verse BAacdynyotwedba. See 1 Cor. 10:30; Gal. 2:18. 
In Ro. 7: 7-25 special difficulties occur. 

2. The Second Person, cb and iyets. Thus in Jo. 17:5 note the 
contrast in we ov. Cf. Jo. 1:42 od ef Liuwy — od xryPhoy, 2:10 od 
tetnpynxas, 4:9 mas od ’lovéatos, 4:10 od av frnoas, Ro. 2:3 br od 
éxhevén, Lu. 1:76 xal od de, etc. Cf. also Mt. 27:11. Sometimes 
ov has a very emphatic position, as in od tis ef (Ro. 9 : 20; 14: 4). 
In 1 Cor. 15 : 36, adpwr, od 6 o7eipes, it is possible,? though not 
necessary, to take ot with adpwv (cf. Ac. 1:24). In kal od €& abrdv 
et (Lu. 22 : 58) one is reminded of the Latin Et tu, Brute. See 
Lu. 10:15; Ac. 23:3; 4 Kal od ri é£ovevets (Ro. 14:10). As ex- 
amples of the plural take éceode byuets (Mt. 5 : 48), dd7€ atrots duels 
gayety (Mk. 6:37). See éxetvos and tyes contrasted in Jo. 5: 38; 
duets In verse 39 and also in 44f. Cf. Ac. 4:7; Lu. 10:24, and 
in particular byuets dWeoOe (Mt. 27: 24). For tyets and jets con- 
trasted see Jo. 4:22. In Jo. 4:35, ody tyets Neyere, we have the 
same inclusive use of the second person that we noticed in the first. 
In Ro. 2: 3,17, the second person singular occurs in the same repre- 
sentative sense that the first has also. Cf. also Ro. 9: 20; 11:17, ete. 
In Jo. 3:10, od ef 6 dvdacxados, we have a case of distributed em- 
phasis. Cf. also Mt. 16:16; Jo. 9:34; 2 Cor. 1 : 23, as examples 
of this sustained emphasis, where the emphasis of the pronoun 
passes on to the remainder of the sentence and contributes point 
and force to the whole. On the whole the Greek language has 
freedom in the construction of the pronouns. Moulton raises® the 
question if in od efzas (Mt. 26 : 64), od Nevers (27:11), byets Nevere 
(Lu. 22:70), we do not have the equivalent of ‘That is right,’ 


1'Gr.-of No. Gkprsiorte 2 W.-Sch., p. 195. 

3 Renaud, The Distributed Emphasis of the Pers. Pron., 1884. 
4 Bernhardy, Wissensch. Synt. der griech. Spr., 1829, p. 45. 

SU PrOLaDirous 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 679 


but wAqv (Thayer) is against it in Mt. 26:64. tv occurs in John 
more frequently than in all the Synoptics put together (Abbott, 
Johannine Gr., p. 297). 

3. The Third Person. It has had a more radical development 
or lack of development. As a matter of fact the Greek had and 
has no definite third personal pronoun for the nominative like 
éyw and ot. No nominative was used for od, ot, etc., and this pro- 
noun was originally reflexive. Besides it is not used in the N. T., 
though literary xow7 writers like Aristides, Arrian, Lucian, Polyb- 
ius use it.! Where another pronoun was desired for the third 
person besides that in the personal ending, various devices were 
used. The Attic writers usually employed a demonstrative (6 6¢, 
6 ev, ovTos, éxetvos, ds 6€, d6e, etc.). The N. T. shows examples of 
all these constructions which will be illustrated in the discussion 
of the demonstrative pronouns. But the N.T. uses also atrés as 
the subject, an idiom foreign to Attic writers, but found already in 
Homer? and common in the modern Greek, where indeed it has 
come to be itself a demonstrative.2 Simcox‘ rightly remarks that 
the main point to observe is not whether it has emphasis, but its 
appearance at all as the mere subject. All the personal pronouns 
in the nominative have more or less emphasis. The use of atrés 
in contrast with’ other persons is natural like atrds kal of per’ 
avrod (Mk. 2:25). We are not here considering the intensive use 
of airés as ‘self’ nor the use of 6 airés ‘the same.’ There is "no dis- 
pute as to use of airés as emphatic ‘he’ in the N. T. like the Pytho- 
gorean® (Doric) airés épa. So Ac. 20:35 atros efrev, as much as 
to say ‘The Master said.’ Cf. the way in which some wives refer 
systematically to their husbands as “He.’’ Other undoubted 
examples are a’ros yap owoe tov Nady (Mt. 1:21). Here the em- 
phasis is so clear that the Revised Version renders: “For he it is 
that shall save.” In Mt. 12:50 atros pou adeddos is resumptive, 
gathering up éo7s, and is distinctly emphatic. Cf. likewise airés 
Barrice, referring to 6 épxduevos in Mt. 3:11; 6 rnp&v — kal adbros, 
1 Jo. 3:24; dv av didjow abros éorw, Mk. 14:44. Strong emphasis 
also appears in examples like kal airés éoriv mpd ravTwv (Col. 1:17). 
In Mt. 8 : 24 airés 5€ and Mk. 4 : 38 kal airés Jesus is the chief 
person in the story and the pronoun has emphasis. Cf. likewise 
Pumietlonl;. 2421 Mt. 16-20, In Lu. 19: 2)W.H-and Nestle 


1 W.-Sch., p. 191. 2 Blass, Gr. of N, T. Gk., p. 164. 
3 Thumb, Handb., p. 90. 

4 Lang. of the N. T., p. 60. Cf. C. and S., Sel. from LXX, p. 29, 
5 Prol., p. 86. 


680 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


follow B in reading kat airos twice. Some emphasis is present 
both times. In Ac. 7:21 (Rece.) the pronoun airov appears three 
times. As regards xai airy, the editors differ between this accent 
and ‘xai -atrn. in Lu. 7:12;58%42°91 Cor, 7: 12> Row? 210. sel 
Lu. 2: 37; Ro. 16: 2, Nestle agrees with W. H. in kal airy. But 
in Lu. 2: 37 ait xnpa may be a ‘widow by herself.’ There is 
no real reason for objecting to the feminine use of this idiom. 
The plural airot appears in Mk. 7: 36; Lu. 2:50; 9:36. The 
only remaining question is whether airés occurs in the nominative 
free from any emphasis just like the personal ending in a word. 
It is in Luke’s Gospel and the Apocalypse? that such instances 
occur. It is not a question whether airés is so used in ancient 
Greek. Winer*® denies that any decisive passages have been 
adduced in the N. T. of such unemphatic use. Certainly the 
matter is one of tone and subjective impression to a large ex- 
tent. And yet some examples do occur where emphasis is not 
easily discernible and even where emphasis would throw the 
sentence out of relation with the context. What emphasis exists 
must be very slight. Cf. Lu. 1:22; 2:50; 6:8; 8:1, 22; 15: 14; 
24:14, 25, 31; Rev. 14: 10; 19: 15. Thus we see all grades of 
emphasis. Abbott‘ holds that in John airés never means ‘he,’ 
éither emphatic or unemphatic, but always ‘himself.’ But in 
Jo. 2:12 (airos kai 7 unrip adrod) there is little difference between 
the emphatic ‘he’ and ‘himself.’ Cf. also 18:1. But the inten- 
sive idea is clear in Jo. 4:2, 12. In 4:53 it might be either way. 
In the LXX we find atrés sometimes unemphatic. Cf. Gen. 3: 
15 feel Sam se Age asslo: 

(b) THE OBLIQUE CASES OF THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 

1. Originally Reflexive. In pre-Homeric times the pronominal 
stem was reflexive. The reflexive form, as distinct from the per- 
sonal pronoun, was a later development. The personal pronouns 
may be reflexive in Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, Pindar and the 
other Lyric poets.6 Indeed, the early Attic inscriptions’ show the 
same thing, not to mention the Dramatic poets and Herodotus. 
It was only gradually that the distinctively reflexive form came 
into common use in the Attic prose, first for the third person, and 


1 W.-Sch., p. 195; Blass, Gr.of N. T. Gk., p. 164. 

2 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 61. 

3 W.-M., p. 187. 4 Joh. -Gr.5:p:279. 

5 Dyroff, Gesch. des Pron. Reflex., 1. Abt., p. 16. 

¢ Ib.; pp. 68, 75, 80 f. 

TID, 2 Abas paras § Ib., 1. Abt., pp. 90 f., 126 f. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) Cais 


then for the first and second persons.) The use of the personal 
pronoun in-the reflexive sense survived longest in the vernacular. 
It is not “abnormal” therefore to find in the N.T. (vernacular xo.v7) 
the personal pronouns where a reflexive form might have been used. 
The N. T. does not here exactly represent Attic literary prose. 
Cf. dparw rov otavpov aitod (Lu. 9: 23), wera To &yepO7vai we mpodéw 
(Mk. 14: 28; cf. Lu. 10:35), Bare ard cod (Mt. 5:29). See Ro. 
15:16,19. It isnot necessary to split hairs here as to whether the 
reflexive idea is present. It is in perfect harmony with the Greek 
history. Indeed English does not differ here from the Greek. 

2. Airod. The use of ai’rod rather than od and cdr is noticeable. 
As amatter of fact, however, aivod had long been the main pronoun 
for the oblique cases of the third person. In archaic and poetic 
forms the early use of ob and ody survived? In the N. T. airod 
is the only form found, as in a’rayv, abrots, abrov (Mt. 17: 22 f.), xrd. 

3. Genitive for Possession. The genitive of the personal pro- 
noun is very common as a possessive rather than. the possessive 
pronoun or the mere article. In Jo. 2:12 ai’rod occurs twice, but 
once (of adeddoi) we do not have it. These examples are so common 
as to call for mere mention, as 6 zarnp wou (Jo. 5 : 17), tov kpaBarrov 
gov (5: 8), Tov xpaBarrov airod (5:9). The presence of the personal 
pronoun in the genitive is not always emphatic. Thus no undue 
emphasis is to be put upon ai7od even in its unusual position in Jo. 
9 : 6, nor upon gov in 9 : 10, nor upon pou in 9:15. See chapter on 
The Sentence. See also érapas trols ob0adyors avrod eis Tovs uabynras 
avrod (Lu. 6 : 20), év 77 bropova budy Krncecbe Tas Wuxas budv (Lu. 21: 
19). . See also position of wou in Mt. 8:8 and Jo. 11:32. Asa 
matter of fact the genitive of personal pronouns, as is common in 
the xow7 (Moulton, Prol., p. 40 f.), has nearly driven the possessive 
pronoun out. The use of the article with this genitive will be dis- 
cussed in that chapter (The Article). Cf. tov marépa pov (Mt. 26: 
53) and didou. wou (Jo. 15:14). Both tua in Paul (1 Cor. 9 : 12) 
and atrod (Tit. 3:5) may be in the attributive position. The 
position of atrod is emphatic in Eph. 2:10 as is that of tudv in 
1 Cor. 9:11 and judy in Jo. 11: 48. The attributive position of 
nuav (2 Cor. 4:16) and ai’rod with other attributes (Mt. 27: 60) 
is not unusual. 

4. Enclitic Forms. The first and second persons singular have 
enclitic and unenclitic forms which serve to mark distinctions of 
emphasis in a general way. We may be sure that when the long 


1 Jb., 2. Abt., pp. 69, 89. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 152. 


682 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


form éuod occurs some slight emphasis is meant, as In bud re kal éuod 
(Rom. 1:12). But we cannot feel sure that all emphasis is absent 
when the short form is used. Thus olxodounow pou tiv éxkAnotiav (Mt. 
16 : 18), ravra por rapedo0n bro Tod ratpos pou (11:27). With prep- 
ositions (the “true”? ones) the long form is used as in ancient 
Greek except with zpdés, which uniformly has we even where em- 
phasis is obvious.! Thus deb7e pds we (Mt. 11: 28), kal od Epxn mpos 
me (38:14). Some editors here and in the LXX print mpds we. But 
in Jo. 6: 37 mpos eué is the true text. Cf. rpds éué also in P.Thb. 
A421 (i1i/A.D.). With cod the only difference is one of accent and 
we have to depend on the judgment of the editor. It is difficult, 
if not impossible, to lay down any fundamental distinction on this 
point. On gov and ood see chapter VII, 1v, 4, (a). See also 
EEouodoyodual co. (Mt. 11:25) and kaya 6€ cor Neyw (16:18). CF. 
éyw oe (Jo. 17: 4) and we ot (17: 5). Blass (Gr. of N. T.-Gk., p. 
168) says that éuod and cod, the emphatic forms, occur only with 
other genitives like atrod kal éuod (Ro. 16:13). Simcox (Language 
of the N. T., p. 55) argues that the enclitic form occurs always 
except when there is emphasis. But the trouble is that the en- 
clitic form seems to occur even where there is emphasis. The 
genitive of the third person can be used with emphasis. Cf. 
avtav in Lu. 24:31. See further chapter VII, v, 4. 

(c) THE FREQUENCY OF THE PERSONAL PRONOUNS. It is at 
bottom a differentiation from the substantive, though the roots 
are independent of verb and substantive and antedate historical 
evidence.2. This pronoun came into play where the sense required 
it. Thus xal éribévres ras xelpas avrots awedvoay (Ac. 13:3). Cf. Mk. 
6:5. There is no doubt of the fact that the N. T. uses the pro- 
noun in the oblique cases more frequently than is true of the older 
Greek. What is the explanation of this fact? The Hebrew pro- 
nominal suffixes at once occur to one as the explanation of the 
situation and Blass accepts it.4. The LXX shows a similar “lavish 
use of pronouns.’’> But a glance at the modern Greek reveals the 
same fondness for pronouns, and the papyri abundantly prove 
that the usage belongs to the vernacular xow7.6 Cf. aviyw rods 
odfadpots pov Par.P. 51 (ii/B.c.), Adurwve pvobnpevtq edwka aiTa 
O.P. 299 (i/a.p.). Thumb? suggests that this abundance of pro- 


1 Cf, Blass, Gr. of N. T2Gk., -p- 165. 

2 Wundt, Vélkerpsych., 1. Bd., 2. Tl., 1904, p. 47. 

3 Cf. W.-Th., p. 148; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 164. 

4 Cf. also Simcox, Lang., etc., p. 53. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 84 f. 
6 C. and S., Sel., etc., p. 65. 7 Hellen., p. 108 f, 





PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 683 


nouns is natural in the vernacular. Blass! finds ‘‘a quite peculiar 
and tiresome frequency” of the pronoun in the N. T. This is only 
true in comparison with literary Attic. The N.T. is here a natural 
expression of the vernacular. Thus in Lu. 6 : 20 note airod twice, 
juav twice in Lu. 21:19, cov in Mt. 6:17 as the reflexive twice 
(Areal cov THY kepada Kal TO Tpdcwrov cou viva). It is not neces- 
sary to go as far as Moulton does and deny that there is any 
Semitic influence in the N.T. on this point. It was here in har- 
mony with the current Greek. Cf. Lu. 24:50 for three examples 
of avrod (-ois). Cf. ce — ce in Jo. 1:48. For atré=‘it’ see Ro. 7: 
20. In Lu. 1: 62 at76 and airod both refer to zacéiov. 

(d) REDUNDANT. The pronoun was sometimes redundant. 
This was also a Hebrew idiom, but the vernacular xow7 shows sim- 
ilar examples. The two streams flow together as above. With 
participles note 7@ Oé\ovte — aes ai’tG (Mt. 5: 40), xataBavros 
avtod — nKodovOnoay alte (8:1), EuBavre a’TG eis tAolovy AKoAovOncav 
ait@ (8:23). There are besides the anacolutha like 6 vixév kal 
6 THpav — dwow. alto (Rev. 2: 26). Cf. also 76 rornpiov — ob wh 
miw avro (Jo. 18:11) which does not differ radically from the 
other examples.? Cf. also the redundant personal pronoun with 
the relative like the Hebrew idiom with the indeclinable 72x, 
ov —av’trod (Mt. 3: 12), js —atras (Mk 7 : 25), ods —atrot’s (Ac. 
15:17), ots —airots (Rev. 7:2). But this idiom appeared also 
in the older Greek and is not merely Semitic.2 It occurs in 
Xenophon and Sophocles. Indeed in Rev. 17: 9, érra dpn dzov 
 yuvn KdOntar éx’ al’t&v, we have érov in sense of relative pronoun 
much like modern Greek 7od. For the redundant antecedent see 
further under Relative. 

(e) AccorDING TO SENSE. See also chapter X, VII, VIII, Ix. 
The personal pronouns are sometimes used freely according to the 
sense. In Ac. 26 : 24, ra rodda ce ypdupara els uaviay TrepiTperer, the 
position of ce is probably a matter of euphony and a case in point. 
Sometimes there is no immediate reference in the context for the 
pronoun. The narrative is compressed and one must supply the 
meaning. So with airod (Lu. 1:17), abrots (Mt. 8:4), abr&v (12: 
9), airav (Mt. 11: 1), airdv (Jo. 20:15), air&y (1 Pet. 3: 14). 
But this is no peculiarity of N. T. Greek or of the xowy. It is 
common at all times. In Jo. 8 : 44, Weborns éoriv kai 6 raThp adrod, 
the airvod refers to Weddos suggested by Yeborns. In 2 Cor. 5:19 
avrots refers to xécyov, as in Ro. 2 : 26 a’rod has in mind axpdBveros 


teCr sol. Nib. Gk5-p. 166: 2 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 281, 
3 W.-Th., p. 148. Cf. C. and §S., p. 65f. 


684 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


suggested by axpoBvaria. So in Ac. 8:5 atrots refers to 7ékw. In 
Mk. 5: 41 airq follows the natural gender of racéiov rather than 
the grammatical. But in Jo. 6:39 atré agrees grammatically 
with the abstract collective rav 6. In Lu. 6 : 6 we find a usage 
much like the original Homeric absence of the pure relative.! 
We have xal atrod used with a&v@pwros much as od was. In Mt. 
28 : 19 airots refers to vn. In Mk. 6:46 airots points to dxXov. 

(f) REPETITION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE. Sometimes indeed the 
substantive is merely repeated instead of using the pronoun. 
Thus in Jo. 11: 22 we have rov Oedv — 6 Beds. This is usually due 
to the fact that the mere pronoun would be ambiguous as in the 
use of ‘Ingots in Jo. 4:1. Sometimes it may be for the sake of 
emphasis as in 6 vids Tod avOpwrov (Lu. 12:8) rather than eyo. 
Sometimes antithesis 1s better sustained by the repetition of 
the substantive. Thus with xéoum—xdcpov (Jo. 9:5), auaptia — 
duaptias (Ro. 5:12). But this is no peculiarity of Greek. 

II. The Possessive Pronouns (ktyTiKkal dvtTwvuptar). 

(a) Just THE ARTICLE. It is not merely the possessive relation 
that is here under discussion, but the possessive pronoun. Often 
the article alone is sufficient for that relation. Thus in éxretvas 
tv xetpa (Mt. 8: 3) the article alone makes the relation clear. 
Cf. also ras yetpas (Mk. 14 : 46), 779v uaxarpay (14 : 47), rov adeddov 
(2 Cor. 12 : 18). The common use of the genitive of the personal 
pronoun is not under consideration. nor the real reflexive pronoun 
like éavrod. 

(b) ONLY FOR First AND SEcOND PrERsons. There is in the 
N. T. no possessive form for the third person. The other expe- 
dients mentioned above (usually the genitive airod, a’rév) are 
used. The personal pronouns are substantival, while the posses- 
sive forms are adjectival. In modern Greek no adjectival pos- 
sessive exists. Just the genitive occurs (Thumb, Handbook, p. 89). 
The possessive éuds and ods are disappearing in the papyri (Rader- 
macher, NV. 7. Gk., p.61). Originally the accent? of éuds was *éuos. 
The forms 7yé-repos and tbyé-repos are both comparative and imply 
emphasis and contrast, the original meaning of the comparative.® 

(c) EmpHasis, WHEN UsEp. When these possessive forms oc- 
cur in the N. T. there is emphasis. But it is not true, as Blass‘ 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 250. 3 Seymour, The Hom. Dial., p. 60. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 168. Brugmann (Vergl. Gr., ii. 283) derives the 
poss. from the gen., while Delbriick (V, i. 213) obtains the gen. from the 
poss. Who can tell? 








PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 685 


affirms, that there is no emphasis when the genitive forms are 
used. See I, (b), 4. The possessives do not occur often in, the 
N. T. For details see chapter VII, rv, 4, (d). 

(d) With THE ARTICLE. The possessives in the N. T. usually 
have the article save when predicate. Thus 4 éun (Jo. 5 : 30), ris 
éuns (Ro. 10 : 1), 7d éudv (Mt. 18 : 20), 73 od (Mt. 7:3), ete. When 
the article is absent the possessive is usually predicate as in ra éua 
TavTa of éoTw, kal Ta oa Eua (Jo. 17:10; Lu. 15:31). In wh ov 
éunv Ouxatoobyynv THv éx vouou (Ph. 3 : 9) the possessive is attributive, 
a righteousness of my own, though the article comes later. In 
Jo. 4:34 we have éudv BpSua éorw iva where the attributive use 
also occurs. But see Mt. 20:23. One may note tyuér in predicate 
tie Cor.3°: 21): 

(e) POSSESSIVE AND GENITIVE TOGETHER. Paul’s free use of 
the possessive and genitive together as attributives is well illus- 
trated by ro éuov rvedua cal 7d buy (1 Cor. 16:18). In 1 Cor. 
16:17 the MSS. vary between 76 tua borépnua and 16 byérepor 
(BCD) ior. Soin 1 Jo. 2:2 we have both qwepi trav auapridv judv 
and also epi r&v nuerepwv. Indeed the genitive may be in apposi- 
tion with the genitive idea in the possessive pronoun. Thus 77 
éufi xetpt IlatbAov (1 Cor. 16:21). Cf. 2 Th. 3:17; Col. 4:18; Jo. 
14 : 24. 

(f) OpsectTIvE Usr. The possessive pronoun may be objective 
just like the genitive. This is in full accord with the ancient 
idiom. So rv éunv avayrvnow (Lu. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11: 24), rv bye 
tépay Kkavxnow (15:31), 7d buerepw Eder (Ro. 11:31), tiv jyerepav 
didackaniay (15:4). Cf. ris bu@v wapaxdAjnoews (2 Cor. 1: 6). 

(g) INSTEAD OF REFLEXIVE. The possessive, like the personal 
pronoun, occurs where a reflexive might have been used. Thus 
7 o@ With xaravoets in Mt. 7: 3, axobw ra gua rexva (3 Jo. 4), &ypaya 
TH un xevpt (Phil. 19). The pronoun iévos is possessive, but is best 
treated as a reflexive. 

III. The Intensive and Identical Pronoun (civtovos dvto- 
vuy.ta). The use of atrés was originally ‘purely anaphoric.”? As 
the third personal pronoun it was, of course, anaphoric. The in- 
tensive use is more emphatic. 

(a) Tue NoMINATIVE Usk or Adres. As already remarked, it is 
not always clear whether we have the emphatic ‘he’ or the in- 
tensive ‘self’ with airés in the nominative. Cf. avrés kal » unrnp 


1 Simcox, Lang., etc., p. 54. 
2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 170. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 351, calls this the 
“determinative” pronoun. On the wholesubject of abrés see K.-G., I, pp. 651 ff. 


686 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


avrotd (Jo. 2:12). . The intensive airés appears in all persons, gen- 
ders and numbers. Thus airos éyw (Ro. 7: 25; cf. €ya abros, Ac. 
10 : 26), avrol axnkoapev (Jo. 4:42), dtvacar—airos (Lu. 6:42), 
avrot tuets (1 Th. 4:9; ef. Ac. 18:15), adres 6 "Iwavns (Mt. 3 : 4), 
av’rot rpopjrat (Ac. 15 : 82), a’rd 7d BiBdiov (Heb. 9:19), adva ra 
érrovpavia (9 : 23), a’ra Ta Epya (Jo. 5: 36). The article is not al- 
ways used. Cf. airdés Aaveié (Lu. 20 : 42), adr Lappa (Heb. 11: 
11), avrot mpodfrac (Ac. 15: 82). Cf. eye 6€ airs, P.Oxy. 294 
(a.D. 22). In 2 Cor. 10: 1 note airés éya Hatdos. There is nothing 
particularly essential in the order whether airos éya or éyw avrés 
(see above). “Eywye is not in the N. T. | 

(6) VaryING DEGREES oF Empnuasis. For a list of the vari- 
ous shades of meaning possible with atrés see Thompson, Syntax 
of Attic Greek, p. 59 f. In Ro. 15:14 atrés occurs with the first 
person and airoi with the second in sharp contrast. In Shake- 
speare we have ‘“‘myself”’ as subject: ‘‘ Myself have letters” (Julius 
Cesar, iv. 3).1 Cf. Latin tpse. In Jo. 2: 24, atréos 6€ "Incots, we 
have Jesus himself in distinction from those who believed on 
him. In 1 Cor. 11: 14 7 vos airy is ‘nature of itself.’ Note 
avtol oldate (1 Th. 3:3), ‘ye for yourselves.’ In Ac. 18:15, dpecbe 
avrot, we find ‘ye by yourselves.’ Each instance will vary slightly 
owing to the context. Cf. atroi (Ac. 16: 37); airés povos (Mk. 
6:47). Onairol yey oty see Ac. 18:4. See ad’ éavrdy (Lu. 12 : 57), 
not avrol. 

(c) Av’tos witH Otros. In Ac. 24:15, 20, the classical idiom atrot 
ovro. occurs. Cf. eis a’td rodro (Ro. 9:17), erodes aitd rodro 
(Ph. 1: 6), aizvo rotro (2 Pet. 1: 5, accusative of gen. reference). 
Cf. 2 Cor. 7:11. The other order is found in éypaya toiro airo (2 
Wore? 3) 

(d) Avtés ALMOST DEMONSTRATIVE. In Luke airds 6 is some- 
times almost a pure demonstrative as it comes to be in later Greek. 
The sense of ‘very’ or ‘self’? is strengthened to ‘that very.’ 
Thus airt# 7H Spa (Lu. 2:38), & aire 7G xarpS (13 : 1), & abr rij 
nuepa (23:12). The modern Greek freely employs this demonstra- 
tive sense. Cf. Thumb, p. 90. Moulton (Prol., p. 91) finds this 
demonstrative use of airés 6 in the papyri. So abrov rdv ’ Avtar, O.P. 
745 (i/a.p.). Moulton thinks that airés is demonstrative also in 
Mt. 3:4. See vi, (A), for further discussion. 

(e) IN THE OBLIQUE CasEs. It is not so common as the nom- 
inative. So av’rots tots kAnrots (1 Cor. 1:24). Cf. kal adrots in Ac. 
15 : 27 (cf. 15:32). But examples occur even in the first and 

1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. 





PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 687 


second persons. Thus éuod abrod (Ro. 16 : 2), cod abras (Lu. 2 : 35), 
abrovs quads (2 Th. 1:4), é& tuav abrav (Ac. 20 : 30, probable text). 
Here the use is intensive, not reflexive. The same thing is pos- 
sible with judy abrév in 1 Cor. 7: 35 (cf. 11:13). But I think this 
reflexive. This intensive use of a’rdés with éuod and ood is found in 
Attic. In air&v judy and btuav only the context can decide which 
is intensive and which reflexive. Cf. Thompson, A Syntaz of Attic 
Greek, p. 64. Cf. €& a’ra&v ré&v vexporadwr, ‘from the grave-diggers 
themselves,’ P. Grenf. ii, 73 (iii/A.D.). 

(f) Adrés Sipe BY SIDE WITH THE REFLEXIVE. So airds éavté 
(Eph. 5 : 27), abrol év éavrois (Ro. 8: 23). Cf. 2 Cor. 1:9; 10:12. 
The distinctively reflexive pronouns are, of course, compounded of 
the personal pronouns and airés. They will be treated directly. 
The N. T. does not have airératos (cf. Latin ipsissimus). Some 
N. T. compounds of atros are a’rapxns (Ph. 4:11), abroxardxpiros 
(Tit. 3:11), a’rouatros (Mk. 4 : 28), a’romrns (Lu. 1: 2). 

(g) ‘O Adres. The use of 6 airés for identity (‘the same,’ ‘the 
very’) is close kin to the original ‘self’ idea. Cf. cpse and tdem. 
The idiom is frequent in the N. T. Thus 6 airs xipios (Ro. 10 : 12), 
4 av’Ty oapé (1 Cor. 15: 39), Tas a’ras Ovcias (Heb. 10:11), and with 
substantive understood 76 aire (Mt. 5: 47), trav att&v (Heb. 2: 
14), ra a’ra (Lu. 6: 23). In 1 Cor. 11:5 we have the associa- 
tive instrumental case with it, 76 a’ro 77 éEvpnuevn. But in 1 Pet. 
5:9 we actually have the genitive (‘the same sort of’), 7a ara 
Tov TabnuaTuv. 

IV. The Reflexive Pronoun (dvtavakiaoTiKky dvtovupta). 

(a) Distinctive Usr. As already explained in this chapter 
under Personal Pronouns, the originals of the personal pronouns 
in oblique cases were also reflexive.! Only gradually the distine- 
tion between personal and reflexive arose. But even so the per- 
sonal pronouns continued to be used as reflexive. Hence I cannot 
agree with Blass? that éuavrod, ceavrod, éavrod “have in the N. T. 
been to some extent displaced by the simple personal pronoun.” It 
is rather a survival of the original (particularly colloquial) usage. 
Thus we have in Mt. 6:19 f. Oncavpifere tutv Onoavpots, 5: 29 f. 
and 18:8 f. Bade aro cod, 6:2 wh cadrions Eutpocbey cov, 11: 29 
d&pate Tov fuydv pov éd’ buds, 17: 27 dos avri Euod kai cod, 18:15 
ékeyEov . . . petrakd cod xal airod. Matthew has rather more of 
these survivals. But see adidw ra epi eué (Ph. 2 : 23), 76 Kar’ Ewe 
mpobupos (Ro. 1:15). For this idiom in Attic see Thompson, Syn- 


1 Cf. Dyroff, Gesch. d. Pron. Reflex., 1. Abt., p. 16. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 166 f. 


688 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tax of Attic Greek, p. 64. This is not indeed the classic Attic 
idiom, but the vernacular Attic (as in the xoww7) is not so free from 
it. In particular the third person presents peculiar problems, since 
the ancient MSS. had no accents or breathings. The abbreviated 
reflexive atrod and atrod would look just alike. It is a matter with 
the editors. See chapter VI, tv, (f), for details. Thus W. H. give 
dpatw Tov aravpov aitod (Lu. 9 : 23), but otk ériorevey abrov avrots 
(Jo. 2:24). In Lu. 9:24 we have rv puxiv airod, but in 14: 26 
Thv Wuxnv éavtod. In the last passage éavrod occurs with rarépa and 
Yux}v, but not with the other words. Cf. ai7g, Ac. 4:32. In the 
light of the history of the personal pronouns, the point is not 
very material, since airod can be reflexive also. The Attic Greek 
used to have 60x wo. But Luke in Ac. 26:9 has éd0fa éuav7d as 
Paul in 1 Cor. 4 : 4 says éuav7 cbvolda. Old English likewise used 
the personal pronouns as reflexive. Thus “I will lay me down 
and sleep,” ‘‘He sat him down at a pillar’s base,” etc.t Cf. Ac. 
19 : 21, we twice. See also chapter VII, tv, 4, (c). 

(b) THe ABSENCE OF THE REFLEXIVE FROM THE NOMINATIVE. 
It is impossible to have a reflexive in the nominative. The in- 
tensive pronoun does occur as airés ¢y (2 Cor.10: 1). The English 
likewise, as already shown, early lost the old idiom of ‘‘ myself,” 
“‘himself’’ as mere nominatives.? Cf. ad’ éavrod, Jo. 11 : 51, where 
avros could have been employed. 

(c) THe INDIRECT REFLEXIVE. It is less common in the N. T. 
It does indeed occur, as in the ancient Greek. So 6é\w zavras 
avOpwrovus etvar ws Kal éuavtov (1 Cor. 7: 7), cvvetinow 6é Néyw obyt rH 
éavTod adda THY TOD érepov (10: 29). But on, the other hand, note 
éym & TO erravepxecbai ye atodwow cor (Lu. 10:35), rapaxakd — 
ouvaywvicacbai wo. (Ro. 15:30). Cf. 2 Cor. 2:18. This on the 
whole is far commoner and it is not surprising since the personal 
pronoun occurs in the direct reflexive sense. Cf. Hv jxobcaTé pov 
(Ac. 1:4). In Thucydides the reflexive form is generally used for 
the indirect reflexive idea.’ 

(dq) IN THE SincuLAR. Here the three persons kept their sep- 
arate forms very well. Hence we find regularly éuavrév (Jo. 14: 
21), ceavrd (Ac. 16 : 28), éav7G (Lu. 18:4). Indeed éavrod never 
stands for éuavrod.4 For ceavrod or ceavrév some MSS. read éavrod 
in» Mk.12,:315, Joc186 34 8G alo o-. 14: Ros lse Omelet or 
10: 29 éavrof=‘one’s own’ (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 441; Prol., 
p. 87). There was some tendency towards this usage in the an- 

1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 33. * Dyroff, Gesch. etc., Bd. I, 1892, p. 19. 

2 Ib; 4 W.-Sch., p. 205. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 689 


cient Greek,! though the explanation is not perfectly clear.2 But 
the usage is clearly found in the Atticists, Dio Chrys., Lucian 
and Philost. Il. In Rev. 18:24 & air# is a sudden change 
from & oot of the preceding verses, but is hardly to be printed 
avrj, for it is not strictly reflexive. The same‘ use of airnv rather 
than cé appears in Mt. 23 : 37 and parallel Lu. 13 : 34. Cf. also 
Lu. 1:45. But Moulton (Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 441, April, 
1904, p. 154) finds in the papyri several examples of this ‘‘un- 
educated use of éav7od”’ for first and second persons singular, ovy- 
xwpG pera Thy éavtod teXevTHv, B.U. 86 (ii/A.D.). Radermacher 
(NV. T. Gr., p. 61) cites éréypava éavtd (Petersen-Luschan, [Reisen 
etc., p. 26, n. 32)... Thucydides has a few possible examples and 
certainly the Latin 7s is in point (Draeger, Historische Synt. d. 
Lat. Spr., p. 84). In early Greek Delbriick finds the reflexive 
referring indifferently to either person. The recurrence is not 
surprising. In the modern Greek the singular éavrod occurs con- 
stantly for first and second persons and even Tod éavtod pou, Tod 
éautov gov for emphasis. Cf. “‘myself,”’ ‘‘thyself,’’ “herself”? and 
vulgar ‘‘hisself.”” See Simcox, Language of the N. T., p. 63. 
In translation from Semitic originals we sometimes find Yuxjv 
rather than éavrdv as in Lu. 9 : 24 (cf. Mk. 8:36). Cf. Moulton, 
Prol., p. 87; Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 114. The form 
avtov (Jo. 2 : 24), at7G (Lu. 12 : 21) is preserved in some 20 pas- 
sages by W. H. and Nestle. 

(e) IN THE PLURAL. Here the matter is not in any doubt. It 
is rather too much to say with Simcox that éav7dy is the only form 
for the reflexive plural. This is indeed true for the first and third 
persons as avebevatioapev eavto’s (Ac. 23:14). In 2 Th. 1:4 atrods 
quads is intensive, as already shown (chapter VII). In the third 
person also only éavrév occurs as in Mt. 18:31. In the second 
person plural a few examples of the reflexive tuév aivav apparently 
survive, as in Ac. 20 : 30; 1 Cor. 5:13 and probably so in 1 Cor. 
7:35; duty abrots in 1 Cor. 11:18. But the common idiom for 
the second person plural is undoubtedly éav7av, as rpocéxere éavtots 
brea) pee NG 20a 0 RO. 6713501 Jo..5:21,,ete. There 
are some seventy examples of éavrdv for first and second persons 
plural in the N. T. (Moulton, Prol., p. 87), as is the custom in 
the papyri, chiefly in illiterate documents. Cf. va yervwpea pds 
tots kaQ’ éavtovs, Tb.P. 6 (i/B.C.); tva Kourowmpeba Ta éavtav, Tb.P. 47. 

Blass Grown. Lb. Gk., p: 167. 


2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 421. Cf. Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 194. 
8 W.-Sch., p. 205. 401, 


690 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The LXX (Conybeare and Stock, Sel., p. 30) has this use of éavrév 
for first and second persons plural. We even find reflexive and 
personal together like buty éavrots (Ex. 20: 23). 

(f) ARTICLE witH. The reflexive is used with or without the 
article and in any position with the article. But curiously enough 
geavrov is never so found and éyvavrod only once in sharp contrast, 
un (ntav TO éuavtod aciudopov adda TO TGV TOANGY (1 Cor. 10:33). 
Instead of this reflexive genitive (possessive) we have the genitive 
of the personal pronoun. Cf. rua Tov warépa pou (Jo. 8:49), ades 
TO d@pov cov (Mt. 5:24). The examples of éavrod are, of course, 
abundant as in r7v é€avtod abAnv (Lu. 11: 21), the common idiom in 
the older Greek. But note also the order 76 épyov éavrod (Gal. 6 : 4), 
éavtovd tovs modas (Ac. 21:11), dovdAovs éavrod (Lu. 19:13), Kfrov 
éavtod (Lu. 13:19). These are all attributive, but the sense is not 
quite the same in the two last. The use of atvod in such examples 
has already been noted as in Mt. 16:24. Sometimes the MSS. 
vary between éavrod and airod asin Lu. 4:24. The plural éavrdv is 
likewise found thus, rods éavr&v vexpots (Mt. 8 : 22), 73 xupiw éavtdv 
(Mt. 18:31), éavrdv ra tuarva (Mt. 21:8). See further chapter 
XVI, The Article. 

(g) REFLEXIVE IN THE RECIPROCAL SENSE. This use of éavrdv 
does not really differ in idea from 4\An\wv. This isin harmony with 
the ancient Greek idiom. The papyri show this same blending 
of éavrév with ad\Andwv.t Cf. P.P. 8 (i/B.c.) three times, O.P. 260 
(i/A.D.), C.P.R. 11 (li/a.pd.) twice. Thus we may note ért xpiyara 
exere weO’ éavrdv (1 Cor. 6: 7), Aadodpres Eavtots (Eph. 5:19), vovderodv- 
tes éavtovs (Col. 3: 16), ete. Sometimes it occurs side by side with 
ad\d\nrwy as if by way of variety, as in avexouevor aA\ANAWY Kal KXapt- 
Couevor éeavtots (Col. 3:18). Cf. also ad\AnAwy and adrots in Lu. 
23:12. In Ph. 2:3 addndovs qyobyevor brrepexovtas EavTrov each word 
retains its own idea. | 

(h) REFLEXIVE WITH MippLE Voice. Sometimes indeed the 
reflexive occurs with the middle voice where it is really superflu- 
OUS, aS In dieuepicavTo éavrots (Jo. 19 : 24, LXX), where? Mt. 27: 
35 (free paraphrase of LX X) has only dceuepicavto. So also ceavrov 
mapexouevos (Tit. 2:7). But usually such examples occur where 
the force of the middle is practically lost, as in #ynuar éwavrdv 
(Ac. 26:2), dpvncacOw éavrov (Lu. 9: 23). On the use of the re- 
flexive in Anglo-Saxon see Penny, A History of the Reflexive 
Pronoun in the English Language, p. 8. Cf. wapadyuvouat mpos 
éuavrov (Jo. 14:3). Moulton (Prol., p. 87) admits that sometimes 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 87. 2 WED. pecols 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAT) 691 


éavrov occurs without great emphasis. This use of the reflexive 
with the middle may be compared with the reflexive and the 
personal pronoun in the LXX. So Ajnuouar EuavTa buds adv Evol 
(Ex. 6:7), ob womoere buty éavrots (20 : 23). So English “me my- 
self,’ “you yourselves.” Cf. Thackeray, p. 191. See further 
chapter XVII, Voice. 

(1) THE Use or “Idéc0s. This adjective is frequent in the N. T. 
It is usually treated as a possessive, opposed! to xowvds or Snudatos. 
In the N. T. we find it, especially (17 times) in kar’ idiay (ef. Lu. 
9:10), in the sense of ‘private.’ So this sense occurs also in Ac. 
4:32 and Heb. 7: 27. Cf. idt@rae in Ac. 4:13 (1 Cor. 14 :-16). 
Sometimes also the word implies what is peculiar to one, his par- 
ticularity or idiosyncrasy, as 1 Cor. 3:8; 7:7 (cf. the classic 
idiom). Cf. our ‘‘idiot.”” But in general 6 iévos or tévos without 
the article (cf. éavrod) means simply ‘one’s own,’ a strong posses- 
sive, a real reflexive. To all intents and purposes it is inter- 
changeable in sense with €avrod. The examples of this reflexive 
idea are many. Thus in Mt. 9:1; Lu. 6:41; 10:34; Jo. 1:41; 
4:44, etc. The use of of tévo for ‘one’s own people’ (ef. also of 
oixeto., 1 Tim. 5:8, classic idiom) is not strange. Cf. Jo. 1:11; 
13:1, etc. Moulton? finds the singular in the papyri as a term of 
endearment. The use of 7a iéca for ‘one’s home’ (Jo. 1: 11; 19: 27; 
Ac. 21:6) is seen also in the papyri. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 
440) cites ra ida, B.U. 86 (ii/A.D.), 183 (i/a.D.), 168 (4i/iil A.D.) 
bis, etc. The papyri also illustrate Jo. 1:11, of téux, for ‘one’s 
relations.’ So pds rods idiouvs, B. U. 341 (i/a.p.).. Examples with- 
out the article are deomdrais idiors (Tit. 2:9), Katpots idiors 
(1 Tim. 6:15). Cf. 6 tétos Aoyos, B.U.16 (ii/a.p.). Moulton, Cl. 
Rev., 1901, p. 440. In Jo. 1:41 Moulton’ rightly agrees with 
Westcott in seeing in roy iévov an implication that some one else 
went after his brother also. The only other point that here calls 
for remark is the question whether 6 técos is used in an “‘exhausted”’ 
or unemphatic sense. Blass‘ finds it so in els tov iévoy aypov (Mt. 
22:5). Meisterhans (p. 235) finds a few examples in the Attic 
inscriptions and Deissmann finds the weakened use of técos in the 
literary xowyn. Deissmann® argues further that this exhausted 
sense may be assumed in the N. T. because some examples in the 
LXX (Job 24:12; Prov. 27:15), etc., seem to occur. Moulton® 


se Dlasss Gr. Of Ne LaGk..p4169. 

SE DrOl ee Wed. ger. Of Nivl ¢ Gk Daou. 
3 Tb. SDS. D.ekeo ke 

6 Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 440 f.; Prol., p. 90. 


692 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


finds that the papyri do not support this contention. Emphasis 
is beyond dispute in most of the N.T. instances like Mt. 9:1; 
Lu. 6:41; Jo. 1:41; Ac. 1:25; Gal. 6: 5, etc. “Moulton (Prol.; 
p. 89) refers with point to Ro. 14: 5, & 76 idiw vot, as showing ité:os 
the equivalent of éavrod. The N. T. passages may be assumed to 
show emphasis in spite of the later Byzantine té.0s wou (cf. éavrod 
you in modern Greek). Moulton! agrees with the Revisers in using 
‘own’ in Mt. 22:5 as a “counter-attraction.”?’ The only diffi- 
cult passage is Ac. 24:24 where B may be wrong. But is it not 
possible that iéia may have a covert hint at the character of 
Drusilla? For the present she was with Felix. In Tit. 1 : 12 note 
duos a’tav mpodyntns. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154) cites quar 
téov, Ch. P. 4 (11/A.D.), tdcov abrod, N. P. 25 (11/A.p.), and eis idiay pov 
xpetav, B.U. 363 (Byz., Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 440). In mod- 
ern Greek 6 té0s=6 airos (Thumb, Handb., p. 97) or ‘self,’ éya 6 
tdcos, ‘I myself.’ Cf. 74 adrqe in the papyrus of Eudoxus (11/B.c¢.), 
but Moulton (Prol., p. 91) observes that it does not occur in the 
N. T. in this sense. 

V. The Reciprocal Pronoun (n dpo.Bata dvtTovupta). The use 
of the reflexive in the reciprocal sense has just been discussed (cf. 
personal pronouns as reflexive). From one point of view it might 
seem hardly necessary to give a separate discussion of reciprocal 
pronouns. But, after all, the idea is not exactly that of the mere 
reflexive. ’AdAnAwy is, of course, reduplicated from dos, one of 
the alternative pronouns. Cf. the Latin alius and alter alteri. The 
Latin idiom is common in the classic Greek and is found in Ac. 
2:12, dddXos mpds aAXov NEeyorTes; 19:32, AAXoe GAXO Te Expafov; 21:34, 
Gow GAO Te éredwvovy. Cf. in the papyri ado éyw, aANo TarTes, 
B.U. 1079 (a.p. 41). But the true reciprocal 4\\nAwy has no nom- 
inative and is necessarily plural or dual (in older Greek). It 
occurs 100 times in the N. T. (W. H.) and is fairly well distributed. 
We have examples of the genitive (Ro. 12:5 d\d\ndAwr edn), the 
ablative (Col. 3 : 13 avexouevor dAAjAwY), the accusative (1 Cor. 16 : 
20 aordacacbe adANAOvs, 1 JO. 4:7 ayarGuev addnpdovs), the locative 
(Ro. 15:5 & dddndors), the dative (Gal. 5 : 13 dovNevere &AADAOLS). 
The prepositions are used 48 times with a\\nAwv. This pronoun 
brings out the mutual relations involved. In 1 Th. 5:11, zapa- 
Kadeitre GAANAoUS Kal oikodouetTe ets Tov éva, note the distributive 
explaining the reciprocal. Moulton (Prol., p. 246) compares the 
modern Greek 6 évas tov G@AdNov. In Ph. 2:3 note both addndAous 
and éavrév. In 1 Th. 5:15 we have eis a\dndous kal eis wavras. 

1 Prol., p. 90. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 618, 








PRONOUNS (’ANTOQNTMIAT) 693 


In 2 Th. 1: 3 note évos exaorov and eis a\Andovs. The N. T. does 
not, like the LXX (Ex. 10 : 23), use dded¢os as a reciprocal pro- 
noun. The middle voice is also used in a reciprocal sense as in 
ouveBovrevcavto (Mt. 26:4). Cf. chapter XVII, Voice. 

VI. Demonstrative Pronouns (Seuktikal advTovuptar). 

(a) Nature. Curiously enough the demonstrative pronoun, 
like all pronouns, has given the grammarians a deal of trouble to 
define. For a discussion of the various theories during the ages 
see Riemann and Goelzer.! Originally all pronouns were “ deictic,”’ 
“pointing.”’. The “‘anaphoric”’ use came gradually.2 Indeed the 
same pronoun often continued to be now deictic, now anaphoric, 
as és, for instance, originally demonstrative, but later usually 
relative. Indeed the anaphoric use blends with the relative. 
Monro? marks out three uses of pronouns, not three kinds of pro- 
nouns. The “deictic” ‘marks an object by its position in respect 
to the speaker.”’? Thus éya, ot, 66¢, otros, éxetvos all fall under this 
head. The “anaphoric” pronoun ‘is one that denotes an object 
already mentioned or otherwise known.” ‘Thus the resumptive 
use Of dd€, oTos, éxetvos, Os, davis. The “‘relative’’ in the modern 
sense would be only 6s, davis, otos, dcos, etc. As a matter of fact, 
for practical purposes the two Greek terms “‘deictic”’ and ‘‘ana- 
phoric”’ may be placed beside the Latin “demonstrative” and 
“relative.”’ See further chapter VII, tv, 4, (e). 

(b) DirrERENT SHapEs oF MEANING. ‘The demonstrative pro- 
nouns do not indeed always have the same shade of meaning. 
They may point out, as far or near (0de, ovros, éxetvos), aS in ap- 
position (éxetvos), as well known (éxe?vos), as already mentioned 
(resumptive otros, d6e).4 These uses belong to the various de- 
monstratives and will come out in the context. I do not care to 
press the parallel with the personal pronouns (first, second, third 
person demonstratives) as applied to 6d, otros, éxetvos. The pro- 
nouns had best be treated separately, not according to the spe- 
cial uses. 

(c) ‘O, 7, 70. This was the simplest demonstrative.’ The gram- 
marians® call this word a&p0pov mporaxrixov as distinct from és which 
is GpOpov broraxtixov. As a matter of fact 6, 7, 76 is the same word 
as the Sanskrit sd (sds), sd, tdd.? The Lithuanian nominative sing- 


1 Synt., p. 763 f. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 168 f. 4 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 779. 
seb: 5 K.-BI., I, i, p. 603. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 145. See Gildersleeve, Synt., pp. ii, 216-226. 
7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 189. 


694. <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ular was td-s, td, and the Greek nominative plural oi, ai came ‘‘in- 
stead of voi, vai”? (Brugmann, Comp. Gr., vol. III, p. 327). This 
form, like der in German and this in English, was used either as 
demonstrative, article or relative. See Kihner-Gerth, I, p. 575. 
One is not to trace actual historical connection between 6 and 
der (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 559). Its old use was a sort of 
personal demonstrative (cf. od 6¢ in Lu. 1: 76).1 Cf. also od 6é ri 
and # kal ov ri (Ro. 14:10) and od ris (14:4). Cf. Brugmann, 
Griech. Gr., p. 428. This substantival use is the main one in 
Homer.?. Indeed, as a demonstrative it means rather contrast 
than far or near like 6é6e, otros, éxetvos, but after all dé¢€ is nothing 
but 6 with the ending —de. The demonstrative use of 6 is seen in 
to’s dco. in Agathias? and ray éca in Maximus of Tyre.* This 
demonstrative as antecedent to the relative (7o’s ot) appears in 
Justin Martyr® and Tatian’s Oration to the Greeks. Plato shows a 
good many examples’? (like roy és, Tov dc0s). We meet in Xenophon 
and Demosthenes ® xa! rév as demonstrative, especially tov kal roy, 7d 
Kat 70, Ta Kat TA. The modern Greek uses 709, 77s, TH, etc., as short 
forms of av’rod, etc., and Jebb® pertinently asks if this is not ‘‘a 
return to the earliest use of 6, 7, 76 as a pronoun.” The demonstra- 
tive 6 is frequent in the comic writers. Cf. Fuller, De Articuli 
in Antiquis Graecis Comoedus Usu, p. 9. Volker (Syntax, p. 5) 
gives papyri illustrations of demonstrative 6 (6 6€, Tod dé, mpds 70D, 
po Tov, Ta per, Ta de, etc.).!° The oblique cases have only two ex- 
amples in the N. T., one a quotation from Aratus, rod xat (Ac. 
17: 28), the other robs pe, ro’s 6€ (Eph. 4:11), where contrast 
exists. It is possible indeed that 76v in Ph. 1 : 11 is demonstra- 
tive. Cf. also rov am’ apxfs in 1 Jo. 2:13 and c7v in 1 Cor. 
10:29. In Mt. 14:2 (Mk. 6:14) aé is nearly equivalent to 
‘these.’ In Mk. 12:5 the correct text is ods yey, etc. But in 
the nominative the examples of this demonstrative in the N. T. 
are quite numerous. There are three uses of the nominative in 
the N. T. (1) One is the demonstrative pure and simple without 
any expressed contrast. So of 6€ épamicav (Mt. 26 : 67), of dé ééi- 
otacav (Mt. 28:17). In Mt. 26 : 57 of b€ kparnoavres We may have 

1 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk p. Of. 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 176. 

3 Reffel, Uber den Sprachgebr. des Agathias, 1894, p. 5. 

4 Diirr, Sprachl. Unters., 1899, p. 27. 

5 Cf. Gildersleeve’s ed. of First Apol., ch. 5 and note to p. 116. 

6 Otto’s ed., pp. 24, 90.. 

7 Cf. Gildersleeve, Justin Martyr, p. 116, for others. 


8 Hadley and Allen, Gk. Gr., p. 216. 
® V. and D.’s Handb., etc., p. 297. 10 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 81. 








PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAT) 695 


this usage or merely the article. In Acts we often have of peév obv 
in this sense, usually with the participle (Ac. 1:6; 8:4, 25). But 
even in these examples there is apparently an implied contrast. 
In Mt. 16:14 and Lu. 9:19 the use of of 5€ (3, below) refers 
to those already mentioned in an oblique case. (2) The use of 
6 pev, 6 6€, etc. This is no longer very frequent in the N. T.! So 
6 pev oTws, 6 dé oUTws (1 Cor. 7:7); of wer, 6 d€ (Heb. 7 : 20, 23); 
of wev, of 6€ (Ac. 14:4); of wer, adror 6€, Erepor Se (Mt. 16:14 f.). 
In Mt. 13 : 23 we most likely have 6 yer, 6 dé, not 6 yer, 6 de. Cf. 
6 pev (Lu. 8:5). In Ac. 17:18 note ruves, of 6é, and in Ro. 14: 2 ds 
pev, 6 6€. (3) The most common use of the demonstrative is where 
6 6€, 7 de, of 6€ refer to persons already mentioned in an oblique 
~ ease. Thus in Mt. 2:5 of 6é refers to rap’ abrév. So in of 6é (Lu. 
23 : 21) the reference is to airots, while 6 6€ in the next verse points 
toairév. In Mk. 14 : 616 6¢€ refers to ’Incody, as in Ac. 12 : 15, 7 6é 
to airqv. In Lu. 22:70 6 6€ has no antecedent expressed, but it 
is implied in the efzav ravres before. 

(d) “Os. The grammarians call it a&pOpov troraxrixéy or relative? 
It did come to be chiefly relative, as already the Sanskrit yds, yd, 
ydd has lost its original demonstrative force.’ But in the Lithu- 
anian j-1-s Brugmann (Comp. G., III, p. 332) finds proof that the 
pro-ethnic 1-o was demonstrative as well as relative. Cf. also 
i-va in Homer=both ‘there’ and ‘where’ and then ‘that.’ In 
Homer és, like és (ws), is now demonstrative, now relative, and was 
originally demonstrative.t This original demonstrative sense con- 
tinues in Attic prose, as in the Platonic 7 6’ 6s; Kat ds; dv wer, dv 6€, 
etc.2 However, it is not certain that the demonstrative use of és 
(kat ds, 7 6’ ds) is the same word as the relative. Brugmann® in- 
deed finds it from an original root, *so-s like Sanskrit sd-s. The 
examples of this demonstrative in the nominative are few in the 
N.T.. Thus note in Jo. 5:11 (correct text) ds 6€ drexpify, and also 
ds dé ok EXaBey in Mk. 15: 23. Indeed os 67 in Mt. 13 : 23 is close 
to the same idea. But this verse furnishes a good example of this 
demonstrative in contrast, 6 wev éxarov 6 dé EENKovTa 6 dé TpLaKovTa. 
This example happens to be in the accusative case (cf. Ro. 9 : 21), 
but the nominative appears also as in a@ peév érecey (Mt. 13: 4), ds 
pev els Tov tdvov aypor, Os dé ert THv éurropiay (Mt. 22 : 5), ds per mioreber 


(Ro. 14: 2), ds uév yap kpiver — ds 6€ xpiver (14:5). Sol Cor. 11: 21. 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 145. 

2 K.-B1., I, i, p. 608. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 185. 

3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 195. 5 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 68. 
6 


Cf. Griech. Gr., p. OA: Comp. Gr., III, p. 335. 


696 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Instances of other cases occur also. I see no adequate reason for 
refusing to consider dy pév ederpay, dv 6é aréxrevav, dv dé EALG0BOANTAaY 
(Mt. 21:35) examples of the demonstrative és... Cf. Lu. 23 : 33. 
In the accusative plural note ods per, ods dé, Mk. 12 : 5; Ac. 27: 44; 
Ju. 22f. For the dative singular, @ per, @ de, note Mt. 25:15. In 
1 Cor. 12 : 8 we have 6 yev, dd\Aw 6€, err. For the dative plural see 
ois pev, ois dé, 2 Cor. 2:16. In 1 Cor. 12:28 we have ois pep 
as demonstrative without any corresponding ois de. Cf. of peév 
ov in Ac. 8:4, 25; 11:19; 15: 3, 30, and 6 yey ody in Ac. 23:18 as 
above in (c). The relative at the beginning of sentences or para- 
graphs, like év ois in Lu. 12: 1 (cf. av6’ dv verse 3), may indeed at 
bottom be a reminiscence of the old demonstrative. Cf. Latin and 
English usage. The demonstrative is often used to connect sen- 
tences, as in Mt. 11:23; 12:1; Mk. 8:1, etc. Cf. Blass, Gr. of 
N.T.Gk., p. 276. In Mt. 26 : 50, éd’ 6 rape, we may also have an 
instance of the demonstrative. But we do not have in the N. T. 
kal 0s, Kal TOV, TOV Kal TOV, Tpd TOD. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 62) 
finds demonstrative cde in an inscription in Heberdey-Wilhelm, 
Reisen, N. 170. 

(e) “Ode. Brugmann? finds the enclitic —de the same that we have 
in 6e-dpo, 67, i-de (?), Latin quan-de. It corresponds to the Latin 
hic, German der hier, English this here. It refers to what is 
“immediately near” in space or time,’ and is of relatively more 
importance than odros. As a matter of fact 6é¢€ occurs only ten 
times in the N. T. In the LXX “6ée is much commoner than in 
the N. D2? (Thackeray, Gr. ofathe Og 7? an Gkhexvoleleipa ons 
especially in the more literary parts. For its rarity in papyri and 
inscriptions see Mayser, Gr., ete., p. 308. It is already failing in 
the first century B.c. (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p.62). For rade see 
chapter VII, 1v, 4, (e). In Lu.16:25 dée is the correct text. In 
Ac. 15 : 23 rade is not well supported and in 2 Cor. 12:19 7a 6€ is 
right. In one of the remaining examples, ride jv adedon (Lu. 10: 
39), Blass‘ bluntly calls it “not even used correctly,” a rather curt 
judgment. But he cites the LXX (Gen. 25: 24; 38: 27). In 
Winer-Schmiedel® this example is not considered as éd¢ used for 
ovros, but rather like the classic d6€ éyw, otde fuels (cf. Ex. 8 : 25; 
Gen. 50:18). In Jas. 4:18, ropevoducba eis thvde THY Tod, it is 
hardly necessary to take rnvde as like the classical ry detva or tiv 
kal tv (cf. Plato), though that is a possible construction. Cf. 

1 So Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 68, n. 3. 


2 Griech. Gri, p. 242. 4 Gr. of Nw T.. Gk; po170-: 
% Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 65. SP Pai. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 697 


Toinoouev TOvTO 7 éxecvo in verse 15. Plutarch! seems to use ryvde in 
this sense. More likely in James ryvde merely means ‘this’ city 
which the enterprising Jew exploits for a year before he passes on 
to the next. 

(f) Odros. Of doubtful etymology, possibly an original root w.? 
With this combine 6, 4, 76=o00, ab, rov. Then add to-s, a(n), To. 
In reality, therefore, oiros is a doubled demonstrative (combination 
of so and to, Giles, p. 296). It is like the Latin 7s-te (double also). 
Otr7os is more often anaphoric than deictic.2 In Homer‘ it (deictic) 
expresses an object present to the speaker, but not near him. The 
word is limited in use in Homer and usually refers to what is 
previously mentioned (anaphoric). It is very common in the 
N. T. and on the whole the usage accords with that of the older 
Greek. Naturally there is much diversity in the context. 

1. The Purely Deictic. This use is not wanting. Thus in Mt. 
3:17, otrds éorw 6 tos pov, the demonstrative identifies the one 
present as the Son of God. For further examples of the purely 
deictic use see Mt. 12 : 23; 17:5; 21:10 f. (a particularly good 
illustration); 21: 38; 27:37, 47, 54; Mk. 6:3; 15:39; Lu. 4: 22; 
8:25, etc. But a still plainer example is in Jo. 21:21, when 
Simon pointed to John as otros 6€ Ti. 

2. The Contemptuous Use of otros. It is merely one variation of 
the purely deictic idiom due to the relation of the persons in ques- 
tion. Itis rather common in the N. T. Soin Mt. 26 : 61 otros edn 
we find a “fling” of reproach as the witnesses testify against 
Jesus. Cf. Mt. 26:71 (parallel Lu. 22:56 xai otros), the maid 
about Peter; Mk. 2:7, the Pharisees about Jesus; Lu. 15:2; Jo. 
6:42; 9:24; 12:34; Ac. 7:40, Jews about Moses; 19:26; 28: 
4, about Paul; Lu. 15 : 30, the elder son at the younger; 18: 11, 
the Pharisee at the publican, etc. A striking example occurs in 
AC. 5 28. 

3. The Anaphoric Use. The pronoun here refers to one previ- 
ously mentioned, as in Mt. 27: 58 where otzos alludes to ’Iwond in 
verse 57, where note the anacoluthon. So in Heb. 7:1 otros points 
to the mention of Melchizedek in the preceding verse. There are 
many variations in the anaphoric idiom. The simplest is the one 
already mentioned, where the subject of discussion is merely con- 
tinued by odros, as in Mt. 3:3 (cf. the Baptist in verse 1). In 
particular observe xai odros, as in Lu. 8:41;16:1. In Lu. 22:59 


1 Quest. conviv. 1. 6. 1, rHvde THY juepar. 
2 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 242, 428. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 170. 
3 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 65. boIb: 


698 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


kal ovros is rather deictic. A striking example of the continua- 
tive otros occurs in Ac. 7: 35, 36, 37, 38, 40. Here the pro- 
noun is repeated as often as is desired. So Jo. 6:42. Cf. the 
use of the pronoun because of prolepsis (Ac. 9:20). The more 
frequent use is the resumptive or epexegetical use which is rather 
more abundant in the N. T.!. Here odros is really in apposition. 
In Ro. 7: 10, 7 €vrod7 7 els Fwy arn els Pavarov, we seem to have the 
resumptive use with a substantive. But a clear example (different 
in number and gender)? occurs in Mt. 13:38, 76 6€ xaddv orépua, 
ovrol eiowv. One may note a similar use of éxetvos (Jo. 12: 48; 16: 13) 
and of airés (Jo. 12:49). Another plain instance is in Ac. 2: 23, 
where rotrov refers to ‘Incody (verse 22). Cf. also rodrov (2d) in 
Ac. 7:35. In Ac. 4:10 é rovrw is resumptive referring to the pre- 
ceding substantive followed by two relative clauses, while oiros is 
deictic. In verse 11 again oiros is continuative. In Ro. 9:6, of é 
*IopanX, ovo (cf. Gal. 3 : 7), the resumptive use is plain. The par- 
ticiple before otros is a very common idiom, as 6 6€ bropetvas els TEXOS 
ovros (Mt. 10 : 22; 24:13); 6 éuBayas per’ éuod — ovros (26: 23). Cf. 
1 Cor. 6:4; Lu. 9:48; Jo. 7:18, etc. The participle, of course, 
often follows otros, not resumptive, as in Jo. 11:37. The rel- 
ative is followed by resumptive odros as in ds 6’ dy amodeon — 
ovros (Lu. 9 : 24), 6 0€X\w rodTo mpacow (Ro. 7:15 f., 20). So Mt. 5: 
193; ME? 616; AceS96)* Galwo.217.-46 i aie be 
plural is seen in Jo. 8 : 26, 4 — rad7a; also in Ph. 4:9. For aria 
— rtatra see Ph. 3:7, and dca — otro Ro. 8: 14; Gal. 6:12; 
Ph. 4:8. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, p. 218. See érav — tore, xabws — 
Taira (Jo. 8:28). In Ph. 1: 22 rodro resumes 7d (fav. In 
2 Th. 3:14 sotrov is resumptive with ei ms as in Jas. 1: 238. 
Cf. also°1. Cor. 8:3; Ro. 8:9; Jas) 322.2 For ééy 71s see Jo: 
9:31. Sometimes only the context can clear up the exact 
reference of the anaphoric odros. So in Ac. 8 : 26 ain points to 
7 000s. 

4. In Apposition. See also chapter X, 1x. Otros itself may be 
expanded or explained by apposition. The simplest form of this 
construction is where a substantive‘ is in apposition as in 2 Cor. 
13:9, rodro kal ebxyoucba, Tv budvy Kataptiow, Where agreement in 
gender does not occur. Cf. the nominative 4 wiorts in 1 Jo. 5:4. 
Cf. 1 Th. 4:3. Odzos is, of course, the antecedent of the rela- 
tive és, as in Mt. 11:10; Jo. 7: 25; zoiro 6 in Jo. 16:17. In 

1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 65 f. 


251b. Shep. ode 
4-Cf. BlasseGr.of Nl. Gkeipe 7. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAT) 699 


Ph. 2:5 note rodro — 6 cai. Sometimes a clause is in apposition 
with ovros which may be either nominative or in an oblique case. 
Thus with 67. we have the nominative (with feminine predicate 
_noun), as in arn éoriv } Kplots Ore (Jo. 3:19). Cf. 1Jo. 1: 5; 5:9, 
11,14. In Mk. 4:41, ris dpa obrés éorw drt, the 67 is almost equal 
to dore. The accusative with 67. we have in roto ér (Ro. 2 : 3; 
ce LU aLOG i AG eee l4a by Core 11215 2.50. 2a@or 5: 
Per pel bee neo nls Ph. 1:6 (abrd rotro), 257.1. Tims): 
9; 2 Tim. 3:1; 2.Pet. 1:20; 3:3, 8. Cf. also d:a rofro dri in Jo. 
12:39. In Gal. 3:17, after rotro \éyw, we have the direct dis- 
course without recitative ér., but the quotation is really in the 
accusative in apposition with rodro. Cf. also Lu. 12:18, rodro 
Tomnow* KabeX@ pou tas arobnxas, and Jo. 4:17. The genitive with 
dTe APpears in zepl rovrov bre (Jo. 16:19). The locative appears in 
év rovrw ort, 1 Jo. 4:9, 10, 13. Cf. éy rotrw br (Jo. 16 : 30; 1 Jo. 
3:19, 24) in a slightly different sense where 67: is really the accu- 
sative. But in general these substantive clauses have the same 
case as TovrTo. 

Closely allied to this use of é7z is that of tva. Thus the nom- 
inative, ro0ev pou TodTo iva €\Oy, occurs in Lu. 1:48. In Jo. 17:38, 
aitn 6€ éotw  aiwvios fw iva, the pronoun is feminine because of 
the predicate substantive. Cf. Jo. 15:12: 1 Jo. 3:11, 23;5:3; .. 
2 Jo. 6. The accusative as the direct object of the verb is seen 
In todto rpocelbxouar va in Ph. 1:9. Cf. also ratra— iva, Jo. 
15:11, 17; 1 Jo.5:13. The feminine substantive occurs in the 
accusative also, as in tavrny rHy evrodny exouev ar’ adtod, iva, 1 Jo. 
4:21. The accusative is found also with prepositions. So eis 
7ovro, va, Ac. 9:21; Ro. 14:9; 2 Cor. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:9; 4:6; 1 
Jo.3:8. In Eph. 6 : 22 we have eis airé rotro va. Cf. Col. 4:8. 
Likewise note 61a todr0, va in 2 Cor. 13:10; 1 Tim. 1: 16; Phil. 15. 
In 2 Cor. 2 : 3, éypava rotro airé va, we probably have the direct 
accusative, though rotro airo could be adverbial accusative, ‘for 
this very reason.’ The locative appears in év rovrw é60&4aOn iva, Jo. 
15:8. Cf.1J0.4:17. The ablative case appears in Jo. 15 : 13, 
peifova Tabtns ayamny ovdels Exe, va. In 3 Jo. 4 the ablative plural 
is found, wetorépay trovrwv — iva. The apposition in these various 
constructions varies in degree of directness. An example of ézws 
with eis ard robro occurs in Ro. 9:17 quoted from the LXX (Ex. 
9:16). Cf. also oreddduevor TodTO ww In 2 Cor. 8 : 20. 

In 1 Pet. 2:19 note also the use of ef with rofro (though yaprs 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 217, where it is observed that elsewhere often 61a rotro 
points to what goes before. 


700 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is predicate), rodro yap xapus et. Here the ei clause is in the same 
case as rov70, nominative. Soin 1 Jo. 2:3 we have éay in apposition 
with & roitw (locative). 

In 1 Jo. 5 : 2 the correct text has 67ay in similar apposition with 
év rovrw. The infinitive also occurs in apposition with rotro. In 
Heb. 9:8 the perfect infinitive in indirect discourse with the ac- 
cusative is in apposition to rodro which is itself accusative, toro 
dnAodyTOs TOU mvEevuaTos TOD aylov, wHTwW TepavepBabar THY KTr. In 
Eph. 4 : 17 likewise unxére repurarety, in apposition to rodro (after 
Aeyw), 1S in indirect discourse, though here it is indirect com- 
mand, not indirect assertion. But in 1 Cor. 7: 37 rnpety ri éavtod 
map0evov is merely explanatory of rodro xexpuxeyv. ‘The same thing 
is true in 2 Cor. 2:1, where the article is added to the infinitive 
which is also in the accusative, éxpwa éuavtd todro, To ui — eOerv. 
In Ac. 26 : 16 the infinitive zpoxepicacbar is in the accusative like 
eis tovTo. Cf. ov’rws, 1 Pet. 2:15. The nominative infinitive in 
Jas. 1:27 is in apposition with airy (OpynoKeia Kabapa — arn, ém- 
oxertecbar). So also note ovtws éoriv 7d O€Anua Tod Heod — dipoty in 
1 Pet. 2:15... Cf. Ro. 1:12 where rotro — ovvrapakdnOfvar are 
merely subject and predicate. In 2 Cor. 7: 11 the nominative 
infinitive, 76 AvTnOjvat, occurs with airo robro. Indeed in Mk. 12: 
24 the causal participle is really explanatory of rodro (61a todro 
twravacbe, ut) eidores). It is possible to see a similar example? in 
Lu. 8:21, ddepot pou otrot eioty of —axovovres. Here in truth 
ovTo. Seems unnecessary. 

5. Use of the Article. The article commonly occurs with the noun 
when the noun is used with otros. The noun is by no means always 
necessary with ot7os. See 6. Indeed the resumptive dem. alone is 
often sufficient, as in Jo. 1:2, 7, etc. So atroi otro (Ac. 24:15, 
20). In a sense a double demonstrative thus occurs, since the ar- 
ticle was originally demonstrative. This is in exact accord with 
classic usage and calls for no special comment, except that it is 
an idiom foreign to Latin and English. The modern Greek pre- 
serves this idiom with the demonstrative. So rtotrn 7 yvvatka, 
avtos 6 avdpas (Thumb, Handb., p. 92). It is immaterial whether 
ovros comes first, as otros 6 TeAwyns (Lu. 18 : 11), or last, as 6 avOpw- 
mos ovtos (Lu. 23 : 47). Cf. Jo. 9:24. When an adjective is used 
with the substantive, then the article may be repeated with the 
adjective, as 7 xnpa aitn 4 mrwxn (Mk. 12 : 48), or otros may, like 
the adjective, be brought within the rule of the article. So ris 4 


1 For exx. in earlier Gk. and literary cow see W.-Sch., p. 217. 
2 W.-Sch., p. 218. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) 701 


Katy avttn [9] bd cod NadovpEern didaxyn (Ac. 17: 19).1 Even if the 
second article be admitted here, the point made still applies. The 
position of otros with the article, otros 6 rather than 6 otros, does 
not mean simply the predicate idea, though the position is predi- 
cate. But not so ri ékfovciay tratrny aracay in Lu. 4:6. Here 
the real predicate notion appears. In Kiihner-Gerth (I, p. 628) 
the explanation is given that it is either apposition (otros 6 avnp= 
‘this, the man’) or predicative sense (6 avjp otros = ‘the man here’). 
Probably so, but in actual usage the connection is much closer 
than that. See Lu. 15:24, odros 6 vids wou. Cf. the French idiom 
La République Francaise. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 324) takes the 
predicate explanation. See also chapter XVI, The Article. 

6. Article Absent. The article does not always occur with sub- 
stantives when oiros is used. When ot70s occurs with proper names 
in the N. T., the article is present. So Ac. 1: 11 otros 6 ’Inaods, 
19 : 26 6 Tatdos otros, 7:40 6 yao Mwiajs otros, 2:32 rodrov tov 
"Incodv, Heb. 7: 1 otros yap 6 Medxioedex, except in Ac. 6: 14 ’Inaods 
6 Nafwpatos otros, where the article is used with the adjective, not 
with ’Incods. So uniform indeed in the Greek is the presence of 
the article with the noun and oitzos, that the absence of the article 
causes something of a jolt. In Ro. 9:8 the conjunction of the 
words radra téxva must not deceive us. The copula éorw must 
be supplied between. The American Revision indeed calls in the 
English relative to render the idiom ov 7a réxva Tis capkos TadTa TExva 
Tod eo. Cf. the simple predicate use in 1 Cor. 6 : 11, cat radra& Ties 
qte. In Lu. 1: 36, ob7os unv exros éoriv, the substantive is predicate. 
The same thing is clearly true of Lu. 2:2, atrn aroypad} mpwrn 
éyevero. Cf. also rotro byty onyetov in Lu. 2:12. Some MSS. have 
76, but in either case the copula is supplied. The remaining exam- 
ples are not so simple, but ultimately resolve themselves into the 
predicate usage unless one has to except Ac. 24: 21 (see below). In 
Lu. 7:44, rabrnv tHv yuvatka, the article does not occur in L 47%. 
Winer? considers the reading without the article ‘“unexception- 
able,’’ since the woman was present. In Lu. 24:21 the predicate 
accusative really is found, rpirny rabrnvy juepay ayer ad’ ov Tadra 
éyevero, 2 common Greek idiom difficult to put into English. 
It is not ‘this third day,’ but ‘this a third day.’ Cf. also 2 Pet. 
3:1, rabrnv devrépayv ypadw éxiorod\jv. In this instance the English 
translation resorts to the relative ‘that’ to bring out the predi- 
cate relation, ‘this is the second epistle that I write.’ In Jo. 2:11, 


1 See Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 331, for this “pseudo-attributive position.” 
2 W.-Th., p. 110. 


702 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ravTnvy éroincey apxnv Tv onuetwv, even the American Revision 
has a wrong translation, ‘this beginning of miracles.’ It is rather 
‘this Jesus did as a beginning of miracles.’ But & and Chrys. 
here have tiv. In Jo.4:18, rodro anes elpynxas, the English rela- 
tive is again necessary, ‘this is a true thing that thou didst say’ 
or ‘thou didst speak this as a true thing.’ The translation ‘truly’ 
rather obscures the idea. In Ac. 1: 5, ot werd odds Tabras jyepas, 
several difficulties appear. The litotes, od werd awoddas, does not 
have the usual order.!. Cf. Ac. 27: 14 for wer’ od zodv. There is be- 
sides a use of wera Somewhat akin to that of rpd in po €£ juepdv rod 
nacxa (Jo. 12:1).2. The order would more naturally be ot zodXds 
Hueépas pera Ta’Tas OF ov TOANGY uEepGv pera Ta’tas. However, the 
predicate use of ratras without the article permits the condensa- 
tion. The free translation ‘not many days hence’ is essentially cor- 
rect. It is literally ‘after not many days these’ as a starting-point 
(from these). In Jo. 21:14, rotro én rpitov Epavepwhn Incoids, the 
matter is very simple, ‘this already a third time,’ or to use the 
English relative, ‘this is now, the third time that.’ So also in 
2 Cor. 12:14 and 13:1, rpirov rotro. The most difficult instance 
to understand is in Ac. 24:21, epi wads tabrns dws fs Exexpata. 
Here ‘concerning this one voice which I cried’ makes perfectly 
obvious sense. The trouble is that it is the only N. T. example 
of such an attributive usage without the article. Blass* takes 
it to be equivalent to 7 ¢wvy } eyeveto jv ula aitn. This is, of 
course, the normal Greek idiom and is possibly correct. But one 
wonders if a lapse from the uniform idiom may not occur here. 
Radermacher (N. 7’. Gr., p. 92) cites tobrov mpaypyatos, radta ddiKy- 
pata, TovTo krjua from inscriptions in Magnesia (Petersen-Luschan, 
Reisen in Lykien, p. 35, n. 54) and éornoay rdde uvjua from a Bi- 
thynian inscription (Perrot, Exploration arch. de la Galatie, p. 24, 
N. 34). Hence one had best not be too dogmatic as to Luke’s 
idiom in Ac. 24:21. After all, the predicate use may be the orig- 
inal use, as with éxe?vos. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 426 f.; 
Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 67. See also chapter XVI. 
7. Otros in Contrast with éxetvos. The distinction between ééde 
for what follows and otros for what precedes‘ (not strictly observed 
in the ancient Greek) amounts to little in the N. T., since de is 
so rare. But otros does, as a rule, refer to what is near or last 
mentioned and éxetvos to what is remote. See airy and odros in 
1 W.-Sch., p. 221; 


2: Cf. Blass, Gr. of Neiy Gie, pps 1267133: 
Sb ees 4 ‘Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 66. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) 703 


2 Jo. 6f. and rotdro in 2 Cor. 18:9. This idiomatic use of otros 
is plain in Ac. 7:19. In 1 Jo. 5:20 ot7os really refers to a’rod 
(€v 7G vid a’rod) and so no difficulty exists. In Ac. 4:11 otros is 
resumptive and takes up the main thread of the story again (cf. 
ovros in verse 9). In Ac. 8 : 26 atrn may refer to Tatay, but more 
probably (see 3, end) refers to 666s, a more remote substantive, 
indeed. In Lu. 16:1 again only the sense! makes it clear (av0pw- 
TOs Tis HV TAOVGLOS Os ELXEV OlKOVOMOV, Kal ovTOs) that otros refers to 
oixovopov. In Lu. 18: 14, xaréBn odros Sedikawwpevos els TOV OlKoY a’TOD 
map’ éxetvov, the two pronouns occur in sharp contrast, one point- 
ing out the publican, the other the Pharisee. In such contrasts 
ovros refers to the last mentioned. This is clearly one example 
(besides 2 Jo.6 f.) in the N. T., which curiously enough Blass 
(Greeojel\ tal Gk., p:el/1)\ does not recognise. Cf. also Jo. 
13 : 24; éxetvos rolrw in Jo. 5: 38, and ratra éxelvors in 1 Cor. 
10:11. In Jo. 1:7f. both ot7os and éxetvos are used of John 
and in proper idiom.? Instead of éxetvos we might have had 
ovros properly enough because of avrod, but éxetvos calls us back 
pointedly to ’Iwavns. Cf. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 236. 
Note otros 6 \dyos—6 pmabynris exetvos in Jo. 21:23. In 1 Cor. 
6:13, 6 dé Beds Kat tabrnv Kal tadra Katapynoe, we find otros used 
for both the near and the remote. The number and gender 
make it clear. In 1 Cor. 9:3 airy points to what follows. In 
a case like & rotrw xaipw (Ph. 1:18), the main thought is meant 
by the demonstrative. So with & rotrw didwut* tovro yap byiy 
ouupeper (2 Cor. 8:10). Cf. todro Ac. 24 : 14, ete. 

8. As Antecedent of the Relative Pronoun. The absence of the 
demonstrative pronoun before the relative pronoun will be dis- 
cussed later. This absence is in the case of a possible pronoun 
before the relative and after it also. The resumptive use of the 
demonstrative pronoun after the relative sentence has been al- 
ready treated. But? it is “the normal correlative” otros — és. So 
ovros mept ov (Mt. 11:10), odros dv (Jo. 7: 25), otros ds (Ac. 7: 40), 
rovro — 6 (Ph. 2:5). See interrogative demonstrative and rela- 
tive in ris éorw odros bs (Lu. 5: 21; 7:49); ri robro 6 (Jo. 16:17 f.). 
Cf. Lu. 24:17. On the whole, however, the demonstrative before 
the relative is not common in the N. T. In Gal. 2: 10 both atvé 
and rodro are incorporated into the relative clause, 6 kal éorovdaca 
avTo TOUTO ToLHaaL. 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 171. 


2 Blass, ib., p. 172, explains éxetvos as showing that the discourse passes from 
John to Jesus. But éxe@vos refers to John. * Thomp., Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 66. 


704. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


9. Gender and Number of otros. See chapter X. In general, 
like other adjectives, otros agrees with its substantive in gender 
and number, whether predicate or attributive. Cf.Jo.2:11. In 
1 Cor. 6:18, kat tabrnv cat radra, note the number and gender. 
But sometimes the construction according to sense prevails. 
So the masculine, not feminine, in Ac. 8:10, otrés éorw 4 Abva- 
pus TOD Beod. So cxedos éxAoyis éoriv pou ovros (Ac. 9:15), otro and 
evn (Ro. 2:14). Cf. also’ Ju. 12, otro. — vedédar, devipa, xbuara, 
aarépes; 2 Pet. 2:17, obroi eiow rnyal, and obro. — édata (Rev. 11: 
4). In these examples assimilation to the gender of the predicate 
does not occur. Cf. radra i, Jo.6:9. In Mt. 21:42 (Mk. 12:11), 
Tapa Kupiou éyevero arn, the feminine occurs where the neuter would 
be natural in Greek. This is a piece of “translation’’ Greek (Ps. 
118 : 23). In Hebrew the feminine is the case for abstract words, 
the Hebrew having no neuter gender. In Eph. 2 : 8, 77 yap xapuri 
éoTe TEgwopEvor bid TioTEwWs’ Kal TOUTO ovK EF dudv, there is no reference 
to miorews In Todro, but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause 
before. But in 1 Pet. 2:19 f. we have two examples of the neuter 
(rodrTo) on purpose to present a more separate and abstract notion 
than airn would have done, an ancient Greek idiom, todro yap 
xapis ei —TodTo xapis mapa Oe. In 1 Cor. 10:6 the same prin- 
ciple applies, tatra 6€ riro quay eyevnOyoav. A striking example 
is found in 1 Cor. 6:11, xat radra tives Are. Here ratra is much 
like rovwotro, but more definite and emphatic. . For this use of 
otros see also Jo. 12:34. In Ph. 3:7, Gra Fv pou Kxépdin, tadra 
hynuar — ¢nuiav, assimilation to the gender of the predicate is also 
absent. 

Sometimes the plural radzva occurs where a single object is really 
in mind. The adverbial phrase werd ratra (Lu. 12:4) can refer 
either to one or more incidents. It is not necessary to consider 
Tatra as singular in idea in Jo. 19:36 and 1 Cor. 9:15. But the 
usage does appear in 3 Jo. 4, weforépay tobrwy otk exw xapw (or 
xapav), and the adverbial accusative xal rafva in Heb. 11:12. 
Some MSS. have kai radra instead of cat rodro in 1 Cor. 6:8. 

But assimilation to the predicate both in gender and number 
occurs. So in Lu. 8:14f., 76... recov, obroi eiow of axovoartes. 
The same thing! appears in Gal. 4:24, aruda éorw addnyopotpera* 
airar yap eiow dvo dtabjxar. Note the assimilation of airy in Lu. 
22598511 5422:953-e JO) 19 SRO 1127 ee ore ee lelomas 
253.5 23, 4,°9,411ete., and:-ovros in Mt. 7 = 12: 

10. The Adverbial Uses of rotro and ratra. See chapter XII. 

1 W.-Sch., p. 219. 





a a 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) | 705 


Here we have xai rotro (adverbial accusative or nominative ab- 
solute) like Latin zdque (English ‘and that too’) in 1 Cor. 6:6 
(CD> radra), 8 (L radra); Ro. 13:11; Eph. 2:8 (this last could 
be otherwise explained). Kai ratva, the usual classical idiom,! ap- 
pears in Heb. 11:12 with a concessive participle. In otro ye, 
tovro 6€ (Heb. 10 : 33) Blass? sees a literary usage. In 2 Cor. 2:3 
Paul has rodro aivo in the adverbial sense, while Peter (2 Pet. 
1:5) turns the phrase around kal airo rodro 6é€. Cf. the adverbial 
use of xefddavov in Heb. 8:1. The case of odros in Jo. 21: 21 is 
noteworthy. : 

11. The Phrase rotr’ éorw. See also chapter X, vu, (c). It is 
used without any regard to the number, gender or case of the word 
in apposition with it, exactly like the Latin zd est. There are 
eighteen examples of it given in Moulton and Geden’s Concord- 
ance, all but three of them from the Acts, Romans, Philemon 
and Hebrews. It isa mark of the more formal literary style. In 
Mt. 27: 46 the case explained is the vocative, in Mk. 7: 2 the 
instrumental, in Ro. 7:18 the locative, in Heb. 2:14 the accu- 
sative, in Heb. 9:11 the genitive, in Heb. 7: 5 the plural, in 
1 Pet. 3:20 the plural. In Ro. 1:12 the uncontracted form 
occurs with 6€ In 1 Macc. 4:52 otros 6 unv Xaceded is in appo- 
sition with the genitive. Here otros performs the function of 
tovr’ éorw. Cf. the case-irregularities in the Apocalypse. 

12. In Combination with Other Pronouns. Mention may be 
made of év rovtw otros (Ac. 4: 10) and other instances of the double 
use of otros. Cf. Mk. 6:2. Cf. otros otrm in Mk. 2:7, radra 
ovrws (Ac. 24:9), orws rodro (1 Cor. 5:3), and in 2 Pet. 3:11 
TovTwy ovTws TavtTwv. Examples of air rofro are common in Paul 
(Hips omainmmelonn0 4 21G0r.o7, suber beeless6y <Cfi25Petel :'5).c For 
Tovro av’to see 2 Cor. 2:3, a’rd rotro Ro. 13:6. For avrol otro 
see Ac. 24:15, 20. For rotro ddov cf. Mt. 1:22; 26:56. There is 
no doubt some difference between ratra ravra (Mt. 4:9; Lu. 
12 : 30; 16:14) and ravra ratra (Mt. 6:32). “In the first. ex- 
pression, wavra is a closer specification of ratva; in the second, 
mravra is pointed out demonstratively by means of radra.’’4 

13. Ellipsis of otros. The demonstrative is by no means always 
used before the relative. Often the relative clause is simply the 
object of the principal verb, as in 6 éyw buiv & 7H ocKoria elrare 
(Mt. 10:27). Sometimes the implied demonstrative must be 
expressed in the English translation. The simplest form of this 

t Blass, Gr. of N. T: Gk., p. 171. 3 W.-Sch., p. 219. 
2 Tb, 4 W.-Th., p. 548, 


706 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


idiom is where the case of the demonstrative would have been 
the same as that of the relative. Thus ovyyerjs dv ob améxovev 
Ilérpos 76 wriov (Jo. 18: 26). Cf. 6v in Ac. 1: 24. In Ac. 8: 24 dp 
is for rovrwy & by attraction. But the ellipsis occurs also when a 
different case would have been found.! So in Mt. 19 : 11 ots déd0rat 
would have been otrox ois 666. In Jo. 13 : 29 dy would have been 
preceded by radra. Cf. also Ac. 8:19; 18 : 37, etc. In Ro. 10: 14, 
TOS TioTEVIWELY OV O'K HKovoay, the antecedent of ob would be either 
rovrw (or éxt tovrw) or more probably eis rodrov (preposition also 
dropped). When a preposition is used, it may belong to the rela- 
tive clause, as in 7és éruxahéowvrat eis dv ob éerlatevoay (Ro. 10: 14; 
ef. Jo. 19 : 37), or to the implied demonstrative, as in iva micrebonre 
eis dv aréotredev (Jo. 6:29). In Ro. 14:21 & @ illustrates the prep- 
osition with the relative, while in the next verse it illustrates the 
preposition with the antecedent. In Jo. 11:6 & @ rémw is an 
example where év would have been used with both antecedent and 
relative. So as to ad’ oy in 2 Cor. 2:3, etc.2 The same principle 
of suppressed antecedent applies to relative adverbs, as in 7\ev 
drov Av (Jo. 11:32), strictly exetoe drov. 

14. Shift in Reference. It is possible that in Ac. 5 : 20, Nadeire 
évy TH lep@ TS AAG TavTa TA Pnuata THs CwHs Tavrns, a Slight change in 
sense has occurred, ratrns more naturally going with pquara. Cf. 
éx 700 gwpuatos ToD Oavarou Tovrov (Ro. 7: 24). But the point is not 
very material. 

(g) Exetvos. Cf. Latin alle. The old form (Epic, Pindar, Tragic 
poets) was xetvos or xjvos (Doric and Lesbian).? Brugmann‘ indeed 
connects it with the old Indo-Germanic root ko. The locative 
adverb €é-xet (cf. Ke?-61, xet-Oev, Doric, Lesbian) is the immediate 
source of the pronoun xeé-vos, é-xel-vos. Cf. English hi-ther. The 
original usage was therefore predicate.® Thus in Thue. i, 52. 2, 
vijes €xetvae émimdeovoe (‘ships yonder are sailing ahead’), we must 
not confuse it with af vijes éxetvac (‘those ships’). Cf. the ‘‘adver- 
bial” use of od7os. By a strange coincidence, while at work on 
this paragraph (Nov., 1908), I received a letter from Rev. R. H. 
Graves, D.D., of Canton, China, concerning Chinese pronouns, 
suggested by the chapter on Pronouns in my Short Grammar of 
the Greek N.T. He says: “The ordinary pronoun for the third 
person is k’ev. In Canton we also use k’nt. Compare éxetvos.”’ 
He mentions other accidental similarities, but I dare not venture 
into Chinese etymology. 


1 W.-Th.,.p. 158. + Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 242 f. 5 Ib., p. 426 f. 
2 Cf. ib., p. 159. 4° \bi 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 707 


1. The Purely Deictic. We have a few examples in the N. T. 
So in Jo. 13: 26, éxetvos ori & eyw Bavw 76 Pwuior kal dwow aire, for 
Judas was present at the table. In Mt. 26 : 23 we have otros. A 
gesture may also have accompanied the remark of the Pharisees 
in Jo. 9:28, ob padnris ef éxelvov. Cf. also Jo. 19:21. If éxetvos in 
Jo. 19 : 35 be taken as an appeal to God as a witness to the truth 
of what the writer is saying (possible, though by no means cer- 
tain), the usage would be deictic. Blass! considers that ‘‘every- 
thing is doubtful” as to this verse, a doubt shared by Abbott.? 
For myself I think that éxetvos is here anaphoric and refers to 
avrod (cf. the similar reference of otros to a’rod in 1 Jo. 5:20; 
but see Remote Object). Another possible deictic example is in 
Jo. 7:11. Jesus was not present, but in the minds of the people 
a subject of discussion. Cf. also 9 : 12. 

2. The Contemptuous Use (cf. obros). It appears unmistakably 
(see 1) in Jo. 9 : 28, od pabnrys ef éxetvov. It may also exist? in Jo. 
19:21. Cf. the solemn repetition of éxetvos with 6 a@v@pwros in 
Mt. 26 : 24, as well as the change from ot7os in verse 23. 

3. The Anaphoric. This is the more frequent use of this pro- 
noun. Thus in Jo. 1: 8 éxetvos takes up otros of verse 7 (’Iwavns of 
verse 6). In Jo. 18:15 6 6€ wabyrijs éxetvos resumes the story of &\dos 
pabnrns immediately preceding. Cf. a\dos and eéxetvos in Jo. 5 : 43. 
In Jo. 13 : 25 éxetvos refers indeed to the preceding rovrw (cf. 
éxetvos ovTws). In Jo. 5:19 the reference is to zarépa just before. 
Cf. Jo. 4:25. ’Exetvos 6€ (Jo. 2:21) is continuative like odzvos. 
The articular participle may be followed by the resumptive éxetvos. 
So 6 wéupas pe — éxetvos Jo. 1: 33). Cf. Jo. 5:11; 2 Cor. 10: 18. 
So in Jo. 1:18 the pronoun refers to 6eds followed by 6 é&v. Cf. 
Mk. 7: 20 éxetvo. See Jo. 14:21. For distinction between éxetvos 
and a’rod see 2' Tim. 2 : 26;3: 9. 

4. The Remote Object (Contrast). This is not always true, as is 
shown by Jo. 18:15. Cf. Tit. 3:7. It is common thus to refer 
to persons who are absent. So in Jo. 3 : 28 (cf. Jo. 7:11) John 
speaks of Christ in contrast to himself, arecradpévos eipl eurpoober 
éxeivov. So in verse 30, éxetvov — euée. In 1 Cor. 9:25 note éxetvor 
pev — juets 6€. So in 10: 11 €xetvors — judy, 15:11 elite eyw elite 
éxetvot. In Ac. 3:13 the contrast is sharp between tyets — éxeivou, 
and in 2 Cor. 8:14 between tuadv — éxeivwy (cf. éxeivwy — tudv in 
same verse). Cf tutv — éxeitvors in Mt. 13:11. In Jo. 5:39 exetvar 

AP Gr, Ol ON a Kay Dak sc: 2 Joh. Gr., pp. 285, 567. 


3 Abbott, ib., p. 568. He cites Mt. 27: 19, 63 as exx. of the good and -the 
bad sense of éxetvos. Cf. Lat. dle. 


708 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is in opposition to bets, as éxetvos to duets in the preceding verse. 
Cf. 2 Cor. 8:9. For a contrast between those present in the same 
narrative see otros and éxetvos in Lu. 18:14. Cf. exetvos and airés 
in 1 Jo. 2:6 and rotro 7 éxetvo in Jas. 4:15. It is common in ex- 
pressions of place, like 61d ris 6600 éxeivns (Mt. 8: 28), eis odnv 
Thy yhv éxelvnv (9 : 26; cf. & 9:31), etc. It is frequent also with 
general phrases of time, like & rats jyeépars exeivars (Mt. 3:1). Cf. 
Mk. 8:1; Lu. 2:1. It usually occurs at a transition in the nar- 
rative and refers to something previously mentioned. Blass! notes 
that Lu. (1: 39) uses also ratracs in this phrase and that in 6: 12 D 
has éxeivats rather than ratrars. In particular observe the phrase 
éxeivn 7) Hepa for the Last Day (Mt. 7:22; Mk. 14:25; Lu. 21: 
34°17: 313 Jon16 423 7ete: Ch J onGe40 ete): 

5. Emphasis. Sometimes éxezvos is quite emphatic. Abbott? 
notes that in John’s Gospel, outside of dialogue, éxetvos usually has 
considerable emphasis. Instance Jo. 1:8, 18, 38; 2:21; 3:30; 
4:25; 5:19,.38; 6:29; 8:42; 14:26; 15: 26, etc. In the First 
Epistle of John he observes that it occurs only seven times and 
all but one refer to Christ. He is the important one in John’s 
mind. Cf. ards in Ac. 20:35. But éeZ?vos is not always so em- 
phatic even in John. Cf. Jo..9:11, 25;-10:6; 14:21; 18:17; 
Mk. 16:10 i s2<Dimis 29: 

6. With Apposition. Itis not common with words in apposition. 
But note Jo. 16:13, éketvos, 76 rvedua THs adnOelas (cf. Jo. 14 : 26). 
Note also éxetvo yuvwoxere, dre (Mt. 24 : 43) after the fashion of 
ovros with dr. Cf. also the resumptive uses with participles (Jo. 
1 :.18, etc.). 

7. Article with Nouns except when Predicate. When the noun 
is used with éxe?vos in the N. T., the article always appears, except 
when predicate. In Jo. 10:1, éxetvos kNérrns éoriv, the substantive 
is predicate, as in 10 : 35, éxeivous efrrev Oeots. With adjectives we 
may note the repetition of the article in Jo. 20:19 and the am- 
biguous position of éxeivy in Heb. 8 : 7 due to the absence of é:a07xn. 
With odos we find this order, eis dAnv HY viv exelvnv (Mt. 9 : 26, etc.) 
and was the same, racav rip dderdjy éexeivny (Mt. 18 : 32, etc.). 

8. As Antecedent to Relative. So éxetvds eorw @ (Jo. 13: 26), 
éxeivoy vrép ov (Ro. 14:15) éxetvors 6x’ o's (Heb. 6:7). Note also 
éxeivos éoTw 6 ayarav (Jo. 14:21) where the articular participle is 
the practical equivalent of a relative clause. 

9. Gender and Number. Little remains to be said about varia- 
tions in gender and number. Two passages in John call for re- 

1 Grey Oren, le Gk ape OL a7 JON ALL. ep aeos 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAT) 709 


mark, inasmuch as they bear on the personality of the Holy Spirit. 
In 14 : 26, 6 6€ rapaxAyros, 7d Tvebua TO Ay.oy 6 TEUWer 6 TaTIp ev TS 
dvouaTi pou, éxeivos buds didaéer, the relative 6 follows the grammatical 
gender of zvedua. ’Exetvos, however, skips over zvedua and reverts 
to the gender of rapaxAnros. In 16:13 a more striking example 
occurs, dray dé ENOn Exetvos, TO TvEDUA THS GAnOetas. Here one has to 
go back six lines to éxetvos again and seven to zapakdyros. It is 
more evident therefore in this passage that John is insisting on 
the personality of the Holy Spirit, when the grammatical gender 
so easily called for éxetvo. Cf. 6 in Jo. 14:17, 26 and aizé in 14:17. 
The feminine éxetvyns in Lu. 19: 4 evidently refers to 6603 unex- 
pressed. 

10. Independent Use. The frequency of éxetvos in John’s Gospel 
may be noticed, but the Synoptics and Acts are not far behind. 
More curious, however, is the fact that in the Synoptics éxetvos is 
nearly always used with a substantive (adjectival) while the in- 
dependent pronominal use of the singular is almost confined to 
the Gospel of John (and First Epistle). All the uses in the First 
Epistle and nearly all in the Gospel are independent. As excep- 
tions note Jo. 4 : 39, 53; 11: 51, 53; 16 : 23, 26, etc. On the other 
hand only two instances appear in the Apocalypse (9 : 6; 11:18) 
and both with substantives. 

(h) Adres. It has undoubtedly developed in the cow? a demon- 
strative force as already shown on p. 686, and as is plain in the mod- 
ern Greek. Moulton? quotes plain examples from the papyri (see 
above). In the N. T. it is practically confined to Luke (and Mt. 
3:4 perhaps), where it is fairly common, especially in the Gespel. 
So év airf 77 oixia (Lu. 10 : 7), ‘in that house.’ Moulton? notes that 
in Mt. 11:25 (parallel to Lu. 10:21) we have e& é&eivw 73 xarpd 
and in Mk. 13:11 é éxeivy 7H Spa (parallel to Lu. 12:12 é& air# 
TH wpa). The tendency was not foreign to the ancient Greek and 
it is common enough in the modern vernacular‘ to find airds 6= 
‘this.’ 

(t) THe CoRRELATIVE DEMONSTRATIVES. Only four occur in 
the N. T. One of them appears only once and without the article, 
gwvis evexOetons alt tovdode (2 Pet. 1:17). It has died in the ver- 
nacular (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 63) like 66€, tnd\uxoode and 
tocdade. Tydtxodros appears once as predicate, rnAukabra dvra (Jas. 


1 Abbott, ib. For the Joh. use of éxetvos see Steitz and A. Buttmann, 
Stud. in Krit. (1859, p. 497; 1860, p. 505; 1861, p. 267). Cf. Blass, Gr. of N.T. 
Gk ps 172: 

2-Prol., p. 91: Pillay: sgt Jari, plist, GkeGr pp. 020, ool. 


710 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3:4), elsewhere attributive. The article is not used. This cor- 
relative of age always refers to size in the N. T. (2 Cor. 1: 10; 
Heb. 2:3). Once indeed it is in connection with ottws péyas 
(Rev. 16:18) and so redundant. ‘The other two are rovotros and 
tocotvtos. Tovodros is the demonstrative of quality (Latin talis) 
and it is used with a good deal of freedom. It is, of course, merely 
totos and ovros combined. ‘The compound form alone occurs in the 
N. T. and became more frequent generally. Tovodres without a 
substantive is used either without the article (Lu. 9 : 9) or more 
usually with the article in the attributive position (Mt. 19: 
14;;Aces 19225Roxls 32) Core 72842 GornslOk lieetce ein 
Jo. 4:23, rovwbrovs fnre? robs mpocxvvodvras, the articular parti- 
ciple is in the predicate accusative. When used with substan- 
tives tovwodros may be anarthrous, as in Mt. 9:8; 18:5; Mk. 4: 
33; Heb. 7:26; 8:1; Jas. 4:16, etc., but the article occurs also 
(Mk. 6:2; 9:37; 2 Cor. 12:3). In Mk. 6:2 we have the order 
at duvapues Toradrar (cf. ovros, éxetvos). It comes before the substan- 
tive (Jo. 9:16) or after (Ac. 16:24). It is used as the antece- 
dent of otos (Mk. 13:19; 1 Cor. 15 : 48; 2 Cor. 10: 11) following 
otos. But note also rovobrovs érotos in Ac. 26 : 29, rovofros és in 
Heb. 7: 26 f.; 8:1, and in 1 Cor. 5:1 roabry #ris. We even have 
Towodros ws in Phil. 9. Cf. wotos — rorotros in a Logion of Jesus, 
P.Oxy. IV, p. 3, 1. Toootros (réa0s, odros) is the pronoun of degree 
(Latin tantus), both size, rocabrny ricrw (Mt. 8 : 10), and quantity, 
&pro. toootra (Mt. 15:33). It occurs with the article only once, 
6 TocovTos TodTOs (Rev. 18:16). Sometimes it appears without a 
substantive, as in Ac. 5:8; Gal. 3:4; Heb. 1:4, ete. It is the 
correlative with écos in Heb. 1: 4 rocotrw — bow, 7 : 20-22 Kad’ 
dcov — kata Tooov7To, and in 10:25 rtocotrw— dow. It is worth 
while at this point to note the correlative adverbs, ottws dare 
(Ac. 14:1), obrws ws (1 Cor. 4:1), otrws — brws (Mt. 5:16). Cf. 
wate — oUTws 6€ (Ro. 15:20). 

VII. Relative Pronouns (dvadgoptkal dvtTovuptat). 

(a) List In THE N. T. The only relatives in the N. T. (not 
counting adverbs) are és, darts, olos, dmotos, bcos, #AiKos, and 6 in 
the Apocalypse. The others have fallen by the way. Some MSS. 
read évrep in Mk. 15:6, while écdyn7ep in Jo. 5:4 is not in the 
critical text. The LXX has ézep (a7ep) five times,? but #Alikos not 
at all. These relative pronouns do not occur with uniform fre- 
quency as will be seen. “Os is the only one very common. 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 162. 
2) Thack., GreoL Om. in Gk vole plo: 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 711 


(b) THe Name “RELATIVE.” It is not very distinctive! The 
idea of relation (anaphoric use) belongs to the demonstrative and 
to the personal pronouns also. The anaphoric demonstrative use 
is indeed the origin of the relative. The transition from demon- 
strative to relative is apparent in Homer. in the case of both 
6 and és. Sometimes it is difficult in Homer to tell the demon- 
strative and the relative apart. Cf. English that, German der. 
Homer often used re and ris with 6 and és to distinguish the rela- 
tive from the demonstrative. Gradually the relative use, as dis- 
tinct from the anaphoric demonstrative, won its way. 

(c) A BoND BETWEEN CLAUSES. The relative becomes then the 
chief bond of connection between clauses. Indeed many of the 
conjunctions are merely relative adverbs, such as as, é7e, drws, 
etc. The relative plays a very important part in the structure 
of the subordinate sentence in Greek. That matter will receive 
due treatment in chapter XIX, Mode. The agreement of the 
relative with antecedent in person, number, gender, and some- 
times case, is just the natural effort to relate more exactly the 
two clauses with each other. These points will receive discussion 
under és which best exemplifies them. The assimilation is at 
bottom the same that we see in other adjectives (cf. demon- 
strative pronouns). The assimilation of the relative in person, 
gender, number, and even case of the antecedent may be com- 
pared to assimilation in the adjective and even verbs (com- 
pound verbs especially) and prepositions. Cf. Josef Liljeblad, 
De Assimilatione Syntactica apud Thuc. Questiones, 1900, p. 1). 

(d) “Os. 

1. In Homer. See discussion of the demonstrative és for origin.® 
But already in Homer the relative sense, ap@pov broraxrikov, is the 
main one, and the demonstrative is on the decline.® 

2. Comparison with Other Relatives. Though és in the N. T. 
far outnumbers all the other relatives, yet the distinction between 


1 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 81. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 556; Baron, Le Pron. Rel. et la Conj., 1891, p. 25. 
He notes that és went from dem. to rel. before 6 did. 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 186 ff. 

4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 35. “Oore survives in Pindar, Bacch., Ion. and 
Trag. choruses. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 68 f. 

5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 195. Baron, Le Pron. Rel. et la Conj. en Gree, p. 
35. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., III, p. 295 f.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 243. 

6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 186. So és yap is ambiguous. On the anaphoric 
demonstr. és cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., III, p. 310; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 
241. 


712 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ds and the other relatives is breaking down. Indeed in the ver- 
nacular it may be questioned if it was ever preserved. One may 
compare the unchangeable Hebrew "ZS. Moulton! observes that 
in Polybius the distinction between és and éo7rs has “ worn rather 
thin.’ In the LXX és is frequent,? but in the modern Greek és 
“ig used rarely even in writing.’’? It is wholly absent in the 
vernacular. The modern Greek vernacular uses 70d or érov. In 
the oblique cases the conjunctive pronoun 703d, rs is added to zod 
(cf. the Hebrew idiom). See Thumb, Handb., p. 938. Jebb (Vin- 
cent and Dickson’s Handb., etc., p. 303) calls it ‘a curious ex- 
ample of false analogy”? and finds an instance in Aristophanes 
(Birds, 1300), wedn drov. Here érov=eé ois. The vernacular car- 
ried it further. He cites modern English vernacular, ‘‘The men 
as he met.’’ Indeed in Rev. 2:13 é7ov really points to an un- 
expressed rap’ butv. In Col. 3:11 dézov is almost personal. The 
occasional apparent confusion between és and interrogative pro- 
nouns will be discussed directly. On the whole, és in the N. T., 
as in the xowy generally, is still used in accord with the classic 
idiom. 

3. With Any Person. In itself, of course, és, like all relatives, 
has no person. So the first person in 1 Cor. 15:10, the second 
person in Ro. 2 : 23, the third person in Mt. 5:19; Lu. 6:48 f.; 
1 Cor. 4:17. These examples may suffice. 

4. Gender. This is not so simple. The normal thing is for the 
relative to agree with the antecedent in gender, as in 1 Cor. 4:17, 
Tiuodeov, bs éotiy you texvov. So in Col. 1: 24 trép rod cwparos 
avtod, 6 éorw % éexkrnoia; Col. 2:10 év abrd, ds éorw 4 Kedadn (cf. 
Eph. 4:15); Col. 2:17 ca8Garwv, a (some MSS. 6) éorw oxida rdv 
MeANOvTWY; Rev. 5:6 ddOadruods érra, of eiow tra [era] rvebuara. In 
Rev. 21:8, 76 pépos abr&v & TH Nluryn TH Katouevn mupl Kal Oelw 6 éorLv 
6 Oavaros 6 devrepos, the agreement is regular, but the idea of 6 may 
be more inclusive than merely pepos. Cf. 1 Pet. 3: 4. 

On the other hand the relative is assimilated in gender to the 
predicate substantive. This is also a perfectly natural agreement. 
Winer? considers that this is true particularly when the predicate 
presents the main idea. See Mk. 15: 16, rs abddfs, 6 €or tpartwprov; 
Gal. 3:16, 73 oréppari cov, ds éotw Xpiorés; Eph. 6:17, rv waxarpav 


1 Prol., p. 92. 4Thack.; Gr.; volalapeloa 

3 V.‘and D., Handb., ete., p. 56. “The disuse of és in common speech is 
characteristic; so simple a form ceased to satisfy the desire of emphasis.” 
Jebb in V. and D., p. 302. . 

4 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 231 f. 5 W.-M., p. 207. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTOQNTMIAI) ep lks 


Tov mvebuaTos, b éoTiv phua Geod; Rev. 4 : 5, Naurades — & elow Ta era 
avebpara (but some MSS. at). Cf. 2 Th. 3:17. The MSS. vary 
in a number of instances between agreement with antecedent and 
predicate. So Col. 1:27, rod puornpiov robrov—és (or 6) éorw 
Xptorés. Cf. also 1 Tim. 3 : 16, where the true text 6s is changed 
in the Western class of documents to 6 to agree with yuvornpror. 
See also Eph. 1:13 f., 7G mvebuatrc — 6 (MBS. 6s) éorw dppaBwv. 
So ai or &@in Rev. 5:8. In Mt. 13:31 f. xéxxw is followed first by 
dv and then by 4 (cf. orepparwr). 

In another group of passages the change is made according to 
the real gender rather than the grammatical. Thus in Ac. 15:17 
Ta evn ép’ ods (cf. 26:17), Jo. 6:9 matdapioy ds Exer, Ro. 9: 23 f. 
oxe’n \€ovs — os, Col. 2:19 xedariy €& ob, Phil. 10 réexvov dv, Rev. 
13 : 14 @npiw ds. In Gal. 4:19 ots is preceded by both tyaés and 
rexvia. In 2 Jo. 1, éxXextH Kupia Kal Tots Téxvors a’rijs, ots, the gram- 
matical gender (feminine and neuter followed by masculine) is 
ignored entirely. Cf. Ph. 2:15. 

In a passage like 1 Cor. 15:10, eiui 6 ew, there is no mistake. 
See ds above in verse 9. It is not ‘who I am,’ but ‘what Iam,’ not 
exactly otos either, but a more abstract idea than that. Cf. 6in 
Jo. 4 : 22, used twice for the object of worship, God. So in 1 Jo. 
1:1 observe 6 Av — 6 aknxodapev, 6 ewpaxauev (cf. verse 3) for Jesus. 
One may recall here that the collective abstract neuter, wav 6 
(Jo. 6:37, 39; 17: 2), is used for the disciples. Cf. 6— xaxetvor 
(Jo. 17: 24). 

Sometimes also the relative agrees neither with the antece- 
dent nor with a predicate substantive, but gathers the general 
notion of ‘thing.’ A good example occurs in 1 Jo. 2: 8, é&vroAjy 
Kany ypadw buty, 6 €or adnOes, ‘which thing is true.’! So Eph. 
5 : 5, wAeovexrns, 6 (Western and Syrian classes read és) éorw eldw- 
hoAatpns, ‘which thing is being an idolater.’ A particularly good 
example is Col. 3 : 14 where 6 comes in between a feminine and a 
masculine, rH ayarny, 6 éotw obvdecuos. In Mk. 12 : 42 we have a 
similar example, Nerra dbo, 6 éoriv Kodpartns. 

Indeed 6 éorw comes to be used as a set expression, like totr’ 
éorw, without any regard to the antecedent or the predicate, as 
5 éotw viol Bpovrfis, Mk. 3:17. Three phrases go together in this 
matter, 6 éorw, 6 épunveverar, 56 €yerar. The two latter occur in 
the periphrastic form also. Indeed the examples just noted above 
may very well be explained from this point of view. So Mt. 1: 
23, "Eupavound 6 éoriv pelepunvevduevov ped’ judy 6 eds, Where ob- 

1 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 302, 


714 $A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


serve the neuter participle like 6. Cf. Ac. 4:36. In Mt. 27: 33, 
Toryo0d 8 éorwv xpavlov rémos Neyouevos, the participle is masculine 
like rémos (cf. Mk. 15:22). In Jo. 1: 39 6 Neyerar pebepunvevo- 
pevov connects two vocatives. Cf. 20:16. In Jo. 1:41 note 
the accusative and nominative connected with neuter participle, 
Meociar & éorw pepunvevduevov Xpiotds. So 6 éorwy occurs between 
verb-forms, as in Mk. 5:41; 7: 34; or genitives as in Heb. 7: 2; 
Rev. 20: 12; 21: 17; or whole clauses, as in Mk. 15:34. But see 
Jo. 9:7; Rev. 20:2. In Ac. 9:36, however, the personal con- 
struction occurs, TaGe0a, 7 dtepunvevowern Eeyerar Aopxas. See also 
chapter X, vii, (c). 

Once more, 6 is used to refer to a verbal idea or to the whole 
sentence. Instance Mt. 12:4, rods adprous ris mpofécews Epayor 6 
ok ékov qv aio gayeitv. Here probably 76 ¢ayeiv is the idea referred 
to,! though in Mk. 2: 26 and Lu. 6:4 we have ois. The neuter 
gender is only natural here. In Ac. 2 : 32 ot is most likely ‘where- 
of,’ though ‘of whom,’ referring to ’Incody, is possible. So as to 
3:15. But there is no doubt as to Ac. 11: 30, 6 kal éroinoar; 
26:10, 6 kai éroinoa; Gal. 2:10, 6 kat éorobdaca a’td TotTo Tovjoat 
(note here the use of av7o rotro in the relative clause); Col. 1 : 29 
eis 8 kal xomid (cf. eis 6 in 2 Th. 1:11; 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:8). Cf. also 
5 kal buds avriturov viv cwte Bamrricya (1 Pet. 3:21). Per contra 
see in the papyri év used like 6 after analogy of rovotro(v).2 Note in 
passing 6 6 in Lu. 2:15, like 7 4 7e in Heb. 9: 2. 

5. Number. Here again, as a rule, the relative concurs with the 
antecedent in number, as in aor7p ov (Mt. 2 : 9), Oeod ds (Ro. 2 : 6). 
The construction according to sense is not infrequent, as in rA7jOo0s 
ot (Lu. 6:17 f.), kara rod racar év ais (Ac. 15: 36, note distributive 
idea), uwpodoyia 7 e’tpamedtia & (Eph. 5 : 4, where feminine singular 
could have occurred because of 7), yeveds — év ots (Ph. 2 : 15), dev- 
Tépay bulvy ypadw ériotodny, év ais (2 Pet. 83:1, referring to both, 
probably). Cf. 6 — deyorvras (Rev. 5:13). On the other hand note 
the change from the plural to the singular in jyepar dwdexa ad’ 7s 
(Ac. 24:11), and é ovpavots — é€ od (Ph. 3:20). For the neuter 
plural in the relative (cf. radra) to cover a vague general idea 
see ay in 1 Tim. 1: 6, av6’ ay Lu. 1: 20, é ots Lu. 12:1 (cf. Ac. 
26: 12), é’ ots Ro. 6:21, ete, Cf. Col: 2 = 22: 

6. Case. 

(a) Absence of attraction normal. The obvious way is for the 
case of the relative to be due to the construction in which it is 
used or to follow the same law as other nouns and pronouns (so 

1 W.-Sch., p. 233. 2 Mayser, Gr., p. 310. 


fl Am 


PRONOUNS (ANTQNTMIAI) | 715 


with prepositions). That is to say, assimilation of case is not a ne- 
cessity. It was indeed in a sense an after-refinement. One must 
not get the notion that assimilation of case had to be. Thucy- 
dides,! for instance, did not use it so extensively in his rather com- 
plicated sentences, where the relative clauses stand to themselves. 
Indeed the absence of it is common enough in the N. T., outside 
of Luke. Cf. Mt. 13:31 koxxw 6v, Mk. 13:19 xricews qv, Jo. 2: 22 
doyw dv (cf. 4:50), Jo. 4:5 xwpiov 6 (CD od), Tit. 3:5 epywr &, 
Mt. 27 : 60 prynuetw 6, Ac. 8:32 ypadas jv. Not to be exhaustive, 
one may refer to the rather long list in Winer-Schmiedel? (Mt. 
19):44) 482335; uel3 719, 21; Ac. 1:4:4<10: 1 Tim. 6: 21; 
Heb. 6:19; 8:2; 9:7; 1 Pet. 1:8; Rev. 1: 20, etc.). The absence 
of assimilation in case is not only common in the old Greek, but 
also in the LXX, the Apocrypha and the papyri. In Aristotle 
attraction is nearly confined to the more recondite essays (Schind- 
ler, De Attractionis Pronominum Rel. Usu Aristotelico, p. 94). 

(8) Cognate accusative. The accusative in Ro. 6: 10, 6 arébaver, 
6 (7, and Gal. 2:20, 6 ¢4, may be called adverbial. In reality 
it reproduces the idea of the verb (cognate ace.). Cf. Mk. 10 : 38 f. 

(y) Attraction to the case of the antecedent. This is very com- 
mon in the N. T., especially in the writings of Luke. The 
papyri, even “the most illiterate of them,’’? show numerous ex- 
amples of attraction, “a construction at least as popular in late 
as in classical Greek.’’ This applies to the LX X also. The MSS. 
naturally vary sometimes, some having attraction, others not. 
Indeed Blass‘ finds this “always” in the passages in W. H. with- 
out attraction save in Heb. 8:2. Cf. jv (js) in Mk. 13 : 19, dy (6) 
in Jo. 2: 22; 4: 50, etc. On the whole attraction seems the more 
common. But this ‘‘idiomatic attraction of the relative’’ “‘ occurs 
only twice in Matthew (18:19; 24:50) and once in Mark (7: 18),” 
whereas it ‘‘is very common in Luke” (Plummer, Comm., p. li). 
The effect of “‘this peculiar construction” was to give “‘a sentence 
more internal unity and a certain periodic compactness.”> No 
instance of attraction of a nominative to an oblique case occurs 
in the N. T., though this idiom is found in the ancient Greek.® 


1 Blass, Grol Ny baGkopa173; 2 P.. 226. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 93. Attraction of the relative to the case of the ante- 
cedent is not unknown in Lat. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., Bd. II, p. 507. Hom. 
shows only one instance. Middleton (Analogies in Synt., p. 19) considers 
analogy the explanation of the origin of attraction. | 

Cr oteN ale Gk Spl Za, | is Waits Da LOd. 

6 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 71; W.-Sch., p. 227, 


716 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


It is usually the accusative case that is assimilated into another 
oblique case. Thus the accusative may be attracted into the gen- 
itive, as tpayparos ov (Mt. 18 : 19), Ndyou ob (Jo. 15 : 20), ravrwr av 
(Ac. 1:1; 3:21; 22:10), dtadnxns js (Ac. 3:25), érayyedias js 
(7:17), Ovav av (7:45), mvebparos ayiov ob (Tit. 3:6). Cf. also 
Ac. 9': 36; 22 10;'1) Cor, 6219; 2: Cor? 102.813 2 Ephales hep: 
6:10; 9:20; Jas. 2:5. In several instances it is the accusa- 
tive of the inner object that is attracted. Cf. Eph. 1:19f. So 
Tapak\noews is mapakadovueda (2 Cor. 1:4), xapitos fs exapitwoev 
(Eph. 1 : 6), cAjoews Fs ExdnOnre (4 : 1), dwrijs Hs exexpata (Ac. 24 : 21), 
épywr aceBelas Gv noéBnoay (Ju. 15). There are examples also of 
the accusative attracted to the ablative. So é réav xepatiwy ap 
(Lu. 15 : 16), &k 70d tdatos ob (Jo. 4 : 14), ard Trav dYapiwy ay (21 : 10), 
ék rod mvebwatos ov (1 Jo. 3:24). Cf. Jo. 7:31. Then again the 
assimilation of the accusative to the pure dative might have been 
expected, but curiously enough I find so far no example of it in 
the N. T. In 1 Cor. 7:39 there is an instance of the relative at- 
tracted from the accusative to the dative of an omitted antece- 
dent, éAevOepa éoriv @ Peder yaunOjvar, unless yaunOjvac be repeated, 
when @ is the necessary case. However, several examples occur 
where the accusative is attracted to the locative or the instru- 
mental. Instances of the locative are found in & jyepa 7 — ev 
wpa 7 (Mt. 24: 50. This is not an instance of one preposition 
for antecedent and relative), émi racov ots (Lu. 2: 20; 9:43; 24: 25), 
év T Ovouatt cov @ (Jo. 17:11 f.), & 7S wrquate @ (Ac. 7:16), & 
avépt @ (17 : 31), ert 7 AOyw @ (20 : 38), Ext TH axaPapcia F (2 Cor. 
12 : 21), emt epyous ayabots ots (Eph. 2 : 10),? & — OrtWeow ais (2 Th. 
1:4), & 7 Tornpiw @ (Rev. 18:6). This is probably true also 
of 1 Cor. 7: 20, év rH KAnoer  ExANOn, Where jv would have been the 
cognate accusative.’ For attraction to the instrumental see zapa- 
doce. 7 (Mk. 7: 13), d0& m (Jo. 17 : 5, but W. H. have #v in margin), 
onuetors ots (Ac. 2 : 22), Ovcias ats (Heb. 10:1, but W. H. as). In 
a few instances it is an open question whether we have attraction 
or not. Thus in Jo. 13:5, 7d Nevtiw @ jv dueCwopevos, either the in- 
strumental @ or the accusative 6 (cf. Jo. 21:7) is correct. In Ac. 
9:17, & 77 666 H Hpxov, the cognate accusative jv is possible, though 
the locative originally is more likely. In 1 Th. 3:9, éai racy 77 
xap& 7 xalpouer, A cognate accusative was possible (#v) attracted 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174; Moulton, Prol., p. 93. 

2 But in W.-Sch. (p. 225) ots is held to be essential to the structure. For 
’ attraction in John see Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 298, 

® But see per contra W,-Sch., p. 223, 





PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 717 


to the locative or an original instrumental. In Col. 1 : 23, rod ei- 
ayyeXlov ov nKxovoate, either the accusative or the genitive might 
occur with dxobw. But in 2 Tim. 1:18, \oywr dv rap’ éuod jKoveas, 
the accusative was almost certainly the original form.! Cf. Ac. 
1:4 qv jeovoate wou. Plummer (On Luke, p. li) notes that this 
attraction in Luke is particularly frequent after ras (Lu. 2 : 20; 
3:19; 9:48, etc.). In Lu. 5:9, él rH dypa Trav ixOiwy dy (7) 
ovvedaBov, the attraction in some MSS. is to the locative, in others 
to the genitive. 

A few instances are found in the N. T. where the attraction is 
from some other case than the accusative. <A clear case of a loca- 
tive assimilated to a genitive appears in Ac. 1: 22, éws rijs juépas fs 
aveNnuddn. ‘This is in accord with the ancient Greek idiom. The 
very same construction appears in the LXX (Lev. 23:15. Cf. 
Bar. 1:19). In 1 Tim. 4:6 A reads didackadias 7 mapnKodotOykas, 
but the rest have js. A dative has been attracted into the geni- 
tive along with incorporation and the preposition in Ro. 4 : 17, 
KaTévayte ov éerlatevoey Oeod = KkaTevayTt TOU Deov @ ériotevaevr. So the 
phrase aq’ js (Ac. 24:11; 2 Pet. 3:4, but Lu. 7:45 apas) is an ab- 
breviation of ad’ juépas 7 (locative attracted to ablative). In 
Ac. 20:18 we actually have dio rpwrns juépas ad’ js éreBnv, but 
as a point of departure (ablative) rather than a point of location 
(locative). Cf. also ad’ 7s juepas (Col. 1 : 6, 9) where the incorpo- 
ration resolves itself into ad’ juepas 7. So likewise dype is Auepas 
(Mt. 24 : 38; Lu. 1:20; 17: 27; Ac. 1:2) really comes from &xpu 
nuepas 7 (locative to genitive). In Heb. 3 : 9 od can be regarded as 
adverb ‘where’ or as relative ‘wherewith’ (marg. of the Ameri- 
ican Revision). If it is relative, @ was probably the unattracted 
form (instrumental to genitive like recpacyod). In Mk. 10:38 f., 
TO Barticua 6 Bartifoua, the relative is in the cognate accusative 
retained with the passive verb.?, See further chapter on Cases. 

(6) Inverse attraction. What is called inverse attraction is due 
to the same tendency to identify antecedent and relative, only the 
assimilation is that of the antecedent to the relative. In itself this 
phenomenon is no more peculiar than the other. Plato, who 
uses the ordinary attraction very often, seldom has inverse attrac- 
tion (Cleef, De Attractionis in Enuntionibus Rel. Vsv Platonico, 
pp. 44-46). No inverse attraction is found in Pisidian Greek 
(Compernass, De Serm. Gr., p. 13). The examples are not very 
numerous in the N. T., but the ancient Greek amply supports the 


1 W.-Sch., p. 225. Hort in note to text says: ‘‘é» probably a primitive 
error for év.”’ ” 2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 226 f. 


718 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


idiom.! One example, NiGov dv amedoxivacav, occurs in Mt. 21:42; 
Mk; 122 10=Lu20 3.17 Tthissironr, thesia xe Psrlsice22 ees 
1. Pet. 2:7 W. H. read dios. Cf. also Lu. | : 78, dpxov dv Spocer, 
which might have been dpxov ob after uvncbqvar.2 See also 1 Cor. 
10 : 16, rov aprov dv KA@uev. Hence also 76 rornpiov 6 eidoyoduer of 
verse 16. If dv is a part of the text (not W. H.) in Ac. 10 : 36, we 
have tov \oyor 6v.2 Sometimes anacoluthon occurs also as in wav 
phua apyov 6— rept avtod, Mt. 12 : 386; mas ds épet — adeOnoerar ara, 
Lu. 12:10; wavri @ 606n — fnrnOnoeTrar rap’ airov, 12:48; ray 6 
débwxev —E€E avtod, JO. 6: 39; way 6 dédwxas alTG dwoet adrots, 17 : 2. 
In 2 Cor. 12:17, un twa av — 6c’ ad’rod, we have anacoluthon, but 
not attraction. In Mt. 25: 24, cuvayes d0ev ob dtecxdpricas, we 
have éxet@ev dzov shortened to d0ev. There is not inverse attrac- 
tion in ovdels ds (1 Cor. 6 : 5) since é precedes ovdeis. 

(e) Incorporation. But the most striking instance of this close 
unity between antecedent and relative is the incorporation of the 
antecedent into the relative clause with identity of case. I count 
54 such examples in Moulton and Geden.* They are fairly well 
distributed through the different portions of the New Testament. 

1) The simplest form of such incorporation is where no change of 
case isrequired. ‘Thus Lu. 24:1, dépovoa a jroiyacay dpmpata; JO. 
6:14, iddvres & Eroincev onueta (W. H.); Mt. 7:2, & & yap xpipare 
kplvete KplOnoecbe, Kal & @ MEeTPwW MeETpELTE LETPNONGETAL duty = Mk. 4: 
24= Lu. 6:38; Mt. 24: 44, 7 ob doxetre Spa = Lu. 12:40 (not Mt. 
24:50). For further examples of this simple incorporation see 
Mt. 23:37=Lu. 13:34 (the set phrase, adverbial accusative, dv 
tporov), so also Ac. 1:11; 7:28; 15:11; 27:25; Mk. 2°: 19 (dcop 
xpovov; but not Lu. 12:46=Mt. 24: 50); Lu. 17: 29f.; Jo. 9:14; 
- 113.6317 3:35 Ac. 724203 25.18 seprobably.260 7. shore GO etee 
19; 9 : 24 (ots —- yuads note); 16: 2; Ph. 3:18 (but probably only 
predicate accusative like Mk. 15:12); 2 Tim. 1:6 (6 #v). In 
1 Jo. 2: 25 there is not exactly incorporation, but apposition to 
the relative. In Lu. 8: 47; Ac. 22:24 and Heb. 2:11 the case 
is the same also, but the preposition would have been needed 
only with the relative. Cf. Phil. 10; 2 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 13:11. 
See av — rovnpdv, Ac. 25:18, where there is incorporation and 
attraction to the case of the antecedent. The same thing is true 


1 Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 71. 
2 Blass).Grv olNel. Gk ele: 
8 Cf. Blass, ib., and Comm. on Acts in loco. 
_4 This is more than “occasional,” as Blass says (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174). 
He rightly notes the absence of the article. 











PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) 719 


of Rev. 17:8, where BdXerévrwy agrees with dv. In Heb. 13:11, 
av fawy — Trolrwv, the substantive is incorporated, but the demon- 
strative is repeated afterwards. Cf.also 6—atro rodro (Gal. 2:10). 
It is possible that Ro. 4:17 belongs here, the preposition karévavre 
being understood twice. The same thing may be true of Lu. 1:4, 
Teplt Gv KaTnxnOns Noywr THY aodadecay (either Aoywv [or wept dywr] 
Tept QV OF TEpt NOYwv os). | 

2) But sometimes besides incorporation there has resulted a 
change of case also. The antecedent may be drawn into the case 
of the relative (cf. inverse attraction) as in Mk. 6: 16, dv éyw ame- 
keparioa Llwavnv ovtos nyép0n. Here the demonstrative pronoun is 
resumptive. The change is made from nominative to accusative. 
The same thing is true of the spurious passage in Jo. 5:4, @ 
OnmoTe KaTetxeTo voonuatt (change from genitive to instrumental). 
This is probably true of Ac. 21:16, @yovres rap’ @ EevicOGuev Mva- 
owt tw. Kurpiy. The resolution of this passage is not certain, 
but it may be ayovres Mvaowva map’ ® (change from accusative 
to locative).! But zpds Mvacwva may be correct. 

In Ro. 6:17, bryxotcare eis dv TapeddOnre TUTov bidaxfjs, the resolved 
form would probably be rizw didayijs eis dv mapeddOnre. In Heb. 
7:14, eis Hv dvdnv, the substantive would have been in apposition 
with é& ’Iovéa (the ablative). In Heb. 10:10 & @ OeAnuare the ac- 
cusative 76 €\nua is present in the preceding sentence. The same 
thing is true of 1 Pet. 1:10, repli As cwrnpias (owrnpiay just before). 
In 2 Cor. 10 : 13 we have in the same sentence the substantive re- 
peated (once incorporated and attracted to the case of the relative, 
but the relative itself attracted to the case of xavovos), kata Td eT pov 
TOD KavOVvos ov EuEepLoeV HutY 6 Deds peTpoU. 

3) Ina few instances the attraction has been that of the relative 
to the case of the antecedent, transferred to the relative clause. 
See Ac. 25 : 18, av éya trevoovy rovnpdv. For examples with prepo- 
sitions (see chapter on Prepositions) note: rept ravtTwy Gv éroinoev 
movnpav (Lu. 3:19), rept racdv av eidov duvayewv (19 : 37), where 
the incorporation is only partial. It is clear therefore that in 
the great majority of instances there is no change of case re- 
quired. Very many also are set phrases like év rpérov, 7 Spa, 7 
huépa, 6’ hv airiavy, etc. For presence of the antecedent see Jo. 
Por euiet: 

7. Absence of Antecedent. It so often happens that the rela- 
tive has no antecedent that it calls for special consideration. 


1 Thompson (Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 71 f.) finds this change only in the ace. 
But this is not Attic. 


720 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The clause indeed often becomes a substantive rather than an 
adjective clause. “Os thus occurs in general statements as in Mt. 
10 : 14; 23: 16, 18 (cf. also ws és, Lu. 12 : 48; 14:33; Ac. 2:21; 
Gal. 3:10). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 173) gives a large number 
of such instances of the general or indefinite use of és. So ds exer 
Ora axovey axoverw (Mk. 4:9), where the relative clause is the sub- 
ject of dxovérw. This is the indefinite relative. Cf. Mk. 4 : 25. 
Here the relative and the antecedent (if expressed) are in the same 
case (nominative). Cf. 1 Cor. 15:10, eiui 6 eiur; Lu. 9 : 50, ete. 
Both may be in the accusative as in 6 6é butv Neyw raow Aeyw (Mk. 
13 : 37), ph eldds 6 Neyer (Lu. 9: 33). Cf. Mk. 15:12; Lu. 11:6; 
Jor 3455.6 4293 19.2 37, etc. But the relative may be in the ac- 
cusative when the antecedent would have been in the nominative. 
So 6 Nade? yiverar (Mk. 11: 23). Cf. Jo. 1 : 26; 4: 18, ete. 

So both may be examples of the genitive, as ovyyevijs dv ob ame- 
kowev Ilérpos 76 wriov (Jo. 18 : 26) where ob=rovrov ob. So in 1 Cor. 
7:1 rept Gv=repl rovrwr (or mpayyatwv) epi Gv. But in dxpr od 
(Rev. 2 : 25) we really have aypu xapod @ (or ev @). In Lu. 23 : 41, 
aiia av érpataper, the resolution is rovrwy & (gen. and acc.). So in 
Jo. 17:9 wept av dé6wxas=mepl rovtwy o's. In Ac. 21 : 24 dv xarn- 
XnvTat Tept cod ovdev = TOUTW a, etc. Exactly so dv in Lu. 9 : 36; 23: 
14°°Aci8 224220155 Zoe liaRon 1d 7182. Cons Zeal fee ce 
26:16, uwaptupa dv re eldes we Gv Te OPOnoouat cor, it is the second 
av that gives trouble. The antecedent would be rotrwy and the 
relative before attraction either @ (acc. of general reference) or 
ois (locative or instrumental). In Ro. 4:7 dy has as its unex- 
pressed antecedent otro. Cf. also Ac. 13:25. In Mt. 6:8 (so 
Jo. 13:29), av xpelav, the antecedent would be in the accusative. 
So also wept av, Ac. 24:13. In Lu. 17:1 60 06 is resolved into toitw 
dv’ ov (dative). In Ro. 10:14, ras mucrebowow ob otk jxovcay, we 
probably have ot =eis rodrov (or trovTw) ov. 

The examples of the ablative are not many. See Jo. 7:31 
where ay after m\elova onueia is to be resolved into rovrwy & (abl. 


and acc.). Soin Ac. 26: 22 éxros dv=eéxrds robrwy &. In Heb.5:8 


ad’ av=ard rovTwv a, While in 2 Cor. 2:3 ad’ dv=a76 Toblrwr ad’ Ov. 
Cf. Lu. 6:34, rap’ av; 1 Cor. 10:30. In Ac. 13:39, ar6 ravrwv dp, 
the one preposition covers both ablatives. 

For the dative I note ots d€dorac (Mt. 19 : 11), where the antece- 
dent like ravres would have been in the nominative. Cf. Lu. 7:43, 
47 @; Ro. 15:21 ofs and 2 Pet. 1:9 6. In 1 Cor. 7:39, 6 bére 
yaunOnvar, the antecedent would have been in the dative also. 
So also 2 Cor. 2:10 6; Ro. 6:16 6 twice. In 2 Tim. 1: 12, ofda 


~~  )6 6h |hLhel re ee 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAI) iD 


meriorevxa, it is the accusative rather followed by dative, atrév 6. 
In Mt. 20:23 (Mk. 10:40) the antecedent of ofs is probably 
trovrwv. In Ro. 10:14 the antecedent of ob would be rotrw. 

Some few examples of the locative appear also. Cf. é’ ots, Ro. 
6 : 21, where the antecedent would have been ém rotros. So Ro. 
2:1 and 14: 22 & g implies & rotrw (cf. also 1 Pet. 2:12; 3 : 16), 
but not so verse 21 where év ¢ refers to an involved 7: or undév. In 
Ro. 7:6 & @ may involve rotrw & @ In Heb. 2:18 & 6 (=a 
TovTw é€v @) really has a causal force. In Ph. 4:11 & ois=& rob- 
tos é€v ois, but in 2 Tim. 3 : 14 év ois=& totvros &. Cf. 2 Pet. 2:12 
(but ratra év ots may be correct). 

I have noticed no examples of the instrumental. But great 
freedom and variety are manifest. 

8. Prepositions with the Antecedent and Relative. The prep- 
osition may be used twice! ‘‘in the case of a sharper division of 
the relative clause.”’ So els rav yiv rabrny, eis qv, Ac. 7:4; amo 
TpaTns nuepas ad’ js, 20:18. Then again the preposition may occur 
with the antecedent, but not with the relative, though implied, 
as in & aarti xpovw @ eion\Oev, Ac. 1:21. So the margin in Ro. 
2:16 & quepa 7. Cf. Lu. 1:25. It is possible also so to under- 
stand év 77 666 7 jpxov, Ac.9:17. But it is clearly true of a6 rap- 
tov av, Ac. 13:39. 

On the other hand the preposition may occur with the relative, 
but not with the antecedent. Thus éxetvy 7H dpa év 7, Jo. 4: 53. 

When the antecedent is absent, the preposition may be the one 
common to both, as in 4¢’ &y (2 Cor. 2: 3), or which belongs to only 
one. Cf. rap’ dv (Lu. 6 : 34), éd’ ots (Ro. 6 : 21), & ots (Ph. 4:11), 
trép ov (1 Cor. 10 : 30), é&v @ (Ro. 14: 22), eis dv (Ro. 10: 14), rept 
av (1 Cor. 7:1), etc. This “fone” may be the antecedent, as 
in the following examples, eis dv (Jo. 6:29)=eis todrov dv, repl 
ov (Jo. 17:9)=ept roitwy ots, brép a (1 Cor. 4:6) =trép radra 
a, ad’ av (Heb. 5 : 8)=a76 rottwr a, eis dv (Jo. 19 : 37)=els rodrov dv, 
etc. Or the “one” may be the relative, as 6’ ob (Lu. 17:1)= 
TouTw 6’ ov, éh’ dv (Heb. 7:138)=otros éd’ dv, etc. The use of 
prepositions is common in the same way with the relative and its 
incorporated antecedent. See év @ kpivatre (Mt. 7:2), axpe js 
juepas (Lu. 1 : 20), 60’ Av airiay (Lu. 8 : 47), map’ 6 — Mvaown (Ac. 
21: 16), eis 6v — rimov (Ro. 6:17), ad’ As uepas (Col. 1:9), rept 
js owrnpias (1 Pet. 1:10), ete. Cf. Ro. 16: 2. 

9. Relative Phrases. Some of the abbreviated prepositional 
clauses come to be used at the beginning of principal sentences 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 174. 


722 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


like the free use of conjunctions and relatives. Cf. Latin use of 
qui. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Syntax, Bd. II, p. 512. So a6’ ay (Lu. 
12 :3),. & .ofs (12:1), 6:6.(Heb. 3: 7),.2ept adv (1 Cor. 7 ::1),” of 
xapw (Lu. 7:47), dv qv airtay (2 Tim. 1:6). Cf. 80ev (Heb. 3 : 1). 
Indeed (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 228) év @ may be here equal to é 
rovTw bre, av0’ Gv=aytl TovTwr Gre, éh’ @=Eml rot Gre (2 Cor. 5 : 4); 
duore (1 Th. 2 : 8)=61a robro drt, éd’ ois (Ro. 6: 21), etc. The tem- 
poral and causal use of the relative phrases is common. Cf. & 
& (Heb. 2:18). Indeed xa6 (Ro. 8 : 26) is kab’ 6, xafdre (Ac. 2 : 45) 
is kad’ Sri, Kabdrep (Ro. 4:6) is Kab’ dep. Cf. é’ dcov (Mt. 9 : 15), 
xa’ dcov (Heb. 3:8). 

Adverbs show the same phenomena as other relative forms. 
Thus in Ro. 5:20 od has no antecedent. In 1 Cor. 16:6 of= 
éxetce ov. So brov in Jo. 11 :32=éxetce Srov and in Jo. 20:19 
=évtavda 6rov. In 2 Sam. 14:15 6=conjunction. 

10. Pleonastic Antecedent. 'The redundant antecedent incorpo- 
rated into the relative clause has attracted considerable attention. 
In Herodotus 4, 44 6s—oitros occurs,! and Blass? cites Hyper. 
Eux. § 3, vy — rotvwyv. But in ancient Greek it was a very rare 
usage. In Winer-Schmiedel* examples of pleonastic ot7os are cited 
from Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, Pausanias, Sophocles. Pleo- 
nastic avvds appears in Aristophanes, Birds, 1237, ots @uréov abrots. 
Reference also is made to Sophocles and Lucian. In the LXX the 
idiom is extremely common, manifestly under the influence of 
the Hebrew 13 "ty (cf. Aramaic 7). It “is found in all parts of 
the LXX and undoubtedly owes its frequency to the Hebrew 
original. But the fact that it is found in an original Greek work, 
such as 2 Mace. (xii, 27 & 7. . . & a’r#) and a paraphrase such 
as 1 Esdras (il, 5, 9; iv, 54, 63; vi, 32), is sufficient to warrant its 
presence in the xowy.’’4 For numerous examples of the idiom in 
the LX-X see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 200, and Winer-Moulton, p. 185. 
Cf. also Conybeare and Stock, Selections, pp. 65 ff. As a matter 
of fact the examples are not very numerous in the N. T. It occurs 
several times in Rev. (8:8 jv —atrnv, 7:2 ots €600n abrots, 7:9 
év —aitov, 13:8 ot} —atrod, 20:8 ay—atraév). Outside of the 
Apocalypse, which so strongly bears the influence of the LX X, the 
usage is infrequent. See Mt. 3:12, 0b 76 rrbov & TH xepl abrod, an 
example hardly parallel as a matter of fact. But a clearer instance 
is Mk. 1:7 (=Lu. 3: 16 f.), ob — airod, and still more so 7 : 25, js 
exe TO Ouyarpov avrijs. Cf. also ota — rovabrn (Mk. 13 : 19), otos — 

1 K.-G., IT, p. 433. 3 P. 201. Cf. also W.-M., p. 185. 
2 Gro of NL aGkiype 175: 4 Thack. Gr, of 0. T. in Gk., p,. 46: 


ai ™ 


P . ' 
— Se ee Ge. i 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) : 128 


Tnrtxodros (Rev. 16 : 18), ofa — ofrws (Mk. 9: 3), dmov — exe? (Rev. 
12 : 6, 14), érov — én’ airév (Rev. 17:9)... In Ac. 15:17, éd’ obs — 
éx’ avrovs, we have a quotation from the LX X (Amos 9:12). ‘The 
N. T. examples are all from places where Aramaic sources are 
certain or suspected” (Moulton, Prol., p. 95). One almost wonders, 
after this admission, why Moulton, p. 94, seems so anxious to 
prove that the idiom in the N. T. is not a Hebraism. By his own 
admission it seems a practical Hebraism there, though the idiom 
had an independent development in the Greek. The early sporadic 
examples in the ancient Greek? blossom out in the later Greek 
again and in the modern Greek become very common. Psichari? 
considers it rather far-fetched in Moulton to appeal to the modern 
Greek vernacular, 6 yiatpds rod Tov éctecda, ‘the doctor whom I 
sent for,’ since the modern Greek vernacular just as readily uses 
tod without at’vov. Psichari complains that Thumb‘ also has 
not explained clearly this idiom. But Psichari believes that the 
idiom existed in the vernacular xo.wy (and so fell in readily with 
the Hebrew usage) and has persisted to the present day. He 
considers® the example from a papyrus of the third century A.D. 
(P.Oxy. 1,117,15) decisive, €& av — é& atrGv. See also P. Amh. II, 
11, 26, dep davepov otro éyevero. Moulton® has given abundant ex- 
amples from Old English. So in Chaucer (Knightes Tale, 1851 f.): 


“Namely oon, 
That with a spere was thirled his brest-boon.” 


He compares also the German der du bist. Simcox’ cites vernacu- 
lar English ‘‘a thing which I don’t like it.”’ Evidently therefore 
the idiom has had independent development in various languages 
in the vernacular. According to Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 353) 
the relative is in such cases regarded as “a mere connective.” 

In Gal. 3 : 1, ots — & butv, W. H. reject & tyty. In Gal. 2:10, s— 
avrd TodTo, we have the intensive use of ai7d, but rot7o is pleonastic. 
In 1 Pet. 2 : 24, 6s — atros, we have again intensive avvés. 

11. The Repetition of 6s. Winer® rightly remarks that it is a 
misapprehension of the Greek genius to expect the relative rather 
than airés or ov’ros in a case like Jo. 1:7; Lu. 2:36; 19:2; Ac. 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175; Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 59. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 175, cites ob 4 voy abrot, from Clem. Cor. i. 21.9. 
3 Essai sur le grec de la Sept., p. 182. 
4 Hellen., p. 128. 

oACiwalsow ann eliste Gk gare Deoos: 6 Prol., p. 94. 

7 Lang. of the N, Ty peove Cle Farrar, Gkasynti,.p: 113: 

8 W.-M., p. 186. 


724. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


10:36. The old Greek could, and commonly did,’ use otros or 
more usually airés with xai to continue the narrative. Blass? 
rather curiously calls it “negligent usage.” Cf. Lu. 13:4, éd’ ods 
trecev 6 mipyos Kal améxrewev abrobs; 1 Cor. 8 : 6, é& ob — kal els abrov 
and 8’ of —xat 6’ a’rod (cf. Heb. 11:4); 2 Pet. 2:3, ols — kal 
aitav; Rev. 17:2, web’ is — kal avras. In? Lael? 28 lrxatio- occurs 
rather than kai atrés. Cf. Jo. 13:24. In Jo. 1:38, &’ dv — kal én’ 
avrév, the repetition of the relative would have been impracticable. 
But in 1 Cor. 7:13 Paul might very well have written j71s — kal 
8s rather than xat odros (a sort of parenthesis). It is common,® 
also, to have neither the relative repeated nor the demonstrative. 
So és ye rob idtov viod otk épeicaro, aAAG Urep NuaY TAaYTwY TApEOWKEV 
abrév (Ro. 8:32). Cf. Ph. 4:9. 

But the relative may be repeated. A good many such examples 
occur in the N.T. Kai may be used, as ay xal Gv (Ro. 4:7). Cf. 
also ob — @ kai (Ac. 27: 23) and av re — av re — (Ac. 26:16). CF. 
1 Cor. 15:1f., 5—6 xal— & & xat—v’ od kal. See Jo. 21: 20. 

But examples occur also of the repetition of the relative with- 
out any conjunction, as in 6s — dv — zap’ od (Ac. 24:6). See 1 Cor. 
4:17. Cf. dca — doa, etc. (Ph. 4:8). This repetition of és is 
specially frequent in Paul. Cf. Col. 1:24, 28f.; Eph. 3:11f.; 1 
Cor. 2:7 f., though it is not exactly “peculiar” to him (Winer- 
Moulton, p. 209). In 1 Jo. 1:1 61s repeated without conjunction 
three times, while in verse 3 6 is not repeated with the second 
verb. In 1 Pet. 1: 6-12 four sentences begin with a relative. In 
Ro. 9:4 f. we have oirwes — av — av — kal €& av. 

The use of 40’ dv boa together (Lu. 12 : 3) finds abundant par- 
allel in the LXX, easily falling in with the Hebrew construction‘ 
with 14x. Thus a double relative occurs. 

In Ro. 4: 21 the conjunction of é7u 6 is merely accidental; but 
that is not true of 6— ér in 1 Jo. 4:3. Cf. also otov é7 in Ro. 9 : 6. 

12. A Consecutive Idea. This may be implied in és. Thus in 
Lu. 7: 4, agus éorw @ mapé~n rodro. One is reminded of qui in 
Latin. Cf. also ris éorw otros bs kat duaptias adinow; (Lu. 7:49). 
A particularly good example is 1 Cor. 2:16, ris yap éyvw vodv 
kupiov, ds cuvBiBace a’tov; See chapter XIX, Mode. 

13. Causal. “Os may also introduce a causal sentence. So és 


1 Bernhardy, p. 304; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 354; Jelf, 833.2; K.-G., II, 


p. 482. 2 Gr2oieN baGk oes o. 
3 “Normal” indeed. Thompson, Synt., p. 70. 
4: Thack,, Greot.O. Din Giese peo: 
§ Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 369, 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) es: 


ve in Ro. 8:32. Cf. Latin quippe qui. This is perfectly regular 
in ancient Attic. Cf. Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 374. 
See also chapter XIX, Mode. 

14. In Direct Questions. The passage in Mt. 26: 50, ézaipe, 
éh’ 6 rape, is the only one in the N. T. where such a construction is 
possible. There is no doubt as to the occasional use of darts 
(see (e), 9), drdc0s, 67dTepos, dws in direct questions in the ancient 
Greek. For examples see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473 f. See 
further chapter XIX, Mode. This double use of relative pronouns 
is on a par with the double use of interrogative stems (cf. indefi- 
nite) so common in the Indo-Germanic tongues.! The Latin qui 
and guis are kin in root and usage. Moulton? rightly considers it 
‘“‘superfluous to say that this usage cannot possibly be extended to 
direct question.”’ Winer® explained the ‘‘misuse”’ as belonging to 
late Greek. A few examples‘ of 6s in a direct question do occur. So 
in Euseb., P. HL. vi, 7.257 d, Gaisford edition, ay évexa; Just., Cohort. 
5 (p. 253 A), 6v’ qv aitiayv — rposéxas ‘Ounopw; Apophth., 105 C, 
’"Apoene, Ov 5 €&fNOes; Certainly the idiom was chiefly in the ver- 
nacular and rare even there. Blass® conjectures a slip in the text, 
aipe having been changed to ératpe, and Chrysostom had an 
imperative in his text. We may suppose ‘“‘a rather harsh ellipsis”’ 
of the principal verb and treat it as an ordinary relative.6 “Os may 
indeed here be demonstrative as suggested by Noah K. Davis.’ 
There was undoubtedly in the later Greek considerable confusion 
in the use of the relatives and the interrogatives. It is not im- 
possible for és here to be interrogative. That is as much as one 
can at present say. Blass thought it ‘quite incredible.” 

15. In Indirect Questions. Here the matter is much clearer. 
Even Blass*® admits that “relatives and interrogatives become 
confused in Greek as in other languages.” In the classical lan- 
guage és (still more darts) is “frequently”? so employed. ‘This use 
comes from Homer on down and occurs in Aristophanes, Sophocles, 
Herodotus, Xenophon, Plato, Lysias. Thucydides® uses it side 
by side with dors. The papyri have it as Moulton has shown.!° 


1 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gr., p. 74. 

2 Prol., p. 93. 3 W.-M., p. 208. 

4 Blass, Grvof2N. 2 Gk.; p. 331; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 474. 

5 Gre of Nee ak. 6p.4170; 6 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 68. 

7 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 178. 

SeGr. OLN, TeGak, peaLio: 

9 Thompson, Synt., p. 74. Cf. also Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473; Moulton, 
Erole pave: 

10 Prol., p. 93; Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 441. 


726 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. ppatovres & Au kwoune olxotow, R. L. 29 (i1i/B.C.); dpovricas du’ ap 
Set tadra épyacOqva, P.P. ii. 37 (ii/B.c.). It is a little surprising, 
however, to find Blass! saying that this usage “is wanting in the 
N.T.” W.F. Moulton? in his footnote gives undoubted examples 
of és in indirect questions after verbs of knowing, declaring, etc. So 
oldev — cv xpelav Exere, Mt. 6 : 8; awayyetdare a axovere, 11:4; eévta 
5 yéyover, Mk. 5: 33; aveyvwre 6 éroinoe, Lu. 6:3 (cf. Mt. 12:3 
ri); pi) elds & N€yer, 9:33; dv’ Hy airiay Haro abrod amhyyenrer, 8:47 
(cf. Ac. 22:24); drddaEer buds & det elretvy, 12:12. But not 2 Tim. 1:12. 
And then in 1 Tim. 1:7 we find @ éyovow and epi tivwy diaBe- 
Baodyrar used side by side after uw voodvres. Cf. also Jo. 18: 21. 
One may compare? also Lu. 11:6, ot« éyw 6 rapabjow aitd, with 
Mk. 8:2 (Mt. 15 : 32), otk Exovow ti daywow. See also ws ia6y 
in Lu. 8:47, and note as in Lu. 23 : 55; 24: 35, not to mention 
Og0S, O7OLOS. 

16. The Idiom ovédeis €otw bs. It occurs in the N. T., as Mk. 
9:39; 10:29; Lu. 1:61; 18:29; 1 Cor.6:5. For ovéeis éorw ds 
ov see Mt. 10:26 (cf. Lu. 8:17). Here one is reminded of the old 
idiom ovdels do7ts. Mayser (Grammatik, p. 310) calls attention to 
the papyri use of 6v=6 after analogy of rocodro(v). Cf. Tis — ds od 
in Ac. 19:35. The N. T. does not use* éorwy és, eiaiv ot=TIis, Ties. 

(e) “Ootts. 

1. Varied Uses. The form is, of course, merely ds and ris. But 
we have seen a variety of uses of 6s, and zis likewise is not entirely 
uniform. Hence the combination cannot be expected to be so. 

2. The Distinction between 6s and éo7s. It was not ironclad 
in the ancient language, as may be seen by reference to the Epic, 
Ionic, Attic poets, and to Herodotus (once Thucydides).’ Blass® 
finds that the distinction between them is no longer regularly 
preserved in the N. T., least of all in Luke, best of all in Paul. 
Moulton’ finds some examples in the papyri of do7:s in the sense 
of és, but doubts if the two relatives are ever absolutely convert- 
ible and thinks that on the whole the classical distinction remains 
undisturbed, though sometimes during the xo.vy period it had worn 
rather thin.’ But Jannaris® holds that éo7.s, having a wider scope 


1; Gr. ofe Nei Gkt peueo. 8 W.-Sch., p. 237. 
2 W.-M., p. 207 f. 4-Ib:, pe 236. 

5 Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 69, for the exx. 
*GreoteN- DAG apa, 

Proly peas 

® Ib.; Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 441. 

® Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 352. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 727 


than és, in postclassical times was used indiscriminately for és. 
He is supported by Kaelker about Polybius.t. But in the vernacu- 
lar modern Greek 67: is alone common, other forms of éc7:s being 
rare, though éruwos and érivwy are found (Thumb, Handb., p. 93 f.). 
Kriiger? calls 6s “objective”? and dors “qualitative and generic.” 
W. F. Moulton’ defines édc71s as properly indicating the class or 
kind to which an object belongs. But no exact parallel can be 
drawn nor uniform distinction preserved. Each has its own his- 
tory. Jebb‘ takes do7s to refer to class in ancient Greek and hence 
is either indefinite or causal. In the modern Greek it is still in- 
definite, but has also in the vernacular displaced és in the mascu- 
line and feminine nominative. In the LX X éozvs is less frequent 
than ds and is almost confined to the nominative and accusative.® 
In the papyri° it is less frequent than és and is usually in the nom- 
inative as in the N. T. (Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154). 

3. The Indefinite Use. This is, as a matter of fact, still the 
least frequent in the N. T. There are about 27 of the indef- 
inite and 120 of the definite use (Scott). Cf. doris oé parifer els 
Thy dekiay orayova (Mt. 5:39), doris apynonrai pe (10:33), dre av 
aitnonte (Jo. 14:18), doris éav 7 (Gal. 5:10). Thus it is used with 
indicative or subjunctive, with or without ay (éav). Cf. Mt. 13 : 12. 
In Mk. 8: 34 e ris does not differ very greatly from doris. Cf. 
also éav wn, Mk.10: 30. Tas darts is, of course, indefinite also. Thus 
Mt. 7: 24; rap 6 re édy torre (Col. 83:17), etc. For raca poy) Ares dv 
see Ac. 3:23 (LXX). In P. Par. 574 (iii/A.p.) note darts ror’ obv ef. 

4. The Definite Examples. These are partly causal clauses. Some 
indeed seem merely descriptive. Thus Mt.7: 15, r&v Yevdorpodnrav 
oitiwes Epxovrar. Cf. also Mt. 7: 26; 13 : 52; 21:33, etc. The value 
of the pronoun sometimes does not differ greatly from otos and ex- 
presses quality. Thus etvodxor otrives, Mt. 19 : 12; &dAdXows Yewpyors 
oirwes, 21:41; rapbévors airwes, 25:1, etc. Once indeed we actu- 
ally have rovatrn Ares (1 Cor. 5:1). Cf. also tora} 4 yur} Ares (Lu. 
7:39). See also Gal. 4:24, 26. Then again it may be merely 
explanatory as in yuvatxes awo\Nal — aires jnxodolOnoav 7 “Inood 
OV (oo) ae iam keel e762): 159 Col. 3:5; Reve 1138; 
etc. This use of do7:s is particularly frequent with proper names. 


1 Quest., p. 245 f. 
2 Gr., p. 139. For the confusion between és and gars see also Brug., 
Griech. Gr., p. 558 f. 
. 3 W.-M., p. 209, n. 3, where a very helpful discussion occurs. 
4 V. and D., Handb. to Mod. Gk., p. 302. 
6 Thack., Gr., p. 192. 6 Mayser, Gr., p. 310. 


(28 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


So Lu. 2:4, eis wodw Aaveld Aris Kadetrar BnOdeeu. Cf. also Lu. 
8:26; Ac. 16:12, etc. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 303, takes the ex- 
planatory or illustrative examples=‘now he,’ ‘one that.’ Moul- 
ton! points out that dors at. the beginning of a parable (cf. Mt. 
20:1) is really a type and so appropriate. In an example like 
Lu. 1:20, tots Aoyors wou oirwes tANpwOncovrar, Moulton takes it to 
be ‘which for all that’ (almost adversative), while in Lu. 10 : 42 
Hris obk adarpeOnoerar adrjs=‘and it shall not be taken away from 
her.’ There is no doubt about the causal use of dors (cf. qui and 
quippe qui). See Jo. 8: 53, ’ABpadp doris arebavey (‘seeing that he 
died’); Ac. 10 : 47, otriwes 7d rvetua 7d ayvov €daBov (‘since they re- 
ceived the Holy Spirit’). Cf. also Ac. 7: 53; Ro. 2:15; 6:2; Heb. 
8:6; 10 735; Ephv3%:1383\Phe 423 3 @ole3 : 53 Jasc4 elt ees, 
2511, ete: 

5. Value of 6s? It is a matter of dispute whether in the N. T., 
as usually in modern Greek, éa71s has come already to have merely 
the force of és. There are undoubted examples where it is equal 
to domrep (‘which very’). So°Ac. 11:28, ris eyevero, éxt KXavéiov. 
Cf. also Ac. 138 : 31; 16: 16; 1 Cor. 3:17, etc. Blass? goes further 
and finds dors in Luke purely in the sense of és. He is supported 
by Jebb* who says that “‘no natural interpretation can make it 
more in Lu. 2:4.” In Acts at any rate a fairly good case can be 
made out for this weakened sense of darts. Cf. 8: 14f. Ilérpov xai 
’"Iwavnv otrwes, 12:10 rHv ridnv Aris, 17:10. See also Rev. 12: 138. 
Moulton‘ gives an exact parallel from the papyri for Mt. 27: 62, 
Th éravpiov Aris éotly pera THY Tapackeuvny (adprov Aris éeotiy te). He 
quotes Hort also (Comm., 1 Pet. 2:11) in favour of the position 
that in some places in the N. T. no distinction can be drawn be- 
tween 6s and éo7ts. Blass® denies that Paul uses darts as the equiv- 
alent of és. I confess that I fail to see a great deal of difference 
between olzies and ois in Ro. 16:4, otrwes and ot in 16:7. Cf. 
also és and #7us in verses 5 f. 

6. Case. There is little here that calls for comment. We do 
not have attraction or incorporation. As a matter of fact only 
three cases occur (nom., gen., acc.).6 The stereotyped phrase 


1 Prol., p. 92. *Ooris as ‘who indeed’ is common in Pisidia. Cf. Comper- 
nass, De Serm. Graec., p. 13. 

2"GrfotsNa ls Gkorp alia +> Proll pauls 

$ V. and D., Handb.; p. 302. S Gre otnN.e) otok epee ro 

6 The pap. show the same situation. Moulton, Cl. Rev., April, 1904, p. 154. 
Thus j#v7wa BM 77 (viii/A.D.), dyruva inser. J.H.S., 1902, p. 349, é& drov BM 
190 (ili/?), ws dtou NP 56 (iii/A.D.). 


ames 


PRONOUNS (‘ANTOQNYMIAI) 729 


with éws and the genitive, éws d7ov, occurs five times. Cf. Mt. 
5:25; Lu. 12:50 (Luke three times, Matthew and John once 
each). This is the only form of the shortened inflection. The 
LXX once! (2 Mace. 5:10) has jarivos, elsewhere érov. The accu- 
sative is found in the N. T. only in the neuter singular 67. (absent 
from modern Greek). But see (note 6, p. 728) occasional évtiva 
and #vrwa in the papyri. So Lu. 10:35, drc dv rpocéaravnons. Cf. 
Ortiayy, JOmee Oy 4 tose LO L624 ort eav, Mk, 6.223; 1 Cor. 16: 
2 f.; Col. 3:17; ércalone, Jo. 8: 25; Ac.9:6. The other examples 
are all in the nominative. In Ac. 9:6 the clause is nominative. 

7. Number. In general the number of éc71s agrees with that 
of the antecedent. But in a few instances doris agrees with the 
predicate. So with 1 Cor. 3:17, vads otrwes — buets, Eph. 3 : 18, 
OrXtWeow HArus — dota. Cf. Ac. 16 : 12. 

8. Gender. Likewise doris in general agrees with the antece- 
dent in gender. So Eph. 1:22 f. exdrAnoia Aris — 7d cpa, Gal. 
4:24 pia Hris—"Ayap. Cf. Rev. 11:8. But the gender of the 
predicate may be followed as in Ac. 16:12, cXimmovs (fem., H. 
Scott says, but Thayer has of) ris — rods; 1 Tim. 3:15, otkw 
deod — Aris — éxxdnotia. In Ph. 1: 28, rus — &derés, the antece- 
dent is the general idea of the preceding clause. One example of 
d7t is neuter singular (2 Cor. 3:14, 671 & XpicTd Kkarapyetrat), 
and several times the neuter plural (Jo. 21:25, arwa éav ypadn- 
tat). So Gal. 4:24; 5:19. Cf. the absence of the neuter in the 
modern Greek. The masculine and feminine, both singular and 
plural, are very frequent. Cf. Mt. 2:6; 7:15; Lu. 2:4; 28: 
55. See further for number, gender and case, chapter X, vit, 
VIL OLX 

9. Direct Questions. Examples of éorts in direct questions are 
found in Aristophanes and Plato as quoted by Jannaris.?. An ex- 
ample of it occurs also in 1 Chron. 17:6, d7¢ otk a@kodounoarte por 
otkov Kédpivov; Here the Hebrew has 42>. Cf. also 2 Ki. 8: 14 
in AB, 67 where other MSS. have ri. In Barn. Ep. c. 10 we have 
drt 6€ Mwiofs elpnxev; Vulgate has quare.* Jannaris* gives a 
number of instances for the later Greek. And yet Blass® calls it 
“quite incredible,’ a remark impossible to justify in the light of 
the facts. It is, indeed, unusual, but there is no a priori reason 


1 Thack., Gr., p. 192. 2 Hist. Gk.-Gr., p. 473. 

3 Cf. W.-M., p. 208. 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 473. It is more usual in the second of two questions. 
Cf. Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 398. 

SeCaTe Ol eNews) Gk pk /0; 


730 A GRAMMAR ‘OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


why the N. T. writers could not occasionally use doris as a direct 
interrogative. One may note also the use of ei in a direct question. 
The N. T. examples are all confined to 6 7. In Mt. 7:14 67: is 
certainly merely causal, not exclamatory nor interrogative. In 
Mk. 2:16 87 (sec.) read by BL 33, is accepted by W. H. and 
Nestle as interrogative. AC al. read ri 671, while ND have 6:a zi. 
It is possible, to be sure, that 47 may be an “‘abbreviation”’? or 
“ellipsis”’* for ri 7c. But it is more probable that it is here re- 
garded as tantamount to an interrogative (ri ére or dua ti). Moul- 
ton (Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154) quotes é7e ri in B.U. 607 (ii/A.D.) ypayor 
pou bru Tl érpatas. But in Mk. 9:11 the Greek uncials all give the 
first é7. This is all the more remarkable since the second 67: is 
clearly a conjunction. The Latin MSS. give variously quare, quia, 
quid, etc., and some Greek cursives 7és obv. ‘Why’ is the natural 
and obvious idea.’ So in Mk. 9:28 ér is read by the great 
mass of MSS. (including NBCL), though AD and a number of 
others have 6a ri, some even have 67 dia 7i (conflate reading), a 
few ri drt. In John 8 : 25 both W. H. and Nestle print as a ques- 
tion, TH apxqv dre kal Nad butv; The Latin versions have quod or 
quia. It is a very difficult passage at best. Tv apxqv érc may be 
taken to mean ‘Why do I speak to you at all?’ (rv apynv= ddws). 
But there may be ellipsis,> ‘Why do you reproach me that (671) 
I speak to you at all?’ If necessary to the sense, 67s may be 
taken here as interrogative.6 Moulton’ admits the N. T. use of 
do7is in a direct question. Recitative 67. is even suggested in 
Winer-Schmiedel,*® but the occasional interrogative use of dru is 
sufficient explanation. But the passage in Jo. 8 : 25 is more than 
doubtful. Chrysostom takes ér: there as relative, Cyril as causal.? 

10. Indirect Questions. In ancient Greek do7is is exceedingly 
common in indirect questions, sharing the honours with ris.!° The 
astonishing thing about this use of doris is its almost entire ab- 
sence from the N. T. (cf. modern Greek, where it is not used in 
this sense). No example has yet been shown from the papyri. 
Indeed the relative forms, the so-called indirect interrogatives, 
are not common in the N. T. in that sense. The direct interroga- 


1 Lachmann, Praef., p. 43. ’ Blass; Gr. of N. T. Gk:, p. 176: 
2 BlassGr.ofe Niwa. paleo, 6 Simcox, Lang. of N. T., p. 68. 
3 W.-M., p. 208. 7 Prol., p. 94. 


4 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 68. 

8 P. 238. The use of Src ri lends colour to the notion of recitative drt. 
9 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 143. 

10 Cf. Jann’, Hist. Gk: Gr., p. 473. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) ; 731 


tives ‘are the rule in the N. T. in indirect questions.!. Only one 
instance of é7c in an indirect question is found in the N. T., Ac. 
9:6, AaAnOnoeTaAl cor Ore ce Set Toretv. Even this reading, though 
supported by NABC, Blass? rejects “in view of the general 
practice elsewhere,” a needless conclusion. Why not call it a 
“literary”? mark in-Luke? “Ozws is so used once (Lu. 24 : 20), 
dou not at all (not even Jo. 14:4), otos in 1 Th. 1:5, and dzovos 
Onlysiny i. Gormore lot Gale-2:2:' 63, 1.0h.i1s9;. Jas. 1; 24.,,/ See 
further chapter XIX. 

(f) Olos. 

1. Relation to 6s. This correlative form is related to és as 
qualis is to qui. The antecedent rovotros is not, of course, always 
expressed. But it is qualitative, and not a mere relative like és or 
even doris. In the modern Greek the word has disappeared except 
the form éyzos (6 otos)* in the dialects and is rare (14 times) in 
the N. T. Mayser* merely mentions it in his Grammatik d. 
griech. Papyri. It is in the N. T. usually without rovotros, as 
in Mt. 24 : 21, but it is several times followed by rovotros, as in 
1 Cor. 15 :48; 2 Cor. 10:11. A rather unusual instance is otos — 
TNALKODTOS Getcpos OVTW peyas (Rev. 16:18). In 2 Cor. 12 : 20 oitov 
is, of course, first person. So oto. 1 Th. 1: 5. 

2. Incorporation. No instance of attraction occurs, but an ex- 
ample of incorporation is found in 2 Tim. 3:11, olovs duwypods 
wrnveyxa. In Rev. 16:18 the addition of rtyAtKoiros ottw péeyas 
after oios is by way of explanatory apposition. But in Mk. 13 : 19, 
ola ov yeyovey to.attn, the incorporation is redundant after the 
fashion of 6v — abrov. 

3. Indirect Question.’ Like és we have otos so used. Cf. 1 Th. 
1:5, oléare oto. éyernOnuev. In 2 Tim. 3:11 we may have an in- 
direct question also. The Textus Receptus for Lu. 9:55 (D 
has roiov) has another instance of the use of otos in an indirect 
question, ovk oldaTe olov mvebuaros éaTe byels. 

4, Number. Otos may agree in number with the predicate 
rather than the antecedent. So 1 Cor. 15:48, oios — roodro:. 
Note the difference in the position of the negative in ovx otovs and 
oiov ov, 2 Cor. 12:20. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179, calls dv 
avtov — otov (Ph. 1: 30) peculiar. 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N..T. Gk., p. 175; W.-Sch., p. 236 f.; Viteau, Prop., pp. 
62 ff. 

2. Gr..of N. T..Gk.; p. 175. 

* Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 87, 168; Thumb, Handb., p. 94. 

Meni Ne, 5 Cf. K.-G., II, p. 489, for exx. in the older Gk. 


7392 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


5. Oiév ré éorw. The only example! in the N. T. is in Ro. 9: 
6, obx otov 6é b71, where note the absence of re. It does not occur 
in exclamations. 

(g) “Orroios. 

1. Qualitative. It corresponds to the interrogative rotos. It 
is very rare in the N. T. (see Declensions), but occurs in modern 
Greek vernacular for ‘whoever’ (Thumb, p. 93). In the literary 
modern Greek 6 é6rotos, Jannaris? thinks that the use of the article 
was due to the Italian i quale and the French lequel (cf. Old 
English the which), since educated scribes objected to the ver- 
nacular é7ouv and 7od.3 

2. Double Office. Like otos, dcos and 7Xixos it has the double 
office of relative and indirect interrogative.* Four of the N. T. 
instances are indirect questions (1 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 2:6; 1 Th. 
1:9; Jas. 1:24). In Gal. 2 : 6, ézotoi rore, we have the indefinite 
form (‘whatever kind’). Note here the use of 7: and ézoto. In 
1 Cor. 3:18 the antecedent is expressed and repeated by redun- 
dant avro. 

3. Correlative. Only one instance is correlative, Ac. 26 : 29, 
Towovtous omotos. Cf. qualiscumque. Note here the difference in 
number. 

(h) “Oaos. 

1. Quantitative. It is found in the LXX like otos and ézotos® 
and survives in the modern Greek.’ There are a hundred and 
eight instances in the N. T. (W. H. text) which display great 
variety of usage. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 63) notes that in 
Philo dc0s is often equal to of. 

2. Antecedent. The presence of the antecedent is not common 
outside of ravtes dao (Ac. 5:36, 37), tavta boa (very common, as 
Mt. 7:12; 18:46; 18:25; Mk. 11: 24, ete.), dc00c — otra (also 
frequent, as Ro. 8: 14; Gal. 6 : 12, ete.). Cf. 8000 — adbrots in Jo. 
1:12. But in Mk. 8:28 60a has duaprnuara and Bracdnpia as 
_ antecedents and naturally is neuter. Cf. Ac. 3 : 24; 9:39; Rev. 

21:16. It is common without antecedent both in the masculine 
(dco. Mt. 14 : 36) and the neuter (é0a Mk. 9 : 13). 

3. Attraction. This was possible in. Jo. 6:11, é« rav d~apiwy 


1 For a different explanation =ov 69 rou éxremr. see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 179. 2 Hist.}\Gky Grip Ge. 

$V. and D., Handb., p. 303. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 93. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 318. It is rare in ane. Gk. in this sense. K.-G., 
II, p. 489. Cf. drws Lu. 24 : 20. 

6 Thack., Gr., p. 192. 7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 168. 





PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAT) 733 


dcov H0edov, but it does not occur. In Lu. 11:8, doce aitd dcwv 
xencer, the regular construction occurs. In Winer-Schmiedel! it 
is stated that attraction is found in the N. T. with édcos. I find 
no real examples outside of the few cases of incorporation now | 
to be mentioned.” 

4. Incorporation. In Ac. 9:18 60a kaka is an instance. Mk. 
2:19 has dcov xpovov. The other examples (Ro. 7:1; 1 Cor. 
7:39; Gal. 4:1) are all instances of é¢’ dcov xpovor. 

5. Repetition. In Mk. 6:30 we have in W. H. dca kal dca 
(not Tisch.). But in Ph. 4:8 dca is repeated six times without 
kal. In Heb. 10 : 37 décor dcov (LX X) is in imitation of the Hebrew 
in Hab. 2:3. Cf. also Is. 26:20 and D on Lu. 5:3 where écov 
dcov= odiyov of the other MSS.* But that this is not an essential 
Hebraism, but a vernacular idiom in harmony with the Hebrew, 
is now clear.‘ 

6. With av. Note the use as an indefinite relative (Mk. 6 : 56; 
Tu: 9:5; Jo. 11 +22; ‘Ac. 2+-389; 3:22, etc.) and with éé&y (Mt. 
Fo 12218 189 231007) Mkes-=28, étc.): 

7. Indirect Questions. The instances are fairly numerous. So 
axovovtes doa movee (Mk. 3:8); drayyerdov boa — weroinxey (5: 19). 
Giron 0sieasieoo OOP AC, 42:23 2 ‘Limp: 18) ete: 

8. In Comparison. “Ocov (dow) is used in comparative sentences 
usually with rocotro (rocotrw). -Cf. Mk. 7:36; Heb. 1:4; 8:6; 
1025, 

9. Adverbial. ’Ed’ dcov (Mt.9:15; 25:40; Ro. 7:1, etc.) and 
kad’ dcov (Heb. 3:3; 7: 20; 9 : 27) partake of the nature of con- 
junctions. 

(7) “HXékos. This form was used to express both age and size. 
Hence the corresponding ambiguity of Axia. Cf. for age Jo. 
9:21, for stature Mt. 6:27. The pronoun is absent from the 
LXX, never very common, but survives in the literary modern 
Greek.’ It appears also in the papyri.® Like the other relatives it 
might have had a double use in the N.T. (relative and indirect in- 
terrogative). But the few examples are all indirect interrogatives: 
Col. 2:1 eldévar HAlkov adyava Exw, Jas. 3:5 ibod Hrikov rdp HALKnY 


1 P, 224, 

2 But in the pap. Moulton finds apovpdv — dowv (Prol., p. 93). As a matter 
of fact in the N. T. dcos nowhere occurs outside of the nom. and acc. except 
in Lu. 11:8 and Heb. 1:4; 8:6; 10: 25. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. Blass also cites Aristoph., Vesp., 213. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 97; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 330. 

6 Jann., Hist’ Gk. Gr, p: 168. 6 Mayser, Gr., p. 311. 


734 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Urnv avarre. The examples in James may be regarded as exclam- 
atory. Note also that 7Aixov refers to smallness and 7Aiknv to great- 
ness of the size. In Gal. 6:11 W. H. and Nestle read zyXixors in 
the text and #Alxos in the margin. This again is indirect question 
after idere. 

(j) ‘0 as Revative. The use of the 7 forms of 6, 4, 76 as relative 
is very old in Greek. It appears in Homer! and is common in 
Herodotus. In Arkadian 6 appears as demonstrative, as article 
and as relative (Meister, Die griech. Dialekten, Bd. II, p. 116). 
Cf. also South Ach. (Hoffmann, Griech. Dial., pp. 257, 292-300). 
Jannaris? gives examples of it from Ionic (where very common), 
Doric and Attic (inscriptions), and sporadically in the later Greek. 
In modern Greek it survives only in sententious sayings with ra 
and in Crete and ‘Southeast Greek (Thumb, p. 94). Mayser? finds 
a few doubtful instances in the papyri. Wilcken (Archiv, I) gives 
some examples from B. M. as 76 pou dé6wxes (p. 292), trav ayarnv TH 
rovets (p. 301), and Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 155) quotes apds 7d 
divoue from B.U. 948 (iv/v a.p.) “very illiterate.’ Mayser (op. 
cit.) gives numerous examples of 6 xai which “first in Roman time’”’ 
appears in the nominative. He compares this with the relative 
use 6s xat and is inclined to regard 6 xai as relative. The analogy 
of the Latin qui et favours the relative idea, but the article alone is 
sufficient in Greek. I would not insist on the relative for LadXos 6 
kal Iaddos (Ac. 18:9), though admitting the possibility of it. It 
means (Deissmann), not ‘Saul who is henceforth Paul,’ but ‘also 
Paul. Cf; alsosHatch) Joursofe Bibl it Eizo 
In truth this use of 6 xai with double names was very common in 
N. T. times.’ Dieterich® sees no instance of 6 as relative in the 
N.T. But in Rev. 1:4, 8; 11:17, we have 6 jv. One either has 
to say that here 6 is used as a relative or that it is a relative. It 
all comes to the same in the end. It may be a bit artificial, 6 dp 
Kal 6 Av Kal 6 €pxouevos, but the antique and vernacular relative 6 
came in as a resource when John did not wish to use yevouevos of 
God, and since there is no aorist participle for eiuit. Psychologically 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 182 ff. For hist. of the matter see K.-Bl., I, pp. 
608 ff. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 353. Cf. also Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 560; Meisterh., Gr., 
p. 156; Dieterich, Byz. Arch., pp. 1, 198 f. ’ Gr., pp--310 fi, 

4 See Schmid, Der Atticismus, ITI, p. 338; Volker, Synt. d. griech. Pap., 
p. 6; Ramsay, Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, XIX, 429; Deiss., B.S., pp. 318 ff.; 
Moulton, Prol., p. 83. 

5 Unters., p. 199. Winer (W.-Th., p. 107) rejects 6 kai as relative. 


eo ee eee oe  iuae 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNYMIAI) 139 


the article is called for here between two articles, but grammar 
can do nothing with it. If # is treated as a substantive, that 
would call for 76 as in 76 6€ ’AvéBy (Eph. 4:9). Moulton! finds 
several examples in late papyri of 6 as relative (for 6 as demon- 
strative see pp. 693 ff.), like r7v xtpa Thy dédmxev (p. 804). The only 
real difficulty in Rev. 1:4, 8, etc., is the nominative use, and 
that was not insuperable when the exigencies of the sentence de- 
manded it. It is possible that this phrase had come to be a set 
phrase among the Christians for the eternity and unchangeable- 
ness of God. For the possible use of ris as relative see under 
VIII. 

VIII. Interrogative Pronouns (d4vtwvuptat épwtntikat). 

(a) Tis. The root of the interrogative ris (Thess. xis. Cf. Ionic 
K@s, KOTepos), indefinite zis (cf. Te), is at bottom the same as the 
Indo-Germanic root quis and Latin quis (aliquis, que).? Curiously 
enough some of the grammars, Monro’s Homeric Grammar, for 
example, give no separate or adequate discussion of the inter- 
rogative pronouns. 

1. Substantival or Adjectival. Tis is either adjectival as riva 
puobov Exere; (Mt. 5 : 46), or, as more commonly, substantival like 
ris bredectev; (Mt. 3:7). 

2. The Absence of Gender. That it appears only in the nom- 
inative and accusative is noteworthy. This fact probably had 
something to do with the gradual retreat of ris before zotos.? The 
neuter in the N. T. occurs with adjectives only, as ri ayafov in 
Mt. 19 : 16. 

3. Tis=zotos. An opposite tendency is seen in the use of ris= 
motos. Hatzidakis® has shown examples of this idiom as early as 
Euripides. As New Testament illustrations one may note tis 
ovros éorw bs (Lu.7:49), rives of Ndyou ovTOL ods dvTiBaddere (Lu. 
24:17; cf. rota 24:19), ris éorw otros 6 vids Tod avOpwrov (Jo. 12: 34). 
Cf. Lu. 4:36. Only once® is rotos used with the article (Jas. 
4:14, and here B omits 4), while we find ris 4 codia (Mk. 6: 2), 
tis 7 airia (Ac. 10 : 21), ete. Sometimes ris and zofoy are used to- 
gether. It might seem at first as if the distinction were here 
insisted on, as in eis tiva # otov Karpov (1 Pet. 1:11) and soiov 
otxov — 7} tis tomos (Ac. 7:49). But tautology seems plain in the 
last example and may be true of 1 Pet. 1:11, but not certainly 


1 Cl. Rev., April, 1904, p. 155. 

2 Cf. Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 194; Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 117, 244. 

3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 163. 5 Hinl., p. 207 f. 

4 Ib., p. 164. 6 Blass, Gr. of N.-IT.Gk., p.-176. 


736 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


sot In Mk.4:30 W. H. read & rim, but some MSS. have é zroig. 
Cf. also ris cat rorarés in Lu. 7: 39, which is not tautological. 

4. Indeclinable ri. In Jo. 18 : 38, ri €or adnOeva, the neuter in 
the predicate calls for no special remark. So Gal. 3:19. Cf. 
Latin guid and English what in such a sentence. This idiom be- 
longs to the ancient Greek and distinguishes between the essence 
of a thing (ri) and the classification of a thing (vis), as Gilder- 
sleeve puts it (Syntax of Cl. Gk., p. 59). Cf. duets tives ore; (Ac. 
19:15) and ri éorw GvOpwros (Heb. 2:6). But this explana- 
tion will not hold for 1 Jo. 3:2, ri écoueba, nor Ac. 13 : 25, ri 
éué brovoetre. The text in Acts is not certain. The xown shows 
this development outside of the N. T.?. In the modern Greek “the 
neuter ri is used with all genders and cases both in the singular 
and plural’ (Vincent and Dickson, Handb., p. 55). Cf. ri apa 
etvat; ‘what o’clock is it?’ Ti yuvatka; ‘which woman?’ Thumb, 
Handb., p. 94. It is not unusual in classical Greek* to have 7i as 
predicate to ratra, as in Lu. 15 : 26 7i ay ein radra, Jo. 6:9 radra ri 
éotw. So probably ri tadra rwovetre; (Ac. 14:15), though 7i here 
may be ‘why’ and not predicative. The usual construction ap- 
pears in Ac. 17: 20 riva O€\eu Tadra efvar (cf. Jo. 10: 6), 11:17 éya 
ris Hunv; ef. Lu. 8:9. In Ac. 21:33 ris and ri are sharply dis- 
tinguished. The use of ri with yivowac is hardly in point here 
(Ac. 5:24; 12:18) as it is found in the Attic* ri yerwuar. In 
Jo. 21:21 otros 6€ ri; we must supply yevjcerat. 

5. Predicate Use of ti with rotro. In Ac. 23:19, ri éorw 6 exets, 
we find the full expression. In Lu. 16: 2, ri trotro axotw rept cod, we 
meet the abbreviated idiom. Cf. Ac. 14:15 7i ratra (see also 
9). Cf. Lu. 1:66; Ac. 5:24. The phrase ri rpos judas (Mt. 27: 
4), tt pos oé (Jo. 21:22) is matched by the Attic ri ratr’ éuoi 
(Kuhner-Gerth, U1, °417;" Blass, Gr. of (Nw Gs pel (7 yt. 
ovros ti (Jo. 21:21). Blass (7b.) also compares ti yap pou Tovs 
é&w xplvev (1 Cor. 5:12) with the infinitive in Arrian, Diss. 
Epict., ii, 17. 14. Tt euot cai coi (Jo. 2:4, etc.) is in the LXX 
(2 Ki. 3:18), but it is also a Greek idiom (ellipsis, Kihner- 
Gerth, 7b.). 

6. In Alternative Questions. Quality in general is nearly gone 
from the xow#. Tis when zérepos might have been used is not 
unknown in ancient Greek.’ Indeed even in Latin quis occurs 
sometimes instead of the more usual wter.6 In the LXX zérepos 

1 Blass’ GEroteN: lap eee: 4 Tb. 


2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr.,; p. 164. 5 Jelf, 874, obs. 4. 
§ Blass, Gr. of N. T, Gk., p. 177. 6 Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 103. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) Oyeye 


is supplanted by ris and the particle zérepov occurs only once, and 
that in Job (literary)... Moulton? finds only one example of zére- 
pos In the papyri, and that unintelligible. So in the N.T. zérepos 
does not occur as an adjective. So in Mt.9:5 71 yap éorw evko- 
mwrepov eirety — 7 eiwety, 21: 31 ris Ex Tay dvO Eroincoer, 27:21 Tiva 
Oé\ere aro Tv Sto. Cf. also 23: 17,19; 27:17; Mk. 2:9; Lu. 7: 42; 
22:27; 1 Cor. 4: 21; Ph. 1:22. Moulton? notes that “whether, 
adjectivally, is as archaic as worepos,’”’ and predicts that ‘‘the best 
of the two” will be the English of the future. 

7. The Double Interrogative. Cf. ris ro0ev in Soph., Tr. 421. 
It is common in other Indo-Germanic languages. Cf. ris rivos 
éatiy épyarns, Hom. Clem. 2, 33. So tis ri aon in Mk. 15: 24. 
Some MSS. have ris ri also in Lu. 19: 15, but not NBDL (W. H. 
and Nestle read ri). Cf. 7Alkov — jAiknv in Jas. 3:5. 

8. As Relative. Just as és and doris came to be used as inter- 
rogatives, so ris drifted occasionally to a mere relative. We have 
seen (1 Tim. 1:7) how the relative and the interrogative come to 
be used side by side. ‘‘In English, the originally interrogative 
pronouns ‘who’ and ‘which’ have encroached largely on the use 
of the primitive relative ‘that.’’’> Moulton’s sketch of the facts® 
makes it clear that in the N.T. ris may be relative if the exigencies 
call for it. Moulton finds it only in the illiterate papyri, but the 
usage is supported by inscriptions’ and by the Pontic dialect to- 
day. Moulton® gives from the papyri, etpov yeopyov tis a’ra 
édxbon, B.U. 822 (iii/A.D.); Tivos éay xpiav Exys, B.M. 239 (iv/a.p.). 
From the inscriptions see ris av xax@s mounoe, J.H.S., XIX, 299. 
Moulton? also quotes Jebb on Soph., O. 7. 1141: “Tis in clas- 
sical Greek can replace doris only where there is an indirect ques- 
tion.’ The plainest New Testament example of ris as és appears 
to be Mk. 14 : 36 ov ri éya Oéd\w GAG Ti atv. Cf. Mt. 26 : 39 ody ws 
éya OéX\w, GAN’ ws oV. But it isnot much more so than Mt. 15 : 32 
oik éxovow Ti daywow (cf. Mk. 8:1f.) and Mk. 6:36 wa— ayo- 
piowow éavtois Ti daywow. Cf. otk exer rod — kXvn (Mt. 8: 20), 
but d70v — dayw (Mk. 14:14). See in the papyri, ovéev exw ri ro- 
now cot, B.U. 948 (iv/v A.D.), as quoted by Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1904, 
p.155). But even so Xenophon has this idiom, and Sophocles, Oed. 


1 Thack., Gr., p. 192. 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 74. 

ee Proll aDa ce: 5 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 67. 

3 Tb. 6 Prol., p. 93 f.; Cl. Rev., Apr., 1904, p. 154 f. 

7 Dieterich, Unters., p. 200. 

8 Thumb, Theol. Literzaturzeit., xxviii, p. 423 (quoted in Moulton, Prol., 
p. 94). ® Prol., p. 93, 


738 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Col. 317, has otk éxw ri $4, which looks like an indirect question. 
Cf. Winer-Moulton, p. 211; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 240. It is not 
necessary to bring! under this construction ot yap qde Ti amoKxpiOf 
(Mk. 9:6) nor Mk. 13:11. Here the idiom is really that of in- 
direct question (deliberative question). Cf. the direct question in 
Mt. 6 : 31 with the indirect in 6:25. So in Mt. 10:19 (first ex- 
ample) and see 9. But the second example in Mt. 10 : 19 (d00jce- 
tat — Ti Aadnonre) may be the relative use. Cf. also Lu. 17:8. 
In Ac. 13 : 25 the punctuation can (so Nestle, but not W. H.) be 
made so that ri is relative, ri éué brovoetre efvat, obk eiul ey. It is 
possible also thus to construe Lu. 19 : 3, iéety “Inoody ris éorw, In- 
stead of taking ris éorw as an accusative of general reference. Cf. 
Mk. 1: 24, of64 oe ris ef (Lu. 4 : 34 also). Cf. the prolepsis od ris 
ef in Jo. 8:25. So Ro. 14:4, 10. The rhetorical questions in 
Lu. 11:5; 15:4, 8; Jas. 3:13 are not, of course, instances of this 
usage.2 Perhaps the anacoluthon in Lu. 11:11 (iva 6€ €& buav tov 
matépa aitnoe — éridmoe;) may have arisen because of this idiom. 
The distinction between ris and és is, of course, usually maintained 
(Jo. 16:18; Ac. 23:19; Heb. 12:7). It is at least noteworthy 
that in 1 Cor. 15:2 Paul changes from és (used four times) to rive 
Aoyw. An indirect question comes with a jolt and makes one 
wonder if here also the relative use of ris does not occur. In Mt. 
26 : 62 (ovd€v aroxpivn Ti ovTOL cov KaTauapTupodcw;) we may have 
an indirect question (cf. Mk. 14:60), though zpés would be usual 
(cf. Mt. 27:14). It is better to follow W. H. with two separate 
questions? and even so ri=ri éorw 6. The use of ris as relative 
Blass‘ calls “Alexandrian and dialectica].’”’ The LXX (Lev. 21: 
17 avOpwros tine éayv 7, Deut. 29 : 18 avip — Tivos, Ps. 40 : 6 ovk éorw 
tis) does show examples of it, but it is not confined to Egypt, as 
has been already shown. Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 561) finds 
tis as relative in Boeotian and even rarely in the older Attic. 

9. Adverbial Use. The neuter accusative ri is frequently used 
in the sense of ‘why’ in the N. T. This is classical and common 
and calls for little comment. It still appears in modern Greek 
(Thumb, p. 94). See Mt. 7:3 (ri Bdérers 7d Kdpdos;) 8: 26 (ré derdol 
éore;) 19:17; 20:6, ete. In Ac. 14:15 ri ratra movetre we prob- 
' ably have 7ri=‘why.’ Cf. Mk.11:3. In Mk. 2: 24 ti rovotcw rots 
caBBacw 5 ovk éfeorw; note ‘why,’ though 7i is followed by 6. It 


1 As Simcox does, Lang. of the N. T., p. 69 f. 

2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 241; Moulton, Prol., p. 93. 

8 W.-Sch., p. 241; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 331. 

4° Gr: of Nw#DAGK pr L7o. 5 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 241. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) 739 


is interesting to note més 7 7i, Mt. 10:19; Lu. 12:11. In Jo. 
14:22 ri yéyovey bre we see the full form of the idiom 7i 67 
(Lu. 2:49; Ac. 5:4, 9). Here zi still=‘why.’ But in iva ri 
(1 Cor. 10:29 and Mt: 9:4; 27:46; Lu. 13:7}. Ac. 4:25; 7: 26) 
rt is really the subject of yevnra: (ellipsis). It is not unknown in 
Attic Greek.! W. H. never print ivari (cf. Mt. 9:4; Lu. 13:7). 
It is common in LXX. 

10. With Prepositions. There is very little difference between 
7i=‘why’ and 6a ri=‘because of what’ (Mt. 15:2, 3; 17:19; 
Lu. 24: 38, ete.). Kara ri (‘according to what’) is practically ‘how.’ 
Cf. Lu. 1:18. Fore rim see Mt. 5:13. But pds ri (Jo. 13 : 28)= 
‘for what purpose.’ In Jo. 13 : 22 wepi rivos Neyer there is no such 
idea. But purpose again is expressed by eis ri (Mt. 14: 31; 26: 8; 
Mk. 14:4; Ac. 19:3). 

11. With Particles. Paul in particular is fond of the rhetorical 
use of ri yap (Ro. 3 : 3; 4: 2, etc.), ri obv (8: 1, 9, etc.), ri re (38:: 7; 
9:19), adda wi (11:4), F vi (11:2). Cf. ris &pa in Lu. 22 : 23 and 
ti apa 1:66; Ac. 12:18. 

12. As Exclamation. In Mt. 7:14 W. H. read dr: (causal), not 
ti orevy y TUAn. But in Lu. 12 : 49 kal ri O€dw ei Hdn avndOy there is 
no doubt of the text. W.H. punctuate as a question, but Nestle 
as an exclamation. Examples of exclamatory 7i= ‘how’ are found 
in 2 Sam. 6: 20; Song of Sol. 7:6 and in the modern Greek, ti 
Kaos avOpwros! Cf. Mullach, Vulg., pp. 210, 321; Winer-Moulton, 
p. 562. Blass? compares the Hebrew 72. On the whole it is best 
to take ri in Lu. 12 :49= ‘how.’ 

13. Indirect Questions. It is, of course, the ancient idiom® to 
have ris in an indirect question. But in the N. T. the indirect in- 
terrogative do71s has disappeared in this idiom save in Ac. 9:6 
(MSS. divided here). A good example of ris occurs in Ac. 10: 
29 avuvOdavowar tive hoyw pereréeupacbe we. In Luke we meet the 
neuter article rather frequently before the indirect question. So 
TO TL dy Oédoe (1 : 62), 7d Tis av ein (9:46). Cf. 22:28, 24, ete. 
Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 158) sees no special point in the article 
(cf. English “the which’). Paul sometimes uses it also (Ro. 8 : 26; 
1Th.4:17674s). The question is brought out rather more sharply 
by the article. The Attic use of 76. ri, 76 rotov (Thompson, Synt., 
p. 74) in reference to something previously mentioned is like 
our ‘The what?” Cf. Herm., Sim., VIII, i, 4, Clem., Hom., i, 6. 

14. Tis or ris. Sometimes it is difficult to decide whether ris 


1 W.-Sch., p. 240. asGrnot Nabe kp eer. 
8 Thompson, Synt., p. 74. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 561. 


740 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


or rls is right. So 1 Pet. 5:8 W. H. have {(nrav xaramety with rwa 
in the margin. But Nestle actually prints (nr@v riva katarety. 
In Heb. 5:12 W. H. read ria and Nestle twa (both indefinite). 
In Jas. 5 : 13 the reading is, of course, 71s, not ris. So 1 Cor. 7: 18. 

(b) IlLotos. 

1. Qualitative. It occurs sixteen times in direct questions. It 
is still used in its original qualitative sense. Clearly this is true 
in Jo. 12 : 33, onuaivwv rolw Bavatrw Hueddev arobvnckey (cf. 18 : 32), 
Ro. 3: 27 (81a olov véuouv; trav épywv;). The same thing is true 
of 1 Cor. 15 : 35 (rolw compare Epxovra;), cf. also 1 Pet. 2:20. In 
1 Pet. 1:11 we find both viva and zotov in apparent contrast. 
Other possible instances are Jo. 10 : 32; Ac. 7:49 (LXX); Jas. 4: 
14. The common & moia éfovcia (Mt. 21 : 23; Mk. 11: 28; Ac. 
4:7, LXX, etc.) seems also to retain the qualitative force. Cf. also 
Lu. 24:19. The qualitative sense is clear in D zoiov rvevyaros éore 
(Lu. 9 : 55), a spurious passage, however. 

2. Non-qualitative. But some examples clearly have lost the 
qualitative sense. In the modern Greek zovés is used regularly!= 
tis, and is the usual interrogative. Note the accent zos. Indeed 
examples of this weakened sense of zotos Jannaris? finds as early 
as Aischylus and Euripides. See (a), 3. In Mt. 24: 42 ovx otéare 
Toia nuepa 6 KUptos buav épxerac there seems to be merely the force 
of ris, not quality. Cf. also 24:43 zoia dudaxq, Lu. 12:39 ota 
wpa, Ac. 23:34 rolas érapxeias, Rev. 3:3 olay wpav. This is 
probably true also of Mt. 22:36 zoia évrodn (Mk. 12: 28). In 
Lu. 5:19 zotas and 6:32 f. rota xapis either point of view will 
answer. 

3. In Indirect Questions. It occurs sixteen times (not counting 
Lu. 9 : 55) in this construction against four for érotos. Cf. in- 
dicative in Mt. 21 : 24; 24; 42: Jo, 12: 33; 21:19, and the sub- 
junctive in Lu. 5:19 pw zolas elcevéyxwow. Tlotos is found in the 
LXX and in the papyri. 

(c) IIdcos. 

1. Less Frequent than rotos. It occurs chiefly in the Synoptic 
Gospels (twenty-seven times in W.H. text). 

2. Meaning. It is used in the sense of ‘how much’ (zécw Mt. 
12 : 12), ‘how great’ (récov Mt. 6 : 23), and of ‘how many’ (zécous 
aprous éxere; Mt. 15:34). Eleven examples of réow occur almost 
like an adverb (Mt. 7:11; 10 : 25, etc.). The use of réc0s xpdvos 
— ws (Mk. 9 : 21) is noteworthy. 

1 Thumb, Handb., p. 94. 
* Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 163. Cf. Dieterich, Unters., p. 202. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONTMIAT) rere: Nl) 


3. In Indirect Questions. See obk axovers roca cov katapaprupodow; 
OMe 27.2213) eGiaAca2l:20,rete: 

4. The Exclamatory Use. This is found in Lu. 15:17 xécor 
pioO.o. Tod watpés mov, and in 2 Cor. 7:11 moony xatecpydcaro tbyiv 
orovdnv. The exclamatory use of 7s may be mentioned (Mk. 
Oo Ose ieoO) ear wooine RO. LOd 15 ‘ands 11.33.) Cf: 
mocos — ws in Mk. 9: 21. 

(d) IIndékos. | 

1. Rare. It is found only twice in the N. T. (Gal. 6 : 11; Heb. 
7:4) and W. H. put #tcos in the margin of Gal. 6:11. It is 
rare also! in the LXX (cf. Zech. 2 : 2), and has disappeared from 
the modern Greek vernacular, 

2. Indirect Questions. Both of the N. T. examples are indirect 
questions. The example in Heb. 7:4 describes greatness of Mel- 
chisedek (how great), the one in Gal. 6:11 presents the size of 
the letters (how large). 

(e) Ilotazros. 

It is the late form for rodarés. It no longer in the N. T. means 
‘from what country,’ but merely ‘of what sort’=7otos. It is 
found only once in LX X (Susanna O 54, ‘where it keeps some- 
thing of its original local meaning”’’).? It exists in the late Greek 
vernacular.’ It occurs once in a direct question (Mt. 8 : 27) and 
once probably in an exclamation (2 Pet. 3:11). Four times we 
find it in indirect questions (Mk. 18:1; Lu. 1:29; 7:39; 1 Jo. 
3:1). In Lu. 7: 39 it is contrasted with ris. 

(f) ILerepos. 

As a pronoun it has vanished from the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., 
p. 192) and from the papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 77). The only 
example in the N. T. (ef. LX X, Thackeray, p. 192) is in an alter- 
native indirect question as the conjunction rorepoy (Jo. 7:17). 
Cf. Latin wtrwm—an. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 176) cites Herm., 
Sim., 1x, 28. 4. 

IX. Indefinite Pronouns (dvtwvuptat adptotot). 

(aan ic: 

1. The Accent. Jannaris‘ calls it “irrational”? to accent the 
nominative ris rather than ris. But then the nominative singular 
never has an accent unless at the beginning of a sentence or in 
philosophical writings (Thompson, Syntax, p. 76) and cannot 
otherwise be distinguished in looks from ris the interrogative. 

2. Relation to ris. The same connection is seen in the Latin 


1 Thackeray, Gr., p. 192. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 95. 
2 Ib. 4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 163: 


742 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


quis, ali-quis and quis-quis (cf. rics in Argive dialect).! Brug- 
mann? cousiders —K:— in ov-xi, toANaki-s the same word as 7c and 
cites xis in the Thessalian dialect. Just as in modern Greek ris 
disappears before zovds, so ts vanishes before xaveis (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 95). But in the N. T. rvs is still very common, espe-~ 
cially in Luke and Acts. In general the usage is in harmony with 
that of ancient Greek. We do not have &o in the N. T. In 
Ac. 25:26 note re ypawar and ri ypayw. Cf. Lu. 7:40. See rus 
ti, Ro. 8 : 24, in margin of W. H. 

3. Tis as Substantive. As a substantive ris may be equal to 
‘any one,’ ‘anybody’ or ‘anything,’ as in otéé tov marépa Tis émt- 
ywaoke, Mt. 11:27; was dtvarat ris, 12 : 29; ed ris Bede, 16 : 24; 
éav tis duty ely Te (note both examples like rivds te Lu. 19 : 8; ef. 
Mk. 11:25; Col. 3:13), Mt. 21:3. For several instances of 71 = 
‘anything’ see Ac. 25:5, 8, 11. But the substantive use of 71s may 
be =‘somebody’ or ‘something,’ as épxerat tis Lu. 8: 49, dpayav 
de tus Mk. 15 : 86, br0 twos Heb. 3:4. Cf. Lu. 8:46. Often the 
partitive genitive (or ablative) occurs with 71s as substantive. So 
Twes Tov Ypaypatewy Mt. 12:38, tes Tay wabnrdv Lu. 11:1, res éx 
tod éxdov 12:13. The plural is usually = ‘some,’ as Mk.9:1; 1 
Cor. 9:22. In Homer zis was sometimes “public opinion, the 
man in the street’? (Gladstone, quoted in Thompson’s Syntaz, p. 
75). This idiom is very nearly represented by eizev 6€ Tis éx TOD 
dxAov, Lu. 12:18 (cf. 11:1; 7: 36). In Heb. 2:6, dreuapriparo 
mov Ts, the ris is really quite definite in the writer’s mind, though 
he writes thus. 

4, With Numerals = ‘About.’ With numerals zis sometimes 
in classical Greek gives an approximate idea rather than exact 
reckoning, like our “about.” No certain instances of this idiom 
appear in the N. T. Certainly not Ac. 19: 14, where zwvos, not 
ties, iS the correct text. In Lu. 7:19, rpockadecduevos dbo Tivas 
Tov wabnrav, the meaning may be ‘about two,’ but it could mean 
‘certain two’ just as well. The same thing is true of Ac. 23 : 23, 
Tpookadecapevos Tivas dvo, where it is even less likely that the idea 
is ‘about two.’ Classical also is eis tus (Lu. 22:50; Jo. 11:49, 
and probably Mk. 14:47). The adjectival uses of ris are quite 
varied. 

5. With Substantives. Here tus may=‘a kind of,’ as arapxnv 
mwa, Jas. 1:18. Cf. Ac. 17:20, though this is not true of Col. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 244. 
2 Ib. Interrogative and indefinite is at bottom the same word. Cf. Har- 
tung, Uber die Casus in der griech. und lat. Sprache, p. 279. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTOQNTMIAI) 743 


2 : 23 because of the negative... But the commonest use of ris 
with substantives is=‘certain’ (really rather uncertain!). Thus 
iepevs tis, Lu. 1:5; d&vOpwrds tis, Lu. 14:2, 16; 15:11, ete. Cf. wr 
vowp, Ac. 8:36. Sometimes it is difficult to give more force to 
mus than the English indefinite article. Cf. vourxds ris, Lu. 10 : 25; 
KpiTns Tis ny & Tu TONG, Lu. 18:2. Indeed it is nearly always 
true that our “certain”’ is too emphatic. 

6. With Adjectwes. The effect is rhetorical.2 There is “a 
double adjectival sense.”* Thus Ac. 8:9, twa peyav,=‘a very 
great man’ (‘some great man’), in his own estimation. Blass 
needlessly considers this passage an interpolation. Cf. also Heb. 
10 : 27, doBepa tis éxdoxH, Where 7s rather intensifies ¢oBepa. The 
tone may tend to soften the matter as in Heb. 2:7, 9, Boaxd 7. 
But in Lu. 24:41 te Bowowov, Jo. 1:46 te ayadov, Ac. 25: 26 
aodades Tt, Ro. 14:14 te xowov, 2 Cor. 11:16 pxpdov mr, we have 
rather the substantive use of 71. But in ru@dds ris, Lu. 18 : 35, 
both are adjectives. Cf. &ddos tis (Lu. 22 : 59) and ézepds ris 
(Ac: 27:1). 

7. As Predicate. Here t1s may be emphatic = ‘somebody in 
particular,’ as Ac. 5 : 36, Neywr efvai twa éavrov (cf. 8:9). See also 
Gal. 2 : 6, a6 rv Soxobytwy eivai tt, Where note difference between 
me and ties. In Gal. 6:3 note in ef doxe? tis efvat Te undev Sv both 
senses of 71s. But the predicate may have the other meaning of 
7 (‘anyone,’ ‘anything’). So 1Cor.3:7; 10:19; Gal.6:15. In 
Gal. 2:6 compare te and éroto. 

8. The Position of 71s. It is not material. It naturally follows 
the substantive or adjective as in els kwunv twa, Lu. 10: 38, but 
we often have the other order as in riva xnpav, Lu. 21:2. Tues 
may indeed begin a sentence (Ph. 1 : 15; 1 Cor. 8:7). 

9. As Antecedent. In Mt. 16:28 rwes is the antecedent of 
oirwes, but here oirives is more definite than ot would have been. 
Cf. Lu. 9:27. In 2 Cor. 10 : 2 note rivas rods X. 

10. Alternative. It is used to express alternative ideas, as rivés 
wev — twes 6€ in Ph. 1:15. Cf. brd rwav — dro Trwdv — ddrwv GE 
in Lu. 9:7 f. and zis — érepos in 1 Cor. 3: 4. 

11. The Negative Forms ot tis, un tes. These are not printed 
as single words by W. H., except uaz. as an interrogative particle 
expecting the answer No, as in Mt. 26 : 22, unre éym eiue, Kdpre; cf. 
Jo. 4:33. It is all a matter with the editor whether in iva uy tes 

1 W.-Sch., p. 242. 


2-W-M.. p, 2121.7 Blass;-Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 178. 
3 Moulton in W.-M., p. 213. st Gt Ole N ck tks oD aL cone 


744 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


eirn, 1 Cor. 1:15 (cf. Eph. 2:9), we may not really have pjzis. 
The separation in Heb. 3 : 13;4: 11 is against it. Cf., for instance, 
un twa (2 Cor. 12:17) and ware in the next verse. The anacolu- 
thon with twa here is noticeable. 

12. Indeclinable rr. The use of tis with ordayxva kal oikrippot 
(Ph. 2:1) may be compared with indeclinable 7. Indeclinable 
vu itself survives in modern Greek «are (Moulton, Prol., p. 244). 

(b) Eis=Tus. 

This is merely one usage of eis, the cardinal numeral. The 
idiom is common after Plutarch, but traces of it occur earlier.! | 
Moulton? sees no difference between eis and zis in Aristophanes, 
Av., 1292. The papyri furnish similar examples. ‘The fact that 
eis progressively ousted 7s in popular speech, and that even in 
classical Greek there was a use whieh only needed a little diluting 
to make it essentially the same, is surely enough to prove that the 
development lay entirely within the Greek language, and only by 
accident agrees with Semitic.”’? This use of eis alone, with geni- 
tives, with substantives, was treated at the close of the chapter on 
Adjectives. For eis zis see vis. For eis — eis as alternative pro- 
noun see later, and for eis — ov and ovdels (undeis) see Negative 
Pronouns under XI. 

(c) [las =‘any one’ no matter who, ‘anything’ no matter what. 
Cf. quidvis.4. We see this construction in Ac. 2: 21 (LXX), as ds 
éay émixadeonra. So Gal. 3: 10 (LXX); Lu..14: 33. Tas with 
a participle may have the same force, like zavrds dxovovtos tov 
doyor, Mt. 138 : 19 (cf. Lu. 11:4), and ras 6 dpycfouevos, Mt. 5 : 22, 
etc. For raés—ot = ‘no one’ see negative pronouns. For the 
adjectival uses of was, see chapter on Adjectives and chapter on 
Article. : 

(d) ‘O Activa. This rare pronoun was current chiefly in colloquial 
speech (Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 166). It survives in the modern 
Greek (Thumb, p. 98). It means ‘‘Mr. So-and-So.” It occurs 
only once in the N. T., pds rov detva, Mt. 26 : 18. 

X. Alternative or Distributive Pronouns (d4vtwvuptat SaTn- 
plat). 

I apply a term from A’schylus in lieu of a better one. The re- 
ciprocal pronoun 4\\7A\wv has been already treated. 

(a) “Apdotepor. “Audw has vanished® from the xowh. ’Auddrepor 
has taken its place. It continues in the later Greek,’ but Thumb 

1 Hatz., Einl., p. 207; W.-Sch., p. 243. 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 77. 


te Proll peoie 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 57. 
® Tb. 6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 320. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) 745 


does not give it for modern Greek. It is frequent in the LXX,! 
but is found only fourteen times in the N. T. It occurs without 
the article in all but five instances. So Mt. 9:17. Once the 
article is used with the substantive, duddrepa ra wdota, Lu. 5:7. 
The other four examples have the article before the pronoun, 
like of adudorepo, Eph. 2:18. It is possible, even probable, that 
in two instances duality has disappeared from the word. It seems 
certain that three items are referred to in Ac. 23 : 8 and in Ac. 19: 
16 the seven sons of Sceva are alluded to. A corruption of the text 
is possible (cf. the Bezan text for 19:16), but it is hardly neces- 
sary to postulate that in view of ‘‘the undeniable Byzantine use’’? 
of dudorepo for more than two (cf. ‘‘both” in old English). The 
papyri show undoubted examples also and “the Sahidic and some 
later versions took dudorépwy as ‘all.’”?? But Moulton‘ hesitates 
to admit in Luke “a colloquialism of which early examples are so 
rare,’ a rather surprising objection from Dr. Moulton. On the 
whole one is safe in the two passages in Acts here quoted to admit 
the free use of audorepoxr. The papyri examples bearing on this 
usage include N.P. 67, 69 (iv/a.p.) “where it is used of four men”’ 
(Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154), probably also B.M. 336 (ii/A.p.). 
See Bury, Cl. Rev., XI, p. 393, for the opposite view. Nestle (Berl. 
Phil. Woch., 1900, N. 47) shows that German also uses “beide’”’ 
for three and more persons. 

(b) “Exaotos. In the LXX éxarepos is still used to a limited ex- 
tent (Gen. 40:5) and occasionally = éxacros, without dual idea (cf. 
dudorepor), as often in the papyri.® In O.P. 256 (i/A.p.) and B.M. 
333 (ii1/A.D.) éxarepos is used of three and of four in G.H. 234 
(ii/B.c.). See Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 440, and proper use of 
éxarepos in P.Oxy. 905 (A.D. 170), zpos 7d éxarepov wépos. But in the 
N. T. €xarepos does not appear. “Exacros is common in the N. T., 
but comes to be. replaced in modern Greek by xade, xafeis and 
kabevas (cf. xa’ ets in the N. T.).° 

1. Without Substantive. This is indeed the usual idiom, as in 
Mt616 2275 Jor 6327, 

2. With Substantive. Never with the article. So Eph. 4:16; 
Heb. 3:13; Rev. 22:2. Thus very rare. 


1 Thack,., Gri; pi 192: 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 80. abe Sal, 

SSID. Dal Ome GteLoschiaGar Dp. 192, 

6 Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 96; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 178. On the whole 
subject of distrib. pron. see Brug., Die distrib. und die kollekt. Num. der 
indoger. Spr., 1907.. 


746 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3. With eis. This is very frequent. So eis éxacros Mt. 26 : 22, 
etc. We even have ava ets éxaoros, Rev. 21:21. But in Ac. 21:19, 
éEnyeiro Kab’ év éxacTov Gv eroinoev, We must not! connect exacrov 
with &. 

4, With Genitive. It is common also with the genitive, as in 
Lu lok lo sbplss: 

5. Partitive Apposition. This is frequent also. Thus adfre 
éxaotos Mt. 18 : 35, éxopebovto ravtes — éxactros Lu. 2:3, etc. The 
same thing is true in Eph. 5 : 33 tyels cad’ &va exaoros. This is a 
classical construction.’ 

6. Rare in Plural. So éacro. Ph. 2:4, but even here W. H. 
have éxaoros in the margin. 

7. Repetition. Note the repetition of éxacros in Heb. 8:11 
(from Jer. 31:34). This translation of 278 by éxaoros rather than 
avnp is an instance of independence of Hebrew literalism. Cf. 
Mt. 18 : 35 with Gen. 13:11; Ro. 15:2 and Eph. 4: 25 with Is. 
3:5 (Winer-Schmiedel, p. 246). For avjp = ékaoros in the LXX 
(literal books) see Thackeray, Gr., p. 192. 

(c) “AAXos. Cf. Latin alius, English else. 

1. Used absolutely = ‘An-other, ‘One Other.’ This is the com- 
monest use of the pronoun. Cf. 1 Cor. 12: 8-10 where 4\d\w 
occurs six times. So Mt. 13: 5-8 where a\\a appears three times. 
But it is found alone also, as a@ddous, Mt. 27: 42. For &ddos zis 
see Lu. 22: 59. Cf. ovdév ado (Gal. 5: 10)=‘nothing else.’ It 
occurs in modern Greek vernacular. 

2. For Two. But addos occurs where the idea of two is present 
(pair). Here érepos might have been used, but even in Euripides, 
I. T. 962 f., Blass? finds @arepov — 6 6’ ado, though he considers it 
a ‘most striking encroachment’ for &\dos to supplant érepos in this 
fashion. Moulton (Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 440) cites rHs wer pias — rijs 
6’ a\Ans G. H. 23° (ii/B.c.); dbo, Tov pev va — Kai Tov &dAdov B.U. 456 
(iv/A.D.). Moulton‘ explains the existence of kai rv &\dnv (crayova) 
in Lu. 6:29 as a failure on Luke’s part to correct his source, a 
like failure appearing in Mt. 5:39, unless that was his source. 
But the matter goes much further than that. In Mt. 12:13 
4 Gdn refers to the other hand (yelp). In Jo. 19:32 note rod 
mpwrov — kal Tod dAdov.© Cf. also Jo. 18:16; 20:3f. In Jo. 5:32 
éyw and a&\dos are contrasted. So Mt. 25 : 16, ra révre radavTa — 
a&\Xa wevre, for which Blass® finds “complete illustration in classi- 

1 W.-Sch., p. 246 f. 4° Prol:, pii79; 


2 Blass, Gr, of NG UAGK ped 79. 5 W.-Sch., p. 245. 
8 Ib., p. 180. 6 Gr. of N. TeGk. p.. 180. 





PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAI) 747 


cal authors.’”’ There are other N. T. examples such as &\\nv in 
Mt. 19:9, ra dt0o — &dAa dbo Mt. 25:17, d\Anv Mk. 10:11, &ddov 
10 : 12, &d\Xov rapaxdrnrov Jo. 14:16. 

3. As Adjectwe. Common. Cf. Mt. 2:12; 4:21; and in 
particular Rev. 14:6, 8, 15, 17, 18 and 1 Cor. 15:39, 41. 

4. With the Article. It is not frequent. The article sharply 
refers to a preceding example. Cf. Mt. 5:39; Mt. 27:61. John 
alludes to himself in his Gospel as 6 @\Xos wabynrns (18 : 16; 20 : 2, 
3, 4). The article may be repeated, as in Jo. 18: 16; 19 : 32. 

5. The Use of &ddos &\X0 = ‘One One Thing, One Another.’ This 
is classical and is illustrated in Ac. 19 : 32; 21:34. In Ac. 2:12, 
&AXos pos &AdNov, the idiom is almost reciprocal like a\Andwr. 

6. In Contrast for ‘Some — Others.’ We have adn pwev — adn 
dé, 1 Cor. 15:39 and 41; & pwév—arda de, Mt. 13:4 f. (cf. kai 
ado, Mk. 4:5); of wev—addor 5€— Erepor Se, Mt. 16:14; kal 
&Aor — GANor 6€, Mk. 8 : 28; brd Trwdv — addwv, Lu. 9:8; 6 ets — 
6 addos, Rev. 17: 10. 

7. Ellipsis of a@ddos is possible in Ac. 5:29, Tlérpos kal of (se. 
&Ador) aroctod\o. Blass! cites also Ac. 2:14, Ilérpos civ rots (se. 
Aorots) evdexa. But psychologically this explanation is open to 
doubt. 

8. The Use of a dos and érepos Together. Blass? finds this 
“probably only for the sake of variety.”’ Certainly in 1 Cor. 
12 :9f. no real distinction can be found between 4 \dos and érepos, 
which are here freely intermingled. But I am bound to insist on 
a real difference in Gal. 1:6f. The change is made from érepop 
to ado for the very reason that -Paul is not willing to admit that 
it is a gospel on the same plane (4\Xo) as that preached by him. 
He admits érepov, but refuses a\Xo. The use of ef un by Paul does 
not ‘disturb this interpretation. The same thing would seem to 


be true of 2 Cor. 11:4, addov *Incody — rvetua érepov — ebary'yedvov 


érepov. It may be that variety (as in 1 Cor. 12:9 f.) is all that 
induces the change here. But it is also possible that Paul stig- 
matizes the gospel of the Judaizers as érepov (cf. Gal. 1 : 6) and 
the Spirit preached by them, while he is unwilling to admit an- 
other (4\dov) Jesus even of the same type as the one preached 
by him. 

9. =‘ Different.’ Besides, it is not to be forgotten that in 
ancient Greek é\dos itself was used for ‘different kind.’ Thomp- 
son (Syntax, p.76) cites a\Xa THv dexaiwy from Xen., Mem., IV, 4. 25. 
Cf. also a\Aa in the sense of ‘but.’ Cf. adda addy in 1 Cor. 15: 39. 

1 Ib. 2 Ib., p. 318, 


748 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Indeed in 1 Cor. 15:39, 41, @\Xn wey — GAA 6€, it is expressly 
stated that the glory is not 7 airy. In verse 40 érépa occurs. 
Here &AdX\os seems to be used in the sense of ‘different,’ like 
érepos. In Latin alius was often used where earlier Latin would 
have used alter. Cf. Draeger, Hist. Synt., p. 105. 

10. ’AdAdrpios. This variation of a\\os has the same relation to 
it that alienus has to alius. It means ‘belonging to another,’ 
and occurs fourteen times in the N. T. Cf. Ro. 15:20. The con- 
trast with ai7av is seen in Mt. 17:25. In Heb. 11:34 it has the 
notion of alienus. 

(d) “Ezepos. 

1. Absolutely. So often as in Lu. 14:19 f., but it is also used 
more frequently with substantives than is a\\os. Cf. Lu. 4:43; 
Ac. 7:18 (LXX), etc. For érepds ris see Ac. 8: 34; Ro. 13:9. 
\ For the genitive with érepos cf. Mt. 8: 21; Gal. 1:19. 

2. With Article. The article is also more common with €repos 
than with a@ddos. Cf. Mt. 10 : 23; 11:16, etc. 

3. Second of Pair. A common, probably the original, use of 
érepos 18 for the second of a pair. Cf. Latin alter. It is the only 
surviving dual pronominal word in the N. T. (except dudo- 
repot), and is common in the LX X! and the papyri.2 For ovv 
érépa pa see P.Tb. 421 (iii/a.p.). The examples are rather abun- 
dant in the N. T. of this dual (comparative) sense (é€-repos). So 
Tov éva — Tov Eerepov, Mt. 6:24; ct — 7 Erepov, 11:3; & TH ETEpw 
wdoiw, Lu. 53 7..,CL. alsoslu72197.5.14 : 31; 16 sloj;elicoaiie 
18:10; 20:11.3 Not radically different from this conception is 
the use of it for ‘next,’ as in Lu. 6: 6, & érépw caBBatw, 9: 56 els 
érépay kwunv, Ac. 20:15 77 érépa. Cf. also Mt. 10:23. See also, 
Tov érepov in Ro. 2:1; 13 : 8=‘neighbour.’ 

4, =‘Different.’ The sense of ‘different’ grows naturally out 
of the notion of duality. The two things happen just to be dif- 
ferent. Cf. Latin alwuws and alienus. The word itself does not 
mean ‘different,’ but merely ‘one other,’ a second of two. It does 
not necessarily involve “the secondary idea of difference of kind”’ 
(Thayer). That is only true where the context demands it. But 
note how Latin alter lends itself to the notion of change. ‘Thomp- 
son‘ suggests that this sense may be ‘“‘an euphemism for xakds.”’ 
The N. T. examples are rather numerous. So éyévero — 70 efdos 
ToD Tpoowrov av’Tod érepov, Lu. 9:29. Cf. also Ac. 2:4; Ro. 7: 23; 
1:Cor.14: 213 2. Cormiled Gala le.6>) Hebaeslt el oboe 


1 Thack;, Gr.;:p.«192: 3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 244. 
2 Mayser, Gr., p. 312, 4S Y0Gs pees 


PRONOUNS (’ANTQNTMIAI) 749 


Cf. also érépws in Ph. 3:15 and & érépa popdg Mk. 16: 12 (dis- 
puted part of Mark.)! Cf. Ac. 17:21. We have already seen 
that a\d\os may be equal to ‘different’ (1 Cor. 15: 39). “Erepos 
occurs in verse 40 in the sense of ‘different.’ Ramsay (on Gal. 
1:6) argues that, when ézepos occurs in contrast with a&ddos, it 
means not ‘different’ (as Lightfoot 7m loco), but ‘another of the 
same kind.’ Moulton (Prol., p. 246) stands by Lightfoot in spite 
of Ramsay’s examples. 

5. =‘ Another’ of Three or More. But érepos comes also to be 
employed merely for ‘another’ with more than two and with no 
idea of difference. This usage probably grew out of the use with 
two groups. So Lu. 10:1, avédetev érepouvs éBdounxovta dito. In 
Mt. 12: 45, érra érepa rvebpata rovnpotepa éavrod, the notion of 
difference is present. This difference may also be implied by 
Luke in 23 : 32, kai érepou kaxodpyou dvo. Cf. Lu. 8:3. But this is 
hardly true of Ac. 2:13. In Ac. 4:12 the point of érepov is rather 
that no other name at all than that of Jesus, not that of difference 
in kind. In Lu. 19 : 16-20 we have this order, 6 rpé&ros, 6 detre- 
pos, 6 €repos. So in 1 Cor. 4:6, ets brép rod évds huaodobe Kata Tod 
érépou, the third is again presented by érepos. Then, again, é7epor 
occupies third place in Mt. 16:14 and Heb. 11:36. In Mt. 15: 
30 it comes in the fifth place. Blass? admits that this use of 
érepos “‘at the close of enumerations may be paralleled from Attic 
writers.’ See further Lu. 3:18; Ro. 8:39; 1 Tim. 1:10. But 
in 1 Cor. 12 : 8-10 érépw occurs in the third and the eighth places. 
We are not surprised then to learn that the papyri furnish plenty 
of examples where érepos refers to more than two.? Blass indeed 
considers this extension not correct, and Moulton seems surprised 
that Luke should change the correct é\\os (Mk. 4:5-8= Mt. 
13 : 5-8) to érepov in Lu. 8: 6-8. But Luke is reinforced by Paul 
in this laxity as to érepos. Cf. wodda xal érepa in Lu. 3:18. Moul- 
ton (Cl. Rev., 1904, p. 154) calls this “incorrect érepos’”’ and finds 


it in the papyri, as in O.P. 494 (ii/a.p.).. But we do not need to 


hold érepos in leading strings. The ‘‘subtlety” (Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 
440) is only called for in that case. 

6. In Contrast. “Erepos may also be used in contrast for ‘the | 
one,’ ‘the other.’ So 1 Cor. 15:40, érépa yev—érépa Se. It is 
common in contrasts with other pronouns. Thus with eis in 
Mt. 6:24; 6 els in Lu: 7:41; Lu. 17: 34 ff.; with ms, Lu. 17:15 f.; 
with 6 yey, Lu. 8:5 f.; with of wey and addon, Mt. 16:14. But 


1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 245. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 79. 
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 179. 


750 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


neither ovdérepos (und—) nor ovferepos (unf—) occurs in the N. T., 
though unferepos is read in Prov. 24:21. In Clem. Hom. XIX, 12 
we have ov€repos. 

(e) OTHER ANTITHETIC Pronouns. For eis — eis (Mk. 10 : 37), 
eis — 6 6€ (Gal. 4: 24 f.), 6 ets —6 &ddos (Rev. 17: 10) see ets under 
Numeral Adjectives. So likewise 7s may be contrasted with 
mus (Ph. 1:15), with &\dos (Lu. 9:7f.), with érepos (1 Cor. 3 : 4). 
For the very common 6 péev — 6 6€, Os wev — bs 6€ See Demonstrative 
Pronouns. The repetition of the substantive is to be noted also. 
So ofxos éml ofxov wimte, Lu. 11:17; 6 caravas tov catavay éxBadre, 
Mt. 12:26 (=Lu. 11:18). This notion of repetition is seen in 
nuepa Kal huepa (2 Cor. 4:16; cf. Heb. 2197 215). Cf. also ets kai 
eis (Mt. 20:21; 24: 40f.; 27: 38, etc.); 6 ets — 6 Erepos, Lu. 7:41. 
For eis —xal eis —xal ets see Mk. 9:5=Mt. 17:4=Lu. 9:38. 
This threefold repetition of eis is rhetorical.!. The distributive 
use of eis with xara and ava (ey Kad’ &, eis Ka’ eis, ava ap) was 
treated under Numeral Adjectives. 

XI. Negative Pronouns (a4vTwvupiat apvntikat). 

(a) Ovdess. 

1. History. Note this accent rather than ovde?s. Oddels is sup- 
planted in modern Greek vernacular by xaveis, but ovd€v survives 
as negative particle in form dée. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., 
Dey ie 

2. Oddeis. This is made from oie eis (Sometimes also from 
ovdé eis, ‘not even,’ Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 146) and occurs 
sometimes in the best N.T. MSS. Cf. W. H.’s text for Lu. 22: 
393/23 n149 ACG, 1529 S19 22820 420 91 Core 13 2552 Cormle 
Jannaris? finds it a peculiarity of the Alexandrian school. Meister- 
hans*® has shown from the inscriptions how ovGeis and unfeis came to 
be practically universal during the third century and the first half 
of the second century B.c. Thackeray‘ has reinforced this position 
from the uncials for the LX X. The papyri are in full accord. In 
the fourth and fifth centuries a.p., the date of the great uncials, 
ovfeis and yunfeis had disappeared from current speech, and yet a 
number of instances survive in the MSS. of the O. T. and the N.T., 
though others were probably replaced by ovdeis and pyédeis.6 In- 


1 W.-Sch., p. 246. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 170. But see Schwyzer, Perg. Inschr., p. 114, for idea 
that the change is due to 7 and 6 being pronounced alike. 

*/Atty Inschr..-p. 209: 

4 Gre pnw os i. 

5 Thumb, Hellen., p. 14; Mayser, Gr., p. 180 f. § Thack., Gr., p. 60, 


PRONOUNS (’ANTONYMIAT) 751 


deed o’feis was a sort of fashion (Moulton, Cl. Rev., Mar., 1910, 
p. 53) that came in iv/B.c. and vanished ii/A.p. It was nearly 
extinct in N. T. times. See further chapters VI, ul, (g), and 
WW beaae ges 

3. Gender. The feminine form is less frequent in the N. T. than 
the masculine and neuter. The word occurs with substantives 
(Mk. 6:5), with other pronouns (@\Xos, Ac. 4 : 12; érepos, 17: 21), 
but usually alone, as in Mt. 5:13; 6:24. It is common with the 
genitive (Lu. 18 : 34). The adverbial use of ovéev is seen in Gal. 
4:1 ovdev diadéper dovAov, but the cognate accusative is a possible 
explanation (Gal. 2:6). Cf. odéev in 1 Cor. 7:19. In Rev. 3: 
17, ovdev xpelay Exw, the neuter is not to be construed with xpeiav. 

4. Ovdé eis. This is, of course, more emphatic than ovdeis. The 
usage appears often in Xenophon, Demosthenes and other clas- 
sic writers, the LX X and the Atticists.1. For examples in the 
ee basco: Vite 14 Joules: Ac. 4:32: Ro, 3:107, The’ samé 
principle appears in otk éorw éws évds, Ro. 3:12 (Ps. 14:1, 3). Cf. 
also the separation of ov — ore in 2 Pet. 1: 21.? 

5. Eis—ov. It is after the analogy of raés — od and distinctly 
emphatic, and is found in Demosthenes.* Cf. Lu. 12:6, ev é& 
ab’tav oik éorw. So likewise Mt. 10: 29, & €& abrav ob wecetrar. In 
Mt. 5:18 we have & — ov uy. For ovdels da71s See dorTts. 

(b) Mnéet&s. In general the history of undeis is parallel to that 
of ovéets. It is naturally much less frequent and its use instead of 
ovdeis belongs to the discussion of Modes and Negative Particles. 
It follows in that matter the fate of uj. Mrnfeis appears only once 
in the text of the N. T., Ac. 27:33. The use of unéev dv, Gal. 6 : 3, 
may be compared with ot@éy efmw, 1 Cor. 18:2. In 1 Th. 4:12 
note pydevos xpelav ExnTE. 

(c) Ovris AND Myris. These were treated under ris. Following 
the editors in the separation of these forms, it is to be observed 
that ure as mere particle occurs not merely in questions like pyre 
odrés éotiwv 6 Xprords; Jo. 4:29, but also with e&. So ed pyre in 1 
Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 13:5. But in Lu. 9:18, e unre ropevderres jyets 
ayopdcwpev, it is possible to take uy7e as the object of ayopacwnuer. 
Cf. Jo. 6:12, ta wh re ardd\nra. But note unreye, 1 Cor. 6:3. 
The use of rvs with the conjunction yu is not infrequent (Mk. 13 : 5) 
and with the negative adverb yu also (Jo. 3:3, 5, etc.). So we 
~ have, contrary to the usual classic idiom, ob — 71s, uy — rus. ‘The 
1 W.-Sch., p. 248; Schmid, Atticismus, II, p. 187 f. 


2 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 249. ile aes A Whey. 
*Cie Blase Gr Ole Niw ik. Dp. 250. 


752 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


undoubted separation of od and yy from 7s in such examples as 
Mt. 11327:12 219 Lu 8 51a aeons 4 lO 2S eee ie 
1 Cor. 4:5, etc., argues for the same thing where uy 7s and 
un te happen to come together. The xowy (Moulton, Prol., p. 
246) supports the use of 71s with the negative: Tb.P. 1 (1/B.c.) 
pnoeuas KpaTnoews noe Kuplelas Tivos Eyyalouv TeplyvopeErns. 

(d) Wirx Ilés. 

1. Ov ras. Used together the words call for little in the way of 
explanation. Ov merely negatives 7és as in classic Greek and= 
‘not every one.’ Thus in Mt. 7: 21, od was 6 Neywv — eicede’oerat, 
Jesus did not mean to say that ‘no one’ who thus addressed him 
could enter the kingdom of heaven. He merely said that ‘not 
every one’ would. Cf. also ot raca capé, 1 Cor. 15:39. The same 
principle applies to the plural od ravres xwpotdor tov Aoyov, Mt. 19: 
I'l. Cf.Ac. 10741; "Ro. 9:67 10316) But my friends Vir He 
Scott, notes that in Ro. 10:16 and 1 Cor. 15:39 od was can 
well mean ‘no,’ and that in Mt. 7: 21 and the other clauses 
where adda occurs the adda negatives the whole of the preceding 
clause. This is certainly worth considering. Cf. Mt. 7: 21 od ras 
6 \eywr with was 6 dkovwy in 7: 26. 

2. Ov— as. Here we have a different situation. The nega- 
tive goes with the verb. A negative statement is made as to 
mas. The result is the same as if ovéets had been used with an 
affirmative verb. So Mt. 24:22 (Mk. 13 : 20) otk av éow6n raca 
capt, the idea is ‘no flesh,’ not ‘not all flesh,’ i.e. ‘some flesh,’ 
would have been lost. Cf. Lu. 1: 37 ovx dduvarnoe: — ray pjua, Ro. 
3:20 (Gal. 2 : 16) od dixawOynoerar taca capt. See also Ac. 10: 14 
ovdérore — wav. Cf. odé trav Rev. 7:16;9:4. It is true that this 
idiom is very common in the LX X! as a translation of 55 — x}. 
Cf. Ex. 12:16, 48; 20:10, etc. But it is not without analogy 
also in the papyri use of ras “‘with prepositions and adjectives of 
negative meaning. Thus dvev or xwpls raons brepOecews, a recurrent 
formula, avurebbevor. mavrds éxiwov, Tb.P. 105 (ii/B.c.); diva raons 
éfovclas, Plutarch, Cons. ad Uxor., 1 (cf. Heb. 7: 7).”? Clearly the 
construction was in harmony with the xow7. 

3. Mj—7ds. The same principle applies. Cf. 1 Cor. 1:29, 
dws py} Kavxnontar waca capt. Here it is ‘no flesh’ as above with 
oi) — as. See also Rev. 7:1. On the other hand wu as (1 Jo. 
4 :1)=‘not every’ like od zas. 

1 W.-M, p. 215. 


2 Moulton, Prol., p. 246. Cf. Cl. Rev., Dec., 1901, p. 442; Apr., 1904, 
p. 155. 


PRONOUNS (’ANTOQNTMIAT) Fes: 


A, Ob ph — wav in Rev. 21:27 does not differ at all from the 
od — ras and wh — mas in construction. 

5. Ilas —ov. Here the ancient Greek idiom to a certain extent 
comes to one’s relief... But the 85>— 52 lies behind the LXX 
translation. It is less harsh than ob — ras. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk., p. 178. The denial about ras is complete as with ot — ras. 
See 1 Jo. 2 : 21, av Webddos ex ris adnOelas ok or. Cf. 1 Jo. 3:15; 
Eph. 5:5; Rev. 22:3. : 

6. Ilas — py falls into the same category. Cf. Jo. 3:16; 6 : 39; 
12 :46; Eph. 4:29; 5:3. Here also the denial is universal. But 
most probably pundeis would have pleased an older Greek more. 

7. Ids — ov wn. In Rev. 18 : 22 the same explanation holds. 

8. Ov — zavres. With the plural otk eciciv ravres €€ nudv, 1 Jo. 
2:19, the matter is not so clear. Two translations are possible, 
as is seen in the American Revision. The text there is: ‘‘they all are 
not of us.”” The margin has: “not all are of us.’”?’ The analogy of 
ov — was in the singular favours the first. 

9. Ilavres od}. With aavres ot xouunOnooueba, 1 Cor. 15:51, the 
ov goes with the verb. The effect is the same as as — ov above. 
‘We all shall not sleep’ means that ‘none’ of us shall sleep. 
‘We shall all be changed.’ Per contra, see od ravres, Ro. 10: 16= 
‘not all.’ 

1 W.-M.,, p. 215. 


CHAPTER XVI 
THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 


I. Other Uses of 6, n, T6. For the demonstrative 6 and the 
relative 6 see chapter on Syntax of Pronouns. It is confusing to 
say with Seyffart!: “Der Artikel hat die urspriingliche demon- 
strative Bedeutung.” It is then just the demonstrative, not the 
article at all. Why call the demonstrative the article? Great con- 
fusion of idea has resulted from this terminology. It is important 
to keep distinct the demonstrative, the article and the relative. 

II. Origin and Development of the Article. 

(a) A GREEK CONTRIBUTION. The development of the Greek 
article is one of the most interesting things in human speech.? 
Among the Indo-Germanic languages it is “‘a new Greek depar- 
ture.”’? It is not found in Sanskrit nor in Latin. It does not ap- 
pear to be pro-ethnic‘ and first shows itself in Homer. Indeed, 
the existence of the genuine article in Homer is denied by some.® 
But it seems an overrefinement to refuse to see the article in such 
Homeric phrases as of réoves, of Gpicro, etc.6 And it is beyond 
dispute that it is in the Attic prose, particularly in Plato, that the 
Greek article reaches its perfection.7 The article has shown re- 
markable persistency and survives with very little modification in 
modern Greek.® In the N. T. the usage is in all essentials in har- 
mony with Attic, more so than is true of the papyri.? But Vélker"™ 
finds the papyri in practical accord at most points with Attie. 
Simcox! points out that even the Hebrew article does not differ 
radically in use from the Greek article. 


1 Hauptr. der griech. Synt., p. 1. 

2 Cf. Schneider, Vorles. iiber griech. Gr. 

3 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 41. 

4 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., I, pp. 507 ff. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 424. 

§ Delbriick, op. cit. Cf. also Thompson, Synt., p. 41 f. 

6 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 178 ff. 7 Thompson, Synt., p. 41 f. 

8 Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 40 ff.; Jebb. in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 193 f. 

® Moulton, Prol., p. 80 f. 

10 Synt. d. griech. Pap., pp. 5 ff. 11 Lang. of the N. T., p. 45. 
754 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 755 


(b) DerIveD FROM THE DeEMmonstTRATIVE. The Greek article 
is the same form as the demonstrative 6, 4, 76. Indeed the Ger- 
man der is used as demonstrative, article, relative. So English 
the 1s related to the demonstrative that (also relative). Clyde 
(Greek Syntax, p. 6) calls the article a “mere enfeeblement”’ 
of the demonstrative. So the French le, the Italian il, the 
Spanish el, all come from the Latin demonstrative ille. But 
while this is true, the demonstrative, relative and article should 
not be confused in idea. The Greek grammarians applied &p@pov 
to all three in truth, but distinguished them as &p@pov rpotaxtiKkdyv 
(dem.), &p0pov broraxrixov (rel.), &pOpov dprorixdy (art.). Some, how- 
ever, did not distinguish sharply between the demonstrative and 
the article. The article always retained something of the demon- 
strative force (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part II, p. 215). It is an 
utter reversal of the facts to speak of the demonstrative use of 
the article. It is only of recent years that a really scientific study 
of the article has been made.!’ Even Brugmann? gives no sep- 
arate treatment for the article. But Part II of Gildersleeve’s 
Syntax (1911, pp. 215-332) has a really scientific treatment of 
the article. Professor Miller collected material for it. But even 
here I must demur against “‘the substantive use of the article” 
(p. 216) instead of plain substantival demonstrative. Gildersleeve 
uses “article” in two senses (form and idea). The Latin word 
articulus has the same root as the Greek ap@pov (ap— as seen in 
dp-ap-icxw, ‘to fit,’ ‘join’). The origin of the article from the de- 
monstrative can probably be seen in Homer. Monro? thinks it 
due to apposition of a substantive with the demonstrative 6. So 
Iliad, 4. 501, 4 6’ éréporo bia Kporadoro repnoev aixuy xadkeln. Here 
aixun explains 7 and 7 wavers between demonstrative and ar- 
ticle and illustrates the transition. So with new proper names 6 
anticipates the name which is loosely added later. ‘‘In Attic the 
article shows that a particular known person is spoken of; in 
Homer it marks the turning of attention to a person.”* In Homer 
the article usually marks contrast and not mere definiteness. 
But this contrast or singling out of the special object is in essence 
the real article which is thus attributive. 

III. Significance of the Article. The article, unlike the demon- 
strative, does not point out the object as far or near. It is not 
deictic. There is either contrast in the distinction drawn or allu- 
sion (anaphoric) to what is already mentioned or assumed as well 


1 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 794. We keerah Gow gem shee 
2 Griech. Gr. “Tl; 


756 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


known. The article is therefore 7d dpiotixoy apOpov, the definite 
article. The article is associated with gesture and aids in pointing 
out like an index finger. It is a pointer. It is not essential to 
language, but certainly very convenient and useful and not “ ofvo- 
sum loquacissimae gentis instrumentum,”’ as Scaliger! called it. 
The Greek article is not the only means of making words definite. 
Many words are definite from the nature of the case.2. The word 
itself may be definite, like yj, obpavds, Incots. The use of a prepo- 
sition with definite anarthrous nouns is old, as év olkw. Possessive 
pronouns also make definite, as do genitives. The context itself 
often is clear enough. The demonstrative may be used besides 
the article. Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is cer- 
tainly definite. When it is not used, the object may or may not 
be. The article is never meaningless in Greek, though it often 
fails to correspond with the English idiom, as in 7 codia, 6 Haddos. 
It is not a matter of translation. The older language and higher 
poetry are more anarthrous than Attic prose. Dialects vary in 
the use of the article, as do authors. Plato is richer in the article 
than any one. Its free use leads to exactness and finesse (Gilder- 
sleeve, Syntax, Part II, p. 215f.). 

IV. The Method Employed by the Article. The Greek article 
points out in one of three ways.’ It distinguishes: 

(a) INDIVIDUALS FROM INDIVIDUALS. The article does not 
give the reason for the distinction drawn between individuals. 
That is usually apparent in the context. The translators of the 
King James Version, under the influence of the Vulgate, handle 
the Greek article loosely and inaccurately. A goodly list of 
such sins is given in “The Revision of the New Testament,’’® such 
as ‘a pinnacle’ for 76 mrepiyvov (Mt. 4:5). Here the whole point 
lies in the article, the wing of the Temple overlooking the abyss. 
So in Mt. 5:1 76 dpos was the mountain right at hand, not ‘a 
mountain.’ On the other hand, the King James translators missed 
the point of wera yuvaixds (Jo. 4:27) when they said ‘the woman.’ 
It was ‘a woman,’ any woman, not the particular woman in ques- 
tion. But the Canterbury Revisers cannot be absolved from all 
blame, for they ignore the article in Lu. 18 : 13, 76 duaprwrG. The 
vital thing is to see the matter from the Greek point of view and 


1 Quoted by Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 57. 

2 The old idea that the article was necessary to make a word definite is 
seen in Madvig, Synt. of the Gk. Lang., p. 8. 

§ Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 70. 

ay 1b: 6 Lightfoot, Trench, Ellicott, p. xxx f, 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 757 


find the reason for the use of the article. In Mt. 13: 55, 6 70d 
Téxtovos vids, it is the son of the (well known to us) carpenter. In 
1 Cor. 4:5 6 éravvos means the praise due to each one. Cf. 6 
pods in Ro. 4:4. In 1 Cor. 5:9, év 77 értorodg, Paul refers to a 
previous letter which the Corinthians had received. In 15:8, 76 
éxtpwuatt, Paul speaks thus of himself because he alone of the 
Apostles saw Jesus after His Ascension. The examples of this 
use are very numerous in the N. T. Thus in Mt. 5:15, rop 
Mod.ov, THv Avxviav, the article singles out the bushel, the lamp- 
stand present in the room. In 15: 26, rots xuvapios, Jesus points 
to the little dogs by the table. In Lu. 4 : 20, 76 BiBXiov arodods 7B 
trnpety, the roll was the usual one and the attendant was there at 
his place. Soin Jo. 13:5, BaddXe Vowp els Tov virrfpa, the basin was 
there in the room. The article in Jo. 7:17, yrwoerar rept rijs 
dvdax7s, means the teaching concerning which they were puzzled. 
(b) CLASSES FROM OTHER CLASSES. The (generic) article is 
not always necessary here any more than under (a). See zovnpods 
kal ayabots (Mt. 5:45); dixavos brép ddixwy (1 Pet. 3:18). Cf. in 
particular 1 Cor. 12:18 etre ‘Iovéator etre “EXAnves, 12:29. So also 
tov codes; rod ypaymarels; (1 Cor. 1:20). But it is quite common 
to use the article with different classes. So in Mt. 8:20 note ai 
ddwirexes, TA ereva. So at yuvatxes (Eph. 5 : 22), of dvdpes (5 : 25), 
Ta Teva (6:1), of marépes (6:4), of dodAo (6:5). In these ex- 
amples the vocative often has the article. Cf. Col. 3:18ff. A 
good example of the use with classes is found in Mt. 5 :3-10 
(the Beatitudes), of rrwxoi, etc. Cf. rods cododts, Ta doberf, etc., 
in 1 Cor. 1:27. So of dxpoarai and of ronrai in Ro. 2:18. Cf. 
Rev. 11:18; 22:14. It is very common to find the singular used 
with the article in a representative sense for the whole class. 
So in 6 vids rod avOpwrov (Mt. 8 : 20, and often) Jesus calls himself 
the Son of Mankind. Cf. Lu. 10 : 7, 6 épyarns, where the labourer 
represents all labourers. In Mt. 18:17 note 6 éOvixds kal 6 TeAwvns. 
The Gospel of John is especially rich in examples of this kind 
(both ideals and types).!. Other examples are Mt. 12:35 6 ayabos 
&vOpwiros, 12 : 29 rod icxvpod, Jas. 5:6 tov dixawov, 2 Cor. 12:12 
Tov arootodov, Gal. 4:1 6 KdAnpovouos, Mt. 13:3 6 omeipwr. But 
even here the article is not always needed. So ’Iovéaiov re rp&rov 
kat “EXAnvos (Ro. 2:9). Cf. xadod re xal xaxod, Heb. 5:14. In 
examples like 6 obpavds xal 4 yj (Mt. 24:35), where there is only 
one of the kind, the explanation is not far from the class from class 


1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 47. On literature upon the article see E. Schwartz 
in the Index to Eusebius, p. 209. 


758 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


idea. So eds, like proper names, may use the article where we do 
not need it in English (Jo. 3:16). Vélker (Syntax, p. 19) notes in 
the papyri examples like yur kal viol,  yuv7) Kal ot viol, yuvy Kai ot 
viol, 6 avip kai rexva. For the generic article see further Gilder- 
sleeve, Syntax, pp. 255 ff. 

(c) QUALITIES FROM OTHER QUALITIES. The English does not 
use the article with abstract qualities unless they have been pre- 
viously mentioned. But French and German are like the Greek 
in the use of the article here. It is not necessary to have the ar- 
ticle with qualities. So in 1 Cor. 12:9-11 the gifts mentioned 
have no article. So in chapter 13, dyarnyv in verses 1-8, but 
4 ayarn in 4, 8; but mioris, édris, ayary (verse 13). In 1 Jo. 4:18 
oBos is first without the article, then is repeated with the article, 
while 7 ayarn each time. There is much of the same freedom as 
to the use or non-use of the article here as elsewhere. Cf. Ro. 
12:2°7-9; 13 29 f Gol’ 3 2D a Blssea Gretof = ls Gi eu) 
from the standpoint of the German sees more difficulty in the 
absence than in the presence of such articles. But he is correct 
in saying that the relative in Col. 3 : 5 explains the use of the ar- 
ticle. It is interesting to observe that in the list of attributes of 
God in the songs in Rev. 4:11; 5:18; 7: 12, the article is ex- 
pressed with each quality, while in 5:12 one article (77v) is used 
with the whole list. In Ro. 18:7 the article is used with each 
thing and quality. It is possible that 7d here is the article also 
for which the participle has to be supplied. But for the absence 
of wey and 6é€ one might suspect 74 to be the demonstrative. In 
Ro. 16:17, cxorety rovs tas dtxootacias kal Ta oKdvdada mapa THY 
didaxny jv buets Euabere rovovytas, note how neatly rots, tas, Ta, THY 
come in and illustrate the three uses of the article. Note also the 
neat classic idiom trols — rowdvras. For the article with abstract 
nouns see further Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 257 ff. 

V. Varied Usages of the Article. 

(a) WiTH SUBSTANTIVES. 

1. Context. Whether the substantive is pointed out as an in- 
dividual, class or quality, the context makes clear. The English 
may or may not have need of the article in translation. But 
that point cuts no figure in the Greek idiom. Thus in Ac. 27: 23, 
Tod Oeod ov eiul, the article points out the special God whose Paul 
is and is to be preserved in English. In the very next verse, 6 6e6s, 
we in English do not need the article, even if, as is unlikely, the 
angel has the notion of ‘‘the special God.” Cf. also Jo. 1:1. 
In Mt. 23:2, of ypapuparets kal of Papicato, the two classes are 


- 
OUT iTIoE)i7O a aoa iS Sai. 





THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 759 


distinguished as in English. In Ro. 11 : 36, 7 66éa, it is the glory 
due to God. See 6 pobds, 1 Cor. 9: 18 (cf. Ro. 4:4). 

2. Gender of the Article. It will, of course, be that of the sub- 
stantive. Cf. 7yvy—7rov—v76 in Lu. 2:16. But sometimes the 
construction is according to the sense. So in Mt. 4:13, tiv Nagapa, 
because of the implied 7rodw. Cf. also Kad¢apvaoby ray. But in 
Gal. 4: 25, ro 6é“Ayap, Paul purposely uses the grammatical gen- 
der of the word rather than the natural feminine. Cf. also 6 auny 
(Rev. 3:14), where Jesus is meant. But note the usual 76 aun 
in 1 Cor. 14:16. The N. T. does not have the neuter article 
with the plural of a Hebrew word, as we occasionally see in the 
LXX (Thackeray, p. 34). Cf. 73 Beedeiu (Ezek. 27: 4). 

3. With Proper Names. This seems rather odd to us in English, 
since the proper name itself is supposed to be definite enough. 
But at bottom the idiom is the same as with other substantives. 
We do not use the article with home, husband, wife, church, 
unless there is special reason to do so. The word itself is usually 
sufficient. We must rid ourselves of the notion that any substan- 
tive requires the article. But, just because proper names are so 
obviously definite, the article was frequently used where we in 
English cannot handle it. But this is very far from saying that 
the article meant nothing to the Greek. It meant definiteness to 
him. We often have the same difficulty with the article with 
classes and qualities. Sometimes we can see the reason for the 
use of the article with proper names. So tov ’Incody dv IHadyos 
knptace, Ac. 19:13. But in most instances the matter seems 
quite capricious to us. The writer may have in mind a previous 
mention of the name or the fact of the person being well known. 
In 2 Tim. 4 : 9-21 the proper names are all anarthrous. The same 
thing is true of Ro. 16, even when the adjective is not anar- 
throus, as in ’AreAd jv Tov ddxiwov év Xpior (verse 10). So in the 
ancient Greek for the most part the article was not used with 
proper names (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 229). Its use with per- 
sons is a mark of familiar style, but Plato uses it for anaphora 
or for contrast. In some sections it is common to use the 
article with titles, as The Reverend Doctor So-and-So. In South 
Germany der is used with the name alone.! 

It seems needless to make extended observations about the 
presence or absence of the Greek article with names of countries, 
cities, rivers, persons. The usage among Greek writers greatly 
varies about rivers, mountains, etc. Cf. Kallenberg, Stu. tiber den 

We Phi, 113. 


760 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


griech. Art., 1891). See exhaustive treatment by Gildersleeve 
(Syntax, pp. 236-253) and his paper in American Journal of Philol., 
XI, pp. 488-487. Different words vary. ‘Names of cities most 
rarely have the article when connected with prepositions,’’! but 
that is true of other words also. ’Iepovcadynu does not have the 
article save when an adjective is used (so Gal. 4: 25f.; Rev. 3: 
12) except in one instance (Ac. 5:28). Curiously ’Iepoco\uya has 
the article (in the oblique cases) only? in Jo. 2: 23; 5:2; 10: 22; 
11:18. As instances of the article used with a city mentioned 
the second time (anaphoric) see Ac. 17:10, eis Bépovay, and 17: 
13, & 7H Bepoia; 17:15, ews *AOnvdv; and 17:16, é&v rats ’AOnvats. 
For further details see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 152 f. 

Substantives in apposition with proper names may have the 
article, as in ‘Hpwéns 6 Baoidels, Mt. 2:1; and 6 Bacireds ‘Hpwdns, 
Mt. 2:38; or not, as ‘Hpwdov Baoitléws, Lu. 1:5. In Baorred 
’Aypirna, Ac. 25: 26, it is like our ‘King George.’ So in Xeno- 
phon, when the King of Persia is meant we find Baowdrels. In 
Mt. 3:6, 6 ‘lopéavns rorayds, we have the usual order, but see 
the order reversed and the article repeated in Rev. 9 : 14; 16: 12. 
Cf. rod dpovs Lua (Ac. 7:30) and dpovs Diva (Gal. 4:24), 7d Bpos 
Diwy (Rev. 14:1) and Yidv oper (Heb. 12:22). For the article 
with appositive proper names see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 231. 
Cf. ’Iovéas 6 “Ioxapiwrns, Mt. 10:4; ‘Howédns 6 rerpadpxns and 
"Twavns 6 Bartiorns, 14:1f.; "Incods 6 Nafapnvos, Mk. 10 : 47; Ac. 
1:13, Livwv 6 Snrwrns, etc. Here the word in apposition has 
the article, but not the proper name.’ Cf. 1 Cor. 1:1. 

In the Gospels as a rule ’Incods has the article. Xpiords in the 
Gospels usually has the article=the Anointed One, the Messiah. 
In the Epistles it usually is like a proper name and commonly 
without the article,* illustrating the development of Christology 
in the N. T. Indeclinable proper names usually have the article 
if the case would not otherwise be clear. Cf. the list in Mt. 1: 
2-16, where the nominative has no article, but the accusative 
does have it. So ’Iopand in Ro. 10:19, but tov ’Iopahd in 1 Cor. 
10:18. See also Mt. 22:42; Mk. 15:45; Lu. 2:16; Ac. 7:8; 
15:1f.; Ro. 9:18; Heb. 11:17. The use of rov BapaBBav in Lu. 
23:18 is not abrupt. In Xenophon’s Anabasts the article is not 
often used with proper names unless the person is previously 


1 W.-Th., p..112. 

2Ibs Cia Blass Oreo Nal Gk pe lpes 
3 See further W.-Sch., p. 153. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. D. Gk) p? 152: 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 761 


mentioned.! In Homer the article appears only occasionally with 
a proper name when a new person is introduced, and ‘‘marks 
the turning of attention to a person,’’? rather than pointing to a 
particular person as in Attic. ‘In short the Homeric article 
contrasts, the Attic article defines.” But, as a matter of fact, no 
satisfactory principle can be laid down for the use or non-use of 
the article with proper names.? For good discussion of the matter 
see Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., XI, pp. 483 ff. In modern 
Greek the article occurs with all kinds of proper names (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 41). Moulton (Prol., p. 83) admits the inability of 
scholars to solve ‘‘completely the problem of the article with 
proper names.” Abbott (Joh. Gr., p. 57 f.) notes that John gen- 
erally introduces a proper name without the article and then 
uses it. The papyri also follow this classical idiom of using the 
article with proper names when mentioned a second time. So when 
a man’s father or mother is given in the genitive, we usually have 
the article. Cf. Deissmann, Phil. Wochenschrift, 1902, p. 1467; 
Moulton, Prol., p. 88. The papyri throw no great light on the 
subject. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 95), claims that the papyri 
confirm the N. T. usage. In the papyri slaves regularly have the 
article, even when the master does not (Vo6lker, Syntax, p. 9). 
For Laddos 6 kat Ilad\os (Ac. 13:9) the papyri show numerous 
parallels. Cf. Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 313 ff. Mayser (Gr. 
d. griech. Pap., p. 310 f.), as already shown, takes 6 here as rela- 
tive. See also Hatch, Journal of Bibl. Lit., Part II, 1908, p. 141 f. 
In Luke’s list (Lu. 3 : 23-38) ’Iwond has no article, while all the 
long line of genitives have rod including rod 6e03. Among the 
ancient writers 6 #eds was used of the god of absolute religion in 
distinction from the mythological gods.* Gildersleeve (Syntax, 
pp. 232-236) gives a full discussion of the subject. In the N. T., 
however, while we have zpos rov Oedv (Jo. 1:1, 2), it is far more 
common to find simply eds, especially in the Epistles. But the 
word is treated like a proper name and may have it (Ro. 3 : 5) 
or not have it (8:9). The same thing holds true about zvetya 
and mvedua ayvov, Kipios, Xpuotos. These words will come up for 
further discussion later. 


1 Zucker, Beobachtungen itiber den Gebr. des Artik. bei Personenn. in Xen. 
Anabasis, p. 6. 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 179. 

3 Cf.Schmidt, De Articulo in nominibus propris apud Att. scriptores (1890); 
K.-G., I, pp. 602 ff.; Kallenberg, Stu. iber den griech. Artikel (1891). 

4 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 48. Cf. also B. Weiss, Der Gebr. des 
Artikels bei den Gottesnamen, Th. Stu. Krit., 1911, pp. 319-392. 


762 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


4. Second Mention (Anaphoric). The use of the article with 
the second mention of a word is very frequent. Thus in Jo. 6:9, 
&provs kal oWapia, but in verse 11 robs aprovs — Kat ex T&v ofapiwv. 
See Lu. 9:13, 16. Cf. téwp in Jo.4: 10 and 76 téwp in verse 11. So 
payou in Mt. 2:1, but 7ods uayous in verse 7; fifava in 13 : 25, but 
ra ftCdna in verse 26. Cf. Ac. 9:4, 7; 9:11, 17; Jas. 2:2, 3; 
Rev. 15:1, 6. In Jo. 4: 48, ras dt0 juépas, the article refers to 
verse 40. Cf. Jo. 20:1 with 19:41; 12:12 with 12:1; Heb. 
5:4 with 5:1; 2 Cor. 5:4 with 5:i. In Ac. 19:13 we have 
IIaddos, but 6 Iaddos in 19:15. Volker (Syntax, p. 21 f.) finds 
the anaphoric use of the article common enough in the papyri. 

(b) WitH Apsectives. The discussion of the adjective as at- 
tributive or predicate comes up later. Thus kadds 6 vouos (1 Tim. 
1:8) is a different construction from 6 zou 6 Kadds (Jo. 10 : 11). 

1. The Resumptive Article. The use of the article and the 
adjective is perfectly normal in 7&v ayiwy rpodyntaév (2 Pet. 3 : 2). 
Cf. rH éoxarn juépa (Jo. 6:40). See also Lu. 1:70; Jas. 2:7. 
This repetition of the article with the adjective as in 6 zon 6 
kados above is quite common also. Abbott! thinks that this re- 
duplication of the article ‘““adds weight and emphasis to the ar- 
ticle.” Cf. 79 rpirn juépa (Lu. 9 : 22) with 77 jueépa 7H Tpity (18 : 38). 
Abbott? considers that as a rule John reduplicates the article with 
the adjective only in utterances of the Lord or in weighty sayings 
about: him: Cf Jo 129, 4125 poe 167 43 fel Sees 
14. But this is hardly true of Jo. 6:18; 18:10. He notes also 
that in John the possessive adjective, when articular, nearly always 
has the reduplicated article. Cf. ra rpoBata ra éua (10 : 27). So 
Tov adeApov Tov idvoy In Jo. 1:41. In Homer the substantive usu- 
ally comes before the article and the adjective. The resumptive 
article ‘‘repeats the noun in order to add the qualifying word.’’’ 
Cf. Rev. 1:17; 3:7; 22:16, where the article is repeated, twice. 
Cf. also Ac. 12:10. So 7a&v 600 ray axovodayvtay (Jo. 1:40). In 
Lu. 6:45 both the article and adjective are repeated after the 
form of the first part of the sentence, 6 zovnpds éx tod rovnpod 
mpopepe TO tovnpov. See in the papyri 7d Kitwyiov aitas TO NevKov 
To Tapa cot, P.Th. 421 (iii/A.p.). 

2. With the Adjective Alone. It appears so with all genders and 
both numbers. Cf. 6 ays (Mk. 1:24), 7H éonuw (Mt. 3:2), 76 
ayabov (Gal. 6:10), of rrwyxoi (Mt. 5:38), tas véas (Tit. 2:4), 7a 
dpata (Col. 1: 16), ra wodda in Ro. 15 : 22, of codoi in 1 Cor. 1: 


1 Joh. Gri, sp; 63; 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 181. 
2 Ib., p. 64. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 763 


27, at érouor in Mt. 25:10, etc. All these examples are obvious 
enough. The ellipsis is simple and usually supplied from the con- 
text. The three uses of the article occur with the adjective alone. 
The individual use appears in such examples as 6 ay.os Tod de0d 
(Jo. 6 : 69), 6 dixaros (Ac. 22 : 14), 6 ddnfuvds (1 Jo. 5 : 20), 6 rovnpos 
(1 Jo. 5:18), 76 wodd and 76 ddtyov (2 Cor. 8:15), 76 dyabov 
cov (Phil. 14), 76 adivarov rod vouou (Ro. 8:3), tHv Enpay (Mt. 
23:15), rots ayio (Ph. 1:1), & Tots érovpavios (Eph. 1:3). The 
generic or representative (class from class) is very common also, 
more frequent indeed. So 6 dixaos (1 Pet. 4 : 18), 70d ayabod (Ro. 
5:7), rov mrwxov (Jas. 2 : 6), rods mrwxodts (2 : 5), of mrovovor (5 : 1). 
So ra kaka and ra ayaba (Ro. 3:8), 76 ayabov (Lu: 6:45). Cf. in 
particular Ro. 12 : 21 b76 rod Kaxod, & 7G aya0G 76 Kaxov. Cf. also 
Ro. 13:3 f., ro ayabov (Gal. 6:10), 76 txavov (Ac. 17:9), 76 Kadov 
(2 Cor. 18:7), 7d adywv (Mt. 7:6), 7a dpa (Mt. 19:1), radv 
oropiuwy (Mk. 2:23). The use of the neuter singular with the 
article as the equivalent of an abstract substantive Blass! notes 
as ‘a peculiar usage of Paul (and Hebrews)” and considers that 
“this is the most classical idiom in the language of the N. T., 
and may be paralleled from the old heathen literature, from Thu- 
cydides in particular.”’” But he cautions us against thinking that 
Paul imitated Thucydides, since Strabo? and all other writers of 
the xowwn, not to mention the papyri,® show the same construction. 
Deissmann has made it plain from the papyri that 76 doxiwov 
buav tis wiatews in Jas. 1:3 (cf. 1 Pet. 1:7) belongs here. See 
also 76 pwpdv Tod Beod (1 Cor. 1: 25), 76 budv aitadv cbudopor (7: 35), 
TO EMadpov THs OXiWews (2 Cor. 4:17), 70 Tis buetepas ayamrns yvnovov 
(8:8), 76 yrwordy tod Beod (Ro. 1:19), 76 xpnorov Tod Oeod (2 : 4), 
76 mepioodr (3 : 1), 7d duvardv abrod (9 : 22), 7d Emcerkes Kudv (Ph. 4 : 5), 
TO dpueraerov THs Bovdjs (Heb. 6:17), 76 abris dobevés (7:18). Ex- 
amples of the plural in this abstract sense occur in ta mvevya- 
mua (Eph. 6:12), ra ddpara (Ro. 1:20), ra xputra rev avOporwvr 
(2:16), ra xputra Tod oxédrouvs (1 Cor. 4:5), ra révra (Col. 1 : 16), 
Ta OpaTa Kal Ta dopata (ib.). The neuter adjective with the ar- 
ticle sometimes appears in the collective sense for persons#® So 
To €\attov (Heb. 7:7), 7d dwoexadvrov nudv (Ac. 26:7), Ta pwpa 
Tov Koopou — Ta doberq rod Kdcpov (1 Cor. 1:27 f.). See further 
Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 262. 

3. The Article not Necessary with the Adjective. Blass,* who 


Gr. of Ni LeGk palo: 
2 Cf. Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 608. 
8 Deiss., B. S., p. 259. 4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 156. 


764 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


has the best discussion of the use of the article with adjectives, 
notes that it is not accidental that, while we have év 76 daveps 
(Text. Rec., Mt. 6:4), yet eis gavepoyv éNetv prevails (Mk. 4 : 22; 
Lu. 8: 17), since the thing is not yet in existence. But it is a 
rather fine point, since both & xputré (Jo. 7:4, 10) and els xpvrrnv 
(a subst. Lu. 11: 33) occur as well as & 7d davepd (Mt. 6:4, 
Text. Rec.). In Ro. 2: 28 & 76 davepS is genuine. In Jas. 4: 
17 note xaddov roetv. The adjective alone may express class as in 
Mtid245 7 Lo. 1021 Romie ioral. 20: 

4. With Numerals. The article with numbers is more common 
in Greek than in English and is a classic idiom (Gildersleeve, 
Syntax, p. 228). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 315) notes that with 
numerals the article points out a certain number now brought 
forward. So éxra — of tevte — 6 eis — 6 &dos (Rev. 17: 10). 

(c) WitH ParticrPLes. In all essential respects the article is 
used with the participle exactly as with the adjective. The article 
is not necessary to the participle when used as an attribute (Jas. 
4:17), though it is most commonly found (Heb. 12:1, 2). For 
the predicate use see Jo. 10:12. The participle with the article 
is common without the substantive, as of zevOodvres (Mt. 5: 4). 
The neuter for a person appears in 76 yerv@pevoy (Lu. 1:35). In 
To atodwdds (Lu. 19:10) we have the collective neuter singular. 
The abstract singular is seen in 76 brepéxov THs yvwoews (Ph. 3 : 8) 
and the abstract plural in 7a dtadépovra (Ro. 2:18). Cf. ra 
bmapxovTa pov (‘my belongings’) in 1 Cor. 13:3, for the more in- 
dividual use. The representative or generic sense is found in 6 
oreipwy (Mt. 13:3). The article with the participle is very com- 
mon as the equivalent of a relative clause.t In Mt. 5:32 ads 6 
amohtwy and ds éay — yaunon are parallel. See also Col. 1:8. So 
of wemcorevxores (Tit. 3:8), 6 eimwy (2 Cor. 4:6). Cf. Mt. 7: 21. 
The article is repeated with participles if they refer to different 
persons (Rev. 1:3) or even if the same person is meant where 
different aspects are presented (Rev. 1:4, where 6 7v comes in 
between). But note 76 ayarGvre quads xal Aboavre judas (1: 5). 

Winer? makes a special point of the use of a definite participle 
with an indefinite pronoun like 7tuves eiow of tapaocovtes buds (Gal. 
1:7), un rus buds €orar 6 cvraywyav (Col. 2 : 8), &dXos éo7lv 6 waptupdv 
(Jo. 5 : 32).3 He also notes the definite subject where the German 
would have an indefinite one as in o’k éorw 6 owiwv (Ro. 3:11). 
Cf. also the article and the future participle in 6 xaraxpwév (Ro. 

1 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 594. 2 W.-M., p. 136. 

8 More frequent in John than in the Synoptists. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 59 f. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 765 


8 : 34), Ac. 20 : 22 ra cuvayrnoovta. Cf. Is. 1:31, otk Eorar 6 cBéowr. 
More of this when the Participle is reached (ch. XX). For the 
repeated article see 7H xapite TH Sofeion (1 Cor. 1:4). See further 
vi, Position with Attributives. 

(d) WiTH THE INFINITIVE. This idiom is so common that it 
must be merely touched upon here and the discussion of it re- 
served for the Articular Infinitive. In general it may be said that 
in the Attic and the xow7 the article is used with the infinitive 
in any case (save vocative) and very much as with any abstract 
substantive. The Iliad does not have the article and the infinitive, 
but it occurs once in the Odyssey! and is in Pindar. Examples 
of the articular infinitive may be seen in the nominative 76 kafica 
(Mt. 20 : 23), the accusative 76 \adety (1 Cor. 14 : 39; ef. Ac. 25 : 11), 
the genitive édmis raca Tod cwfecOa (Ac. 27: 20; cf. Lu. 24 : 29), 
the ablative éxpatodyro rod uy émvyvavae (Lu. 24:16; cf. 2 Cor. 1: 
8), the locative év 73 ozeipev (Mt. 13: 4), the instrumental 74 py 
etpery (2 Cor. 2:13). The dative does not occur in the N. T. 
with the article, but see dedcacbac (Mt. 11:7). For the articular 
infinitive with prepositions see pp. 1068-1075. The article is 
frequently missing with eis wetv in the vernacular xow7n (papyri), as 
Herodotus three times has avr! efvar.2 Cf. Clyde, Greek Syntax, 
p. 13f. But enough for the present. The articular infinitive is 
curiously rare in the Gospel of John, ‘‘almost non-existent.”* It 
occurs only four times and only with prepositions (Jo. 1:48; 2: 
Jake Va ped Reg Wee ye 

(e) Wirn ApversBs. This is no peculiarity of the xow7, not to 
say of the N. T. It is common in the older Greek with adverbs 
of place, time, quality, rank, manner.t It is not necessary to re- 
peat what is said under Cases and Adverbs concerning the ad- 
verbial expressions (really adjectives), like 16 rp&rov (Jo. 12 : 16), 
76 Aowrov (Ph. 4:8), 7a wodda (Ro. 15: 22). The point to note is 
that the article is used somewhat freely with adverbs as with 
substantives and adjectives. As examples observe ra avw and ra 
katw (Jo. 8 : 23), 7 aijpeov (Mt. 6 : 34, ellipsis of juépa), 7 ématbprov 
(27 : 62), 4 onuepov (Ac. 20 : 26), 6 aunv (Rev. 3 : 14), 76 aunv (1 Cor. 
14 : 16), 76 viv (Lu. 5 : 10), 7a viv (Ac. 4 : 29), 6 rAqoiov (Lu. 10 : 27) 
and note mAnciov alone =‘neighbour’ in Lu. 10:29 and 36, 76 vat 
and 76 ot (2 Cor. 1:17), 76 obey (Mt. 23 : 25), of EEwhev (1 Tim. 
3:7), of €&w (Mk. 4:11, W. H. text), 76 évrés (Mt. 23 : 26), 7a Eurpo- 
obev and 7a driow (Ph. 3:13 f.), etc. Note two adverbs in Heb. 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 179. 3 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 69. 
2 Moulton, Prol., pp. 81, 216. 4 K.-G., I, p. 594 f. 


766 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


12 : 27, 76 Er drat (quotation). In some of these examples there 
is the ellipsis of a word (note different genders), but not always. 
There are besides the adjectival uses of the adverb, like 6 éow ap- 
Opwros (Eph. 3:16), 6 é&w a&vOpwros (2 Cor. 4: 16), 6 viv xatpds (Ro. 
3:26). Clyde! compares 76 vdv with Scotch “the noo.” 

(f) Wirm PRreEposiTioNAL PHRASES.” Cf. of ao rijs "IraNias 
(Heb. 13: 24), of & vouou (Ro. 4:14), of & meprtouns (Ac. 11: 2), of 
kal’ &va (Eph. 5:33), 76 éx wépous (1 Cor. 13:10), 7a rept buav (Ph. 
1:27), of ovv aitd (Lu. 9: 32), 7d kad’ juépay (Lu. 11:3), 7d kar’ eue 
(Ph. 1:12; cf. Ro. 1:15), 7d xara capxa (Ro. 9: 5), 76 é& buav (12: 
18), 7d ava Snvaprov (Mt. 20:10, W. H. text), of wept Iatdov (Ac. 
13:13, classic idiom), of wer’ atrod (Mk. 1:36), rots ey 7H olkia 
(Mt. 5:15), ra xara tov vouwov (Lu. 2:39), Ta év rots ovpavets and 
ra éxt THs yas (Eph. 1:10), ri eis ravras robs ayiovs (1:15), 76 
xa’ eis (Ro. 12:5), 6 & 7 davepS (2: 28 f.), etc. In Ac. 18:15 
note vouov rod xa’ buds, where the article occurs with the preposi- 
tional phrase, but not with the substantive. On of zepi =a man 
and his followers see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 264. 

(g) With SINGLE Worps oR WHOLE SENTENCES. Here the 
word is used verbatim, as 76 é¢yw (Plato, Crat., 405 d).2 Cf. 76 "Ere 
amaé Sndot above (Heb. 12:27) and 76 “Ayap (the name Hagar, 
Gal. 4:25). So 76 dé ’AvéBn (Eph. 4:9). With sentences the ar- 
ticle sometimes marks the quotation as in 76 Ei étvn (Mk. 9 : 28), 
TO Ov doveboers — ws ceavtov (Mt. 19:18 f.), & 7d ’Ayarnjoets Tov 
TAnciov ws ceavtov (Gal. 5:14), 76 yap Od porxyetoes and ev Th 
*Ayarnoers kTX. (Ro. 13 : 9), 7d Kal vera avouwy €doyiobn (Lu. 22 : 37). 
In particular the article is fairly common in Luke and occurs a few 
times in Paul with indirect questions. ‘The modern Greek shows 
this essentially classical idiom.4 Blass’ remarks that the article 
makes no essential difference to the meaning of the question. It 
does this at: least: it makes clearer the substantival idea of the in- 
direct question and its relation to the principal clause. See 1 Th. 
4:1 mapedaBere rap’ nudv ro ras det buds, Ro. 8:26 76 yap Ti 
mpocevémueba, Lu. 1:62 evevevoy 70 Ti dv Bed\or Kadetobar, 9 : 46 eiofd- 
dev Stadoyiopods TO Tis av ely peiCwv, 19 : 48 odx nipicKoy TO TL roLHowou?, 
22:2 &nrovy To Tas avehwow, 22:4 cuvehadnoey TO Ts Tapadda, 
22:23 cuvenrety To Tis ein, 22:24 evevero didoverkia TO Tis doxel, 
Ac. 4:21 undev ebpicxovtes 76 7s KoAdowvTat, 22:30 yradvar To Ti 
KaTNYOPELTAL. 

1 Gk. Synt., p. 14. 2 Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 263. 


3 Thompson, p. 45. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 265. 
4 Jebb, V. and D.’s Handb., p. 295 f. 5; Gre of NWI Gk pa t5s. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 767 


(h) WitH GENITIVE ALONE. This is also a common idiom in 
the ancient Greek.1 The xow7 uses this idiom very often (Rader- 
macher, N. 7. Gk., p. 94), as seen both in the inscriptions and 
the papyri. The article stands alone, but the ellipsis is usually 
very plain, as is shown by the gender and number as well as the 
context. So ’IlaxwBos 6 rod ZeBedatov (Mt. 10: 2), where vids is im- 
plied; Mapia 4 rot KAwra (Jo. 19: 25), where yuv7 is to be supplied; 
Mapia % ’IaxwBov (Lu. 24:10), where unrnp is meant; 7d ris ddéns 
(1 Pet. 4:14), where zvedua is to be understood; of tod ZeBedaiov 
(Jo. 21:2), where viot is meant, etc. In 1 Cor. 15:23 paénrai is 
probably to be supplied (cf. Gal. 5:24), and dadeddds in Lu. 6: 16 
(cf. Ju. 1). The neuter plural is common for the notion of “affairs” 
or “things.” So ra éavrav and rd Xpiorod ’Inood (Ph. 2:21), ra 
Kaicapos and ra rod deod (Lu. 20: 25), ra ris atprov (marg. W. H., 
Jas. 4:14), ra rod Koopyov (1 Cor. 7:33), 7a THs capxos and ra Tod 
mvevuatos (Ro. 8: 5), ra ris elpnvns (14:19), etc. One may note also 
here & rots tod marpds wou (Lu. 2:49) for ‘house of my Father.’ 
Cf. & rots KXavé(tov), P.Oxy. 523 (ii/A.p.). See es ra tdca and of 
tévoc. (Jo. 1:11). The neuter singular has an abstract use like 76 
Ths aAnOovs trapomuias (2 Pet. 2:22), 7d ris cuxjs (Mt. 21: 21). 

(t) NOUNS IN THE PREDICATE. These may have the article 
also. As already explained, the article is not essential to speech. 
It is, however, “invaluable as a means of gaining precision, e.g. 
Geos jv 6 Noyos.””* As a rule the predicate is without the article, 
even when the subject uses it. Cf. Mk. 9:50; Lu. 7:8. This 
is in strict accord with the ancient idiom.’ Gildersleeve (Syn- 
tax, p. 324) notes that the predicate is usually something new and 
therefore the article is not much used except in convertible prop- 
ositions. Winer, indeed, denies that the subject may be known 
from the predicate by its having the article. But the rule holds 
wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. 
The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefi- 
nite and undistributed. The word with the article is then the 
subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, Oeds Av 6 NOyos, 
the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. 6 Novos capé eyevero (Jo. 1: 14). 
It is true also that 6 eds jv 6 Novos (convertible terms) would have 


1 K.-G., I, p. 268 f.; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 280 f. The neuter article with 
the gen. is extremely common in Herod. Cf. Stauraé, Uber den Gebr. d. Gen. 
bei Herod., p. 25. 

2 Milden, The Limitations of the Pred. Position in Gk., p. 9 f. 

8 Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 46; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 325. 

4 Winer-Moulton, p. 142. 


768 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


been Sabellianism.! See also 6 Oeds ayarn éoriv (1 Jo. 4:16). “God” 
and “‘love” are not convertible terms any more than “‘God” and 
“Logos” or ‘ Logos” and “‘flesh.”” Cf. also of Oepuaral ayyeXoi eiow 
(Mt. 13 : 39), 6 Noyos 6 ods adjOea Eotw (Jo. 17:17), 6 vouos auapria; 
(Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and 
essential to the true idea. Cf. also avOpwioxrovos and Webarns (Jo. 8 : 
44). In Eph. 5: 23, avnp éorw xepadn, the context makes it clear 
(W. H. marg. avjp kepady éorw) that avnp is subject even without the 
article. In Jo. 9:34, & duaprias od éyerynbys odos, the article with 
ddos is not needed, a neat use of the predicate adjective. But the 
article is quite frequent with the predicate in the N. T. and in 
strict accord with old usage. It is not mere haphazard, however, 
as Winer rather implied. Hence W. F. Moulton,? in his note to 
Winer, properly corrects this error. He finds that when the article 
is used in the predicate the article is due to a previous mention of 
the noun (as well known or prominent) or to the fact that subject 
and predicate are identical. The words that are identical are 
convertible as in the older idiom If he had added what is in 
Winer-Schmiedel,® that the article also occurs when it is the only 
one of its kind, he would have said all that is to be said on the 
subject. But even here Moulton’s rule of identity and converti- 
bility apply. The overrefinement of Winer-Schmiedel’s many sub- 
divisions here is hardly commendable. In a word, then, when 
the article occurs with subject (or the subject is a personal pro- 
noun or proper name) and predicate, both are definite, treated 
as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable. The usage 
applies to substantives, adjectives and participles indifferently. 
Cf. 6 AUxXvos TOD THuaTos EoTW 6 OPOaduos (Mt. 6 : 22), buyers Eore TO 
adas tis yas (Mt. 5:18), 6 6€ aypds éorw 6 Kocuos (13:38), od ef 6 
Xpioros (16:16), eis éorw 6 ayabds (19:17), Tis apa éorly 6 Toros 
dodAos (24 : 45), rodTd oT 7d cHua pov, TOUT éoTw TO aiua pov (26 : 26, 
28), od ef 6 Baotdrebs (27:11), od ef 6 vids wou (Mk. 1:11), ody odrés 
éorw 6 TEeKTwy (6:3), ovTOs éoTW 6 KAnNpovouos (12:7), od yap éoTe 
duets of Nadodyres (13:11), 7 Cw fv 76 hds (Jo. 1:4), 6 rpodnrns 
ef ot (1:21), cd et 6 dddcxados (3 : 10), otrds oT 6 rpodyrns (6 : 14), 
ovTés éorw 6 &ptos (6: 50; cf. 51), 76 rvedua Eorw 76 Cworo.odv (6 : 63), 
ey elu To Has (8:12), obx obTds eoTw 6 Kabnuevos (9:8; cf. 19f.), 
ey eiue 7 Odpa (10 : 7), éym ewe 6 rounv (10:11), eym eiue % avacracts 
kal % Cwh (11: 25, note both articles), éyw eiue 7 6dds kal 7 adAHOEa Kal 

1 See per contra, Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 48. 2 W.-M., p. 142. 

* Cf. Donaldson, New Crat., p. 522; Middleton, Gk. Art., p. 54. 

4 Thompson, Synt., p. 46. § P. 159. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 769 


7 fwn (14:6, note three separate articles), éxetvds éorw 6 ayarav 
me (14:21), otros éorw 6 dios (Ac. 4:11), obTos éorw 7H Sbvams 
(8:10), ovx ovTds Eorwvy 6 ropOnoas (9:21), odTds Eor. 6 dvOpwros 
(21:28), otk apa od ef 6 Alytaruos (21:38), 4} Kepadr} 6 Xpioros 
éorw (1 Cor. 11:38), 6 dé kipios 7d rvedua éor (2 Cor. 3:17), atrés 
écriw  eipnvn qnuav (Eph. 2:14), ques 7 reprroun (Ph. 3:3), qyets 
yap éouev 7 mepttoun (3:3), ) aduaptia éotiv 4 avouia (1 Jo. 3:4), 
éyw eiue To "“AXda cat ro 7D (Rev. 1:8), éyw eiue 6 mpadros xal 
6 éoxatos (1 : 17, note both articles), ob ef 6 radaizwpos (3 : 17), ete. 
This list is not exhaustive, but it is sufficient to illustrate the points 
involved. Note 6 Baoidebs (Mt. 27:11) and Baowred’s (Jo. 1:49). Even 
the superlative adjective may have the article as in Rey. 1:17 above. 
But see of écxatou tp@rou kal of pro ecxaror (Mt. 20: 16) for the 
usual construction. Cf. éoxarn wpa (1 Jo. 2:18). See further & 
éoxaras nuepas, Jas.5:3; 2 Tim. 3:1; & xaipo éoxatw, 1 Pet. 1:5, 
and 77 éoxarn juepa, Jo. 6:39. For the common predicate accu- 
sative see chapter XI (Cases), vir, (2). In the N. T. most examples 
are anarthrous (Jo. 5:11; 15:15), and note 1 Cor.4:9 yas rods 
amooToNous écxatous amedeéev. Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 326. 

(7) DistRIBUTIVE. Cf. é dyvapiov tiv nuepay (Mt. 20:2), arak 
Tod éuavtod (Heb. 9:7), dis tod caBBarov (Lu. 18:12), érrdnis 
Ths nuepas (Lu. 17:4). This is, to be sure, an ancient idiom fa- 
miliar also to the English (cf. our “by the yard,” “‘by the pound,” 
etc.). It is found in the papyri.! But éaoros is not used in the 
N. T. with the article. Cf. of xa6’ &va éxacros (Eph. 5 : 33). We 
have once duddrepa ta rota (Lu. 5:7), and several times of audd- 
tepot (Eph. 2:18), 7a auddrepa (2:14). Cf. robs dbo in Eph. 2:15. 
Cf. Thompson, Syntax of Attic Gk., p. 51. 

(k) NOMINATIVE WITH THE ARTICLE=VOCATIVE. This matter 
was sufficiently discussed in the chapter on Cases. It is an occa- 
sional Greek idiom repeated in the Hebrew and Aramaic regu- 
larly and frequent in N. T. As examples see vai, 6 rarnp (Mt. 
11 : 26), 7d &dadov Kal Kkwhdv mvedua (Mk. 9 : 25), » wats (Lu. 8 : 54), 
6 Baoirebs (Jo. 19 : 3). 

(1) AS THE EQUIVALENT OF A POSSESSIVE PRONOUN. The 
article does not indeed mean possession. ‘The nature of the case 
makes it plain that the word in question belongs to the person 
mentioned. The French can say j’ar mal a la téte, ady& rH 
kepadnv.2 The examples in the N. T. are rather numerous. See, 


1 Voélker, Synt. d. griech. Pap., p. 8. V6lker notes also the presence of 
gxaoTos or Of ava, Kata, éx, mpos. 


2 Cf. Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 16, See K.-G., I, p. 556. 


770 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


for instance, dmeviparo tas xetpas (Mt. 27: 24; cf. Lu. 13:13). In 
Mt. 4:20 we have 7a dixrva, while in verse 21 we find 7a 6dixrva 
attav. Cf. xarécerce 7H xerpi (Ac. 21:40; cf. Mk. 7:32), rov vidov rov 
povoyevn (Jo. 3:16), 7B vot dovrebw (Ro. 7:25), rod rarpés (1 Cor. 
5:1), Tirov xai rov ddeddov (2 Cor.. 12:18; cf. also 8:18).2 Cf. 
Mt. 8:3; Jo. 1:41. 

(m) WrirH PossEssivE Pronouns. The article is always used 
in the N. T. with these pronouns unless the pronoun is predicate. 
So ra éud mavra ot éorw kal Ta od Eud (JO. 17:10) tyerepos (Ac. 
2:11) and tuéerepos (Jo. 7: 6; cf. Lu. 6: 20). The article is fre- 
quently repeated as in 6 katpos 6 éudos (Jo. 7: 6). It was usual 
with possessives in the ancient Greek.?, The Gospel of John shows 
6 éuds very frequently. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 65f. With ‘dros 
the article is customary, as in es riv idtavy rodw (Mt. 9:1). This 
construction is very common in the N. T. A few times we mect 
iévos without the article, as in (dios dYwvios (1 Cor. 9:7), Katpots 
idtoos (1 Tim. 2:6). The anarthrous examples may be only mem- 
bers of a class, not the particular individual in the case. See 
further ch. XV, Pronouns. 

(n) Wirn Autos. It is only necessary to mention the order 
alt) 4 Ktiots (Ro. 8:21), and 4 a’ry capé (1 Cor. 15:39), to set 
forth the distinction in the position of the article with airés. So . 
alto 76 mvedua (Ro. 8 : 26), but 76 a’rd wvedua (1 Cor. 12:8). See 
Pronouns. 

(0) With DEMONSTRATIVES. The essential facts have been al- 
ready stated in the chapter on Pronouns. Here a bare summary 
is sufficient. “Ode occurs in the N. T. once with the article, eis rnvde 
Thy woAw (Jas.4:18). The usual position of the demonstrative 
with the article has already been discussed also. It may be re- 
peated here that we must not confuse this predicate (appositional) 
position of ovros, éxetvos with the ordinary predicate position of 
adjectives. The construction may be paralleled to some extent 
by the French la république francaise. Still in Homer? rodrov tov 
dvadrov=‘this man,’ a&vadros, ‘that he is.’ Here we probably see 
the origin of the idiom otros 6. So fixed did the usage become that 
in the Attic inscriptions the construction is uniform.4 The Boeotian 
inscriptions reveal the same thing.» The order is immaterial, 
whether 6 a&v@pwros otros (Lu. 2: 25) or otros 6 &vOpwros (14 : 30). 


1 Cf. A. Souter, art. Luke, Hastings’ D.C.G., who takes rév=‘his,’ i.e. 
Luke. For pap. exx. see Volker, Synt. d. griech. Pap., p. 7. 

2 Thompson, Gk. Synt., p. 51. 4 Meisterh., Att. Inschr., p. 231. 

§ Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 181. 5 Claflin, Synt. of B.D, Inser., p. 42. 


THE ARTICLE (TO ”APOPON) ed. 


In general it may be noted that the absence of the article with 
the noun means that otros is a real predicate, as in Jo. 2:11, 
TavTny éerolnoer apxiv TOV onuetov. Cf. Lu. 24:21; Ac. 1:5. Even 
with proper names the article occurs, as in otros 6 ’Incods (Ac. 
1:11). For further details see chapter on Pronouns. It may be 
remarked that. the rigidity apparent in the use of the article in 
connection with otros and éxetvos does not exist in the case of the 
correlative demonstratives. The article is wanting in the N. T. 
in connection with rovdcde and tydLKobT0s. Toootros occurs once 
only with the article, a true attributive, 6 rocodros mXodros (Rev. 
18:16). Tovodros, on the other hand, usually appears with the 
article and in the attributive position, as in rdp rowotTwy Tradiwv 
(Mk. 9:37), though once the predicate position is found, at dvvapers 
roradrar (Mk. 6:2). Most of the examples have no substantive, 
like of rovodrou (Ro. 16:18), ra Toratra (Gal. 5: 21). 

(p) Wir “Onos, Ilas (“Azras). “Azas is found chieflyin Luke and 
Acts. The MSS. vary greatly between amas and ras. The text 
of W. H. now has zas in the margin (Lu. 9 : 15), now das (15 : 13). 
Blass! fails to find any satisfactory rule for the use of adzas, the 
Attic distinction of amas after a consonant and was after a vowel 
not holding (ef. Lu. 1:3), though in general azas does occur (when 
used at all) after a consonant (cf. Mt. 6:32). “Aas, when used 
with a substantive in the N. T., is always with the article. Once 
only does it appear in the attributive position, 77v &racay paxpobv- 
uiav (1 Tim. 1:16), ‘the total sum of his long-suffering.’ Else- 
where we have either the order 6 \ads aaas (Lu. 19 : 48) or a&ravra 
tov Naoy (Lu. 3:21). If otros also is used, we have riv étovciay 
tavtyy amacay (Lu. 4:6). Cf. of abrod ararres (Ac. 16 : 33). 

The construction of was is varied and interesting. It is an ex- 
ceedingly common adjective in all parts of the N. T. In general 
it may be said that the idiom of the N. T. is in harmony with the 
ancient Greek in the use of was and the article.2. In the singular 
mwas may be used without the article in the sense of ‘every.’ So 
mavrTa mepacpuov (Lu. 4:13), wav oroua (Ro. 38:19), racav cvveidnoww 
avOpwruv (2 Cor. 4:2), mav devdpov (Mt. 3:10), etc. Blass® dis- 
tinguishes between ékacros=‘each individual’ and za@as=‘any one 
you please.’ 

Ids 6=‘all.’ So raca 7 rodts (Mt. 8 : 34) = ‘all the city’ (die ganze 
Stadt).4. This is the order and it is very common. Cf. zécav rip 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 161. Cf. Diels, G6tt. Gel.-Anz., 1894, pp. 298 ff. 


2 Cf. K.-G., I, pp. 631 ff, 
Gt roOnNea LeGkpslb6l 4 W.-Sch., p. 187. 


772 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


viv (Mt. 27:45), ravri 7B oixw (Ac. 10:2). Even without the ar- 
ticle was may be ‘all,’ if it is a proper noun, like zaca ’Iepocddvya 
(Mt. 2:3), was “IopaydX (Ro. 11 326). In Ac. .2:36, mds ofxos 
"Icpand, there is only one ‘‘house of Israel,’ so that ‘all’ is the 
idea. Winer! says that it is treated as a proper name. Abstract 
substantives also may be used with or without the article. There 
is very little difference in idea between racy yrwoe: (1 Cor. 1: 5) 
and radcav tiv yraow (1 Cor. 18:2). With the abstract word 
“every” and “all” amount practically to the same thing. There 
is an element of freedom in the matter. So racav riv riorw (1 
Cor. 13: 2), but wacn codia (Ac. 7:22). There may indeed be 
occasionally the difference between a specific instance like racy 7H 
OrXiver Hu@v (2 Cor. 1:4) and a general situation like racy OA\We 
(2b.).2. But see radon bropovp (2 Cor. 12:12), racn ayvia (1 Tim. 
5:2), wera mappynoias maons (Ac. 4 : 29), etc. See also raca capE= 
“ia-5> (Lu. 3:6), usually with od (Mt. 24:22). But note again 
TAnp@oar macav dxatcootvny (Mt. 3:15) and raons tis mpocdoxias 
(Ac. 12:11). See maca éfovoia (Mt. 28:18), raons meovetias 
(Lu. 12.:15).. Cf..2 Tim. 1:15. In Ph. 1:3, racy 77 peta, the 
article is pertinent as in zaoa 7 xriows (Ro. 8 : 22). But in Col. 
1:15, 23; 1 Pet. 2 : 13 rao xriors has its true idea of ‘every created 
thing.’ But what about rpwrdroxos raons Kricews (Col. 1 : 15)? 
See also Col.1:9 ff. and racav xapay (Jas. 1:2). Other examples 
somewhat open to doubt are aca oixodoun (Eph. 2 : 21) which is 
most probably ‘every building’ because of eis vadv. So in Eph. 
3:15 waca rarpia is ‘every family,’ though ‘all the family’ is 
possible. In 2 Tim. 3:16 zaéoa ypady is ‘every Scripture,’ if 
separate portions are referred to. Cf. Jo. 19:37, érépa ypadn. 
Usually in the singular in the N. T. we have 4 ypadn, but twice 
ypadyn occurs alone as definite without the article, once in 1 Pet. 
2:6, & ypady, once in 2 Pet. 1:20, yams. Twice in the plural 
(Ro. 1:2; 16:26) the article is absent. In Col. 4:12 & zapti Oedn- 
pate Tod Oeod it is ‘every,’ ‘whatever be the will of God for you’ 
(Moffatt). In Jas. 1:17, raoa doors, we have ‘every,’ as in ravrTds 
mpoowmov (Ac. 17:26). 

Ilas 6 and the participle is a very common construction in the 
N. T. Here the idea is ‘every,’ and 6 and the participle are in 
apposition. Thus zés 6 dxobwv (Mt. 7: 26) is practically equivalent 
to mas boris dkove (7:24). Cf. was 6 dpyrCouevos (Mt. 5 : 22), was 6 


1 W.-Th., p. 111. Cf.1Sam.7:2f. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 162) calls 
this imitation of Hebrew. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 162. 3 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 187. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) (We: 


Brérwv (5 : 28), was 6 arodtwy (5 : 32), was 6 alrév (7:8), etc. But 
sometimes we find was without the article as in zapvtos dxovovros 
(Mt. 18:19), zavri ddeidovre (Lu. 11:4), where some MSS. read 
7S. See ravi 7G miorevovre (Ro. 1:16). The abstract neuter zap 
7o is regular. So wav 76 eioropevoyevoyv (Mt. 15:17), wav 7d dderdo- 
pevov (18 : 34). Cf. ray 6 in Jo. 6: 37, 39. 

The idiom 6 ras=‘the whole,’ ‘the totality,’ is not frequent in 
the singular. It occurs twice.! See rov ravta xpovov (Ac. 20:18), 
6 mas vouos (Gal. 5:14), das gesamte Gesetz.2 Cf. also Barn. 4:9, 6 
mas xpovos. Here the whole is contrasted with a part. ‘O mas voyos = 
‘the entire law,’ ‘the whole law.’ It was never so common a con- 
struction in the ancient Greek? as zas 6. 

In the plural zavres is used sometimes without the article. The 
article is not necessary with proper names, like ravres ’AOnvator 
(Ac. 17:21). Cf. raves Iovéato. (26:4). But the article is absent 
elsewhere also, as In mavres épyarar ddixias (Lu. 13:27), wavras 
avOpwrous (Ac. 22:15; cf. Ro. 5:12, 18), raicw ayabots (Gal. 6:6; 
ef. tadcw rots in 3:10), mavTwv ayiwy (Eph. 3:8), mavres ayyedou 
(Heb. 1:6). These examples are not numerous, however. Cf. 
1 Pet. 2:1; 2 Pet. 3:16. Blass* considers it a violation of clas- 
sical usage not to have the article in Eph. 3:8 and 2 Pet. 3 : 16, 
because of the adjectives, and in Lu. 4:20, ravtwyv & TH ovva- 
ywyh, because of the adjunct. But that objection applies chiefly to 
the literary style. See of a@yu raves (2 Cor. 18:12). The usual 
construction is macau at yeveat (Mt. 1:17), ravras robs apxuepets 
(2:4), etc. Sometimes we have the other order like ras zoXets 
maoas (Mt. 9:35). Cf. 2 Cor. 13:12. Ids may be repeated with 
separate words (Mt. 3:5). For the use with the participle see 
Mt.8:16. A few examples of the attributive position are found, 
like ot ravres avopes (Ac. 19 : 7)=‘the total number of the men,’ as 
in the ancient idiom. See, also, af raca Yyxai (Ac. 27:37), robs ody 
aitots mavtas aylous (Ro. 16:15), of oly euol ravres adeAdoi (Gal. 
1:2), rovs ravtas judas (2 Cor.5:10). The last example=‘we the 
whole number of us.’ Cf. Ac. 21:21. 

But we also find of zavres without a substantive, as in 2 Cor. 5: 
door on aeahoells ses. 4916; Ph. 2:21.. In ’ Cor. 10:17; 
of TavTeEs Ex TOD Evds &pTov peTEeXouer, Note the contrast with rod évds. 
Still more common is 7a ravra for ‘the sum of things,’ ‘the all.’ 
Cf. Ro. 8:32; 11:36; 1 Cor. 11:12; 12:6, 19 (cf. here ra wévra 


1 Green, Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 192. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 189. 


2 W.-Sch., p. 189. 
3 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 52 f. Ser sOleN ela Gk tps LOLs 


174. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and é); 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:17, etc. The use of zavres alone 
(1 Cor. 12 : 29), or of wav7a (1 Cor. 13:7), calls for no comment. 

The story of ddos is brief. It is never attributive in position in 
the N. T. It has also an indefinite meaning which zés does not 
have. Thus évavrov ddov (Ac. 11: 26)=‘a whole year.’ Tas does 
not have this idea apart from the article. So Jo. 7:23, ddov av- 
Opwrrov wyi7, ‘a whole man sound.’! Cf. Lu. 5:5; Ac. 28:30. In 
Mk. 12: 30 compare é& 6Ans Kapdias (€v Ody Kapdia, Mt. 22 : 37) 
with é£ ddns THs Yuxfs. In this sense the plural also is found as in 
ddous otxouvs (Tit. 1:11). One may compare én ‘lepovoadny (Ac. 
21:31), with raca lepoco\vwa (Mt. 2:3). We usually have in 
the N. T. the order 6An 4 wots (Mk. 1: 33), but sometimes 4 
mods bAn (Ac. 21:30). Sometimes we have ddos and zas in the 
same sentence as in 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Th. 4:10. The word may be 
repeated several times (Mt. 22:37; Mk. 12:30, 33). It occurs 
alone also as a predicate (Jo. 9 : 34), or with 7odro (Mt. 1: 22). 

(q) WitTH IIoAvs. There is a peculiar use of the article with 
qwodvs that calls for a word. The regular construction with the 
article (attributive) like 76 zodd a’tod éXeos (1 Pet. 1: 3) occurs in 
the singular (cf. 6 76 wodv, 2 Cor. 8 : 15) and much more frequently 
in the plural. So of zoAdoi alone (Ro. 5:15; 12:5; Heb. 12: 15; 
1 Cor. 10:17), ra wodda (Ro. 15: 22). With the substantive added 
note bdaTwv mod\d\Gv (Rev. 17:1), aé auapriar ai roddat (Lu. 7:47), 
Ta To\AaG Yoaupata (Ac. 26:24). This is all in harmony with 
classic idiom? as well as the frequent use of rodvs without the ar- 
ticle in an indefinite sense. But in 6 dxAos rod’s (Jo. 12:9, 12) 
Moulton? finds ‘fa curious misplacement of the article.’ Moulton 
cites a piece of careless Greek from Par.P. 60, a6 r&év trAnpwuaTwv 
apxatwy. It is possible that dos rod’s came to be regarded as one 
idea. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 284) cites a few rare attributive 
examples of the type 6 dvjp ayabos from Homer and Atschylus 
where the adjective is appositive rather than predicative. The 
Homeric examples may be demonstrative. One may note also 
ék Tis patalas budv avactpodhs tatpotapadorov (1 Pet. 1:18) and io 
Ths Neyouevns Tepitouns & capKl xeporontrov (Eph. 2:11). See 
vi, (c), 5. We do find the usual order 6 zodvs dxXos in Mk. 12: 
37. But it is a fact that dxAos zodv’s is the usual order in the 
N. T. (Mt: 267477 MkAb 24). Site 711 9° 37s on Gee eo) ene 
analogy of zs, dos, ovros may have played some part in the matter. 
For éxXou roddoi see Mt. 19:2; Lu. 14:25. In Mt. 21:8 (parallel 


1 Cf, W.-Sch., p. 190. 
2 'Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 53. 3 Prol., p. 84. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 705 


with Mk. 12 : 37, 6 zodv’s dxdos) we have 6 mXelatos dxdos, but it 
is difficult to lay much stress on this point of variation. One is 
reminded of the constant French idiom, but that is merely an 
independent parallel. The idiom of w\etoves may be seen in 1 Cor. 
9:19. See further ch. XIV. 

(r) “Axpos, “Hyuous, “Eoyatos, Mécos. As to a&xpos, it does not 
appear as an adjective in the N. T. In Lu. 16:24 and Heb. 11: 21 
TO Gxpov is a substantive. The same thing is probably true of axpou 
and axpwy in Mk. 13:27 and Mt. 24:31. This is in harmony with 
the Septuagint (Ex. 29:20; Is. 5:26). The same situation is 
repeated in the case of jyous. Cf. ews utocouvs rHs Baotdelas (Mk. 
6 : 23), Hucov karpod (Rev. 12:14). Cf. jucov alone (Rev. 11:9, 11). 
But écyaros is used attributively as in 4 éoxarn tAdvn (Mt. 27: 64), 
Th éoxaTn huepa (Jo. 6:39, etc.), 7d éoxarov errov (Lu. 12 : 59), 
etc. The construction 6 ésxaros alone (Rev. 2:8) and ra écyxara 
Tod avOpwmrov (Lu. 11:26) is classical.2 So is indeed also ravtwy 
écxatos (Mk. 9: 35), & karpd éeoxarw (1 Pet. 1:5). ’En’ éecxa- 
tov Tov juepov (Heb. 1: 2) is probably a substantive use. But 
in 2 Pet. 3:3 én’ écxaTwv T&v juepdv we may have the parti- 
tive construction in the predicate position. There is no doubt of 
it as to ueoos. Here also we find usually 76 peéeoor (like ro axpov 
above) absolutely (Mk. 3 : 3), or the various prepositional phrases 
like els wesov (Mk. 14: 60), ev weow (Mk. 6 : 47), dca wéoou (Lu. 4: 30), 
ava pecov (Mk. 7:31), xara péoov (Ac. 27: 27), x weoou (Mt. 13 : 49) 
or wécov as preposition (Ph. 2:15). But the old partitive construc- 
tion occurs in péons vuxtos (Mt. 25:6), quepas pweons (Ac. 26: 18) 
without the article. The true predicate is found in 76 xataréracua 
Tod vaod pecov (Lu. 23:45). So péeoos in Ac. 1:18. Cf. also 76 
Totov wécov THs Oadacons (Mt. 14 : 24, marge. W. H.), where pecor 
is probably a preposition. In Jo. 19:18, nécov tov Incoty, we have 
‘Jesus in the midst.’ There is, however, no example in the N. T. 
like the old classic idiom which is seen in the LXX. Cf. & péons 
Ths TONews (Ezek. 11:23). See also ch. XIV. 

(s) WirH “AXdos AND “Etepos. The article is frequent with 
a&\dos but never in the sense of ‘the rest of,’ like ancient Greek. 
But of ado (1 Cor. 14:29) is close to it. It is used where only 
two are meant, as in 6 Ilézpos cai 6 &dAXos wabyrHs (Jo. 20:3, 7 &AAN 
Mapia (Mt. 28:1). The order 6 pabyris 6 &\Xos occurs (Jo. 18 : 16). 
Cf. also rod &\Xov 710d cuvotavpwhevtos (Jo. 19:32) where the ar- 
ticle is repeated, like rots Nourots rots, etc. (Rev. 2:24). Blass4 

1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 190, 3 Ib.; Thompson, Synt., p. 53, 
2 Ib. Sear, Ol Neb ks pa lou, 


776 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


says that no Attic writer would have said rats érépas rédeow = 
‘the remaining cities’ (Lu. 4:43). He considers eis ri érépay 
(Mt. 10:23 NB) “incorrect” for ‘the next’ city, as well as 6 
érepos=‘the third’ in Lu. 19:20. But it is not the use of the ar- 
ticle here that displeases Blass, but the free interchange of &\dos 
and érepos in the xown. See ch. XV, Pronouns. 

(t) Movos. This need detain us but a moment. The essential 
facts are succinctly given by Winer-Schmiedel.t Without the ar- 
ticle udvos occurs usually even with proper names, as ’Incods povos 
(Lu. 9:36). So wovy 66 (Ro. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17). But the pred- 
icate use occurs also. So Mt. 12:4 rots tepedor pdvos; (24 : 36) 6 
maTnp pmovos (NBD); pwovor of wabnrat (Jo. 6:22); povos 6 apxuepets 
(Heb. 9:7). The articular attributive use is found a few times, 
as in rod povov beod (Jo. 5: 44). Cf. Jo. 17:3; 1 Tim. 6:15 f.; 
Ju. 4. See ch. XIV. 

VI. Position with Attributives. The article does not make a 
word or phrase attributive. It may be attributive without the 
article. It is necessary to go over much of the same ground again 
(Adjectives and Participles, Genitives, Adverbs and Adjuncts) in 
order to get the subject clearly before us. 

(a) WitH ADJECTIVES. So épyov ayalov (Ph. 1:6) is attribu- 
tive=‘a good work,’ though it is anarthrous. Cf. also épyous 
ayabots (Eph. 2:10). Cf. wpa ciun (1 Cor. 5:6). But when the 
article is used before a word or phrase there is no doubt about its 
being attributive. 

1. The Normal Position of the Adjective. It is between the 
article and the substantive, as in 70 xadov évoua (Jas. 2:7), 6 
ayabos avOpwmos (Mt. 12: 35), 7d Eudv dvoua (18: 20). In this normal 
attributive type the adjective receives greater emphasis than the 
substantive.? Cf. correct text Lu. 12:12; 1 Cor. 10:3 (correct 
text); 1 Jo. 5:20. So rod paxapiov deod (1 Tim. 1:11). There 
must be a special reason for the otner construction.’ 

2. The Other Construction (Repetition of the Article). In the 
order* 6 zowujy 6 kados (Jo. 10:11) both substantive and adjective 
receive emphasis and the adjective is added as a sort of climax in 
apposition with a separate article.’ Cf. 6 vids wou 6 ayamnrés (Mt. 


1 Pp. 190. 2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 158. 

3 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 47. 

4 For copious classical exx. of both positions see Gildersleeve, Syntax, 
p. 281 f. 

5 In Jas. 3.:7, 77 pboa 7H avOpwrivp, the repeated article makes for greater 
clearness. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) CATA 


17:5), ray yaqv tiv ayabnv (Lu. 8:8), 7d dds 7d aAnOwov (Jo. 1:9), 
76 towp TO Cav (4:11), 6 Katpds 6 euds (7:6),  duredos  aAnOwWH 
(15:1), 76 rvedua 76 rovnpov (Ac. 19:15). Cf. also Mt. 6:6; Lu. 
eee OF Orel ompl@onm 2io leCor 40. 45luph. 6:7 13% Gol: 
1:21: Heb. 18:20; 1 Jo..1:2;2:25;4:9. There-is an apparent 
difficulty in Heb. 9 : 1, 76 re &yvov Koopixdv, Which may be compared 
with 6 dxXos rod’s, p. 774 (Jo. 12:9).1. Perhaps both ayy and 
koouixoy were felt to be adjectives. 

3. Article Repeated Several Times. So in Ac. 12:10, rHv ridnv 
THY oLonpav THY pepovoay. Cf. 7d Top TO aiwvioy TO Hrouacpevoy (Mt. 
25:41), 6 wabntis 6 GXos 6 Yrwords (Jo. 18:16), rHYV poudaiay tHv 
dictouov tiv ofetay (Rev. 2:12). In particular note the repetition 
of the article in Heb. 11:12; Rev. 3:14; 17:1; 21:9. In Rev. 
1:5 note four articles, 6 waptus 6 muoTds, 6 TpwTdToKos — Kal 6 
apxwv. Cf. Rev. 12:9; 1 Pet. 4:14. For this common classic 
idiom see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 328 ff. In Ph.1:29, butyv éxa- 
pic0n To bép Xpiorod, the two infinitives following, each with 79, 
explain the first 76. 

4. One Article with Several Adjectives. When several adjectives 
are used we find an article with each adjective if the adjectives 
accent different aspects sharply. So 6 mpé&ros kal 6 éoxatos Kai 6 
ctav (Rev. 1:17; cf. 22:13). Cf. also 6 dv — kai 6 épxouevos (1:4, 
8). But ordinarily the one article is sufficient for any number of 
adjectives referring to the same substantive. So 6 tadaizwpos xal 
éNewvos Kal TTwWxOs Kal TUPNOs Kal yuuvos (Rev. 3:17). In Mt. 24: 
45, 6 micros doddAos kal Ppdriuos, the xai carries over the force of 
the article.? So likewise the presence of another attribute may 
explain the probable predicate position zarporapadérov (1 Pet. 1: 
18) and xetporounrov (Eph. 2:11). See further (c), 5. 

5. With Anarthrous Substantives. ‘There is still another order.‘ 
It is eipjnvnv tH eunv (Jo. 14:27). Here the substantive is indefinite 
and general, while the attribute makes a particular application. 
Cf. vouos 6 duvapevos (Gal. 3:21). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 93) 
finds this idiom frequent in the xown. So yuvatka thy evyevertarny 
OLE eX Lee Nie 24.0 13): 

6. With Participles. The participle may come between the ar- 
ticle and the substantive like the attributive adjective, as in ri 
qrowacuerny duiv Baowretay (Mt. 25:34). Cf. 1 Tim. 1:10; Ro. 
Reel srl) Comelan22 a leberel 13... On the other hand (ef.5), 

1 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 177. 


2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160. 8 Cf. W.-Sch., p. 181. 
4 It is common enough in classic Gk. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 283. 


778 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


all else may come between the article and the participle, as in 
1 Pet. 1:10, of — rpodynreboavtes. A long clause (including a rela- 
tive clause) may come between the article and the participle, as in 
Ro. 16 : 17, tovs — rovodvras. Once more, the participle may come 
in the midst of the attributive phrases, as in 1 Pet. 1:3, 6 — dva- 
yevynoas, or immediately after the article, as in 2 Pet.1:3. Either’ 
the participle or the modifier may occur outside of the attributive 
complex (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 289f.). Gildersleeve gives co- 
pious illustrations of the various constructions of the attributive 
participle. The article may be repeated after the substantive, 
like 76 téwp 76 SGv above (Jo. 4:11), of ypapparets of — xataBavres 
(Mk. 322). * Cfo Job) 1219 Cormlono43s1> Pete lao aes 
Ac. 7:37; Heb. 13: 20. The article may occur with the parti- 
ciple when not with the substantive. This supplementary ad- 
dition of the article is more common with the participle than 
with other adjectives.t. Cf. madious tots & ayopa KaOnuevors (Lu. 
7: 32), yuvatkes ai cvvaxodovlodoat adta (23 : 49), ayyedou rod ofbevTos 
a’t@ (Ac. 7:35), xpvctov rod amoANvpevov (1 Pet. 1:7), and in 
particular ov6€ yap dvouda éotw érepov Td dedouevoy (Ac. 4:12). CF. 
also Ac. 1:12; Gal. 3:21; Ro. 2:14 (€vn ra wu vouov Exovta). But 
In Oeod Tod eyelpavtos (Gal. 1:1), Xprarod rod ddvros (1:4), the 
proper names are definite without the article. So ’Incoty rov 
pvouevoy (1 Th. 1:10), etc. Participles in apposition with per- 
sonal pronouns may also have the article. Cf. éyw eur 6 NadGv 
go. (Jo. 4:26), 7S OedovTe wot (Ro. 7:21), od 6 Kpivev (Jas. 4: 
12), nutvy rots mepiratodow (Ro. 8:4), juas rods miotevovtas (Eph. 
1:19), avrots tots muctebovow (Jo. 1:12), ete. Note two articles 
in 1 Th. 4:15, 17, jets of Svres of repidecrouevr. Cf. Eph. 1: 
12;'1°Jo. 5713) pty —rois a) 518 Cor.38 +10) S herarticm parte 
may be in appos. with the verb, as in éxwuey of Kxatadvyovtes 
(Heb. 6:18; cf. 4:3). Cf., on the other hand, jquets, aropda- 
vodevtes (1 Th. 2:17). The article and participle may follow 
Ties, AS IN Twas Tos memoWoras (Lu. 18:9), Tives elow of Tapaocor- 
res (Gal. 1:7). If the substantive has the article and the par- 
ticiple is anarthrous, the participle may be (cf. above) predicate. 
So tiv duviv evexbetcav (2 Pet. 1:18), rots rvebyaow — arednoaow 
(1 Pet. 3:19f.), apaayévta tov Toodrov (2 Cor. 12:2), Tov avdpa 
Tovrov avAAnudbevta (Ac. 23:27). Cf. Lu. 16:14; Jo. 4:6; Ro. 
2227 1 Gor. 1427: 2. Cored 2; 19> Hebal Ose sie vets 
The presence of the article with the participle here would radically 
change the sense. The same article may be used with several par- 
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 243. 


THE: ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) | po TQ 


ticiples, as in rod ayarnoavrés pe Kal tapaddyros (Gal. 2 : 20), 76 
ayaravre kat Aboavte (Rev. 1:5). The use of the article with the 
participle in the predicate is illustrated by Oeds 6 dixardv* ris 6 Ka- 
raxpwav; (Ro. 8:33; cf. Jo: 5:45). In questions the pronoun, 
though coming first, may sometimes be really predicate. » Then 
again the article may be absent from both substantive and parti- 
ciple (predicate or attributive), as in yuv7 otoa (Mk: 5: 25), 066 
¢f@vre (1 Th. 1:9), avOparw oixodouodyre (Lu. 6: 48). 

(b) Wits Genitives. From the nature of the case the genitive 
as the genus-case is usually attributive. In general the construc- 
tion in the N. T. follows the ancient idiom.! 

1. The Position between the Article and the Substantive. This 
is common enough, and especially so in 1 and 2 Peter. So # rob 
Beod paxpoOuuia (1 Pet. 3:20); 1:17; 2:15, 3:1. See in partic- 
ular demonstrative pronouns like 79 éxelvov xdpite (Tit. 3:7). 
Plato (Soph., 254a) has ra rijs trav rod\dGv Yuoxijs duuara. For a 
series of such genitives in this position see 6— xdcpos (1 Pet. 3: 3). 
For adjective and genitive see 3:4, 6 kpumros Tis Kapdias avOpwros. 
Cf. Mt. 12:31; 1 Pet.'5:1. -In1 Pet..4:14 the article’ is -re- 
peated, 76 rijs d0&s kal 7d Tod Oeod rrvedua. See also Jo. 1:40, 
TGV OVO TOV AKoVaaVYTOV. 

2. Genitive after the Substantive without Repetition of the Ar- 
ticle.2 This is even more common. Thus tov dor rdv ’Iovéaiwy 
(Jo. 20 : 19), ris ayamns Tod Geod (Ro. 8:39). Cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; Ro. 
8:2;1Th.1:3. Sometimes the two types are combined, thus 
h émiyeos Huy oikia tod oxnvovs (2 Cor. 5:1), THs T&v atocTO\wy 
buav évtoAs TOD Kuplov Kal cwrhpos (2 Pet. 3:2). The personal pro- 
nouns illustrate either order except that you is nearly always out- 
side (but see rév matpixdv pov mapaddcewv, Gal. 1:14, and & 77 
TpwTy wou atodoyia, 2 Tim. 4:16); either, as is usual, 6 xipids wou 
(Jo. 20 : 28) or you rots dfOaduots (Jo. 9:11). We find 79 airod 
xapite (Ro. 3:24) and rév adv attod (Mt. 1:21) and airod ev rF 
ayaryn (Jo. 15:10.. Cf. 9:6; 11:32), rav éavrot aidAnv (Lu. 11: 
21) and rHv capka éavtod (Gal. 6:8), tiv yeveav thy éavtod (Lu. 16: 
8) and é€avtav ra tuatia (Mt. 21:8). Cf. also 76 dvoua cov (Mt. / 
6:9), 7 de&a cov xeip (Mt. 5:30; but not 5:29. Cf. also 1 Tim. 
5:23), cov tHv kedadynv (Mt. 6:17), tov dprov judy (6:11), buar 
tov épyou (1 Th. 1:3), tiv buav ayarny (Col. 1:8), etc. With the 
partitive the usual (but see Jo. 6:70; 9:16, 40) position is this: 
70 Tpitov THs yas (Rev. 8:7). Cf. 1.Cor. 15:9. 

1 Cf. K.-G., I, p. 597; Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 49, 
2 Blass, Gr. of N, T. Gki, ,p.-159, , 


780 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3. Repetition of Article with Genitive. The genitive may fol- 
low the other substantive with a repeated article. Here the ar- 
ticle closely resembles the original demonstrative. So 6 ddyos 6 
700 oravpod (1 Cor. 1:18), 76 ee 7G Mwvoéws (Ac. 15:1), Hv bida- 
oxaNtay tiv Tod owripos nuay (Tit. 2:10). This construction is 
not very common.! 

4. The Article Only with Genitive. Cf. é£ovcias xal émitpomijs 
Ths Tov apxvepewy (Ac. 26:12). Cf. Ac. 1:12, dpous 70d, with Lu. 
19 : 29, 7d dpos 76. Here again the article is almost pure demon- 
strative as in Jas. 1:25, vouov rérXeov tov Tis edevOepias =‘ perfect 
law, that of liberty.’ Volker (Syntaz, p. 16) finds abundant illus- 
trations of these positions in the papyri. So with proper names 
like Mapia 4 ‘IaxwBou (Mk. 15:40), Aaveld rov rod ’lecoai (Ac. 
13 3:22); eter, CihaMt. 4: 21° 

5. Article Absent with Both. The genitive may still be attribu- 
tive and both substantives definite. Cf. rida: adov (Mt. 16 : 18), 
onuetov repttouns (Ro. 4:11), vouov ricrews (3 : 27), etc. The con- 
text must decide whether the phrase is definite or not. Cf. Oeod 
vids (Mt. 27: 54), evepyecia avOpwrov (Ac. 4:9). 

6. The Correlation of the Article. In such cases, according to 
Middleton,? if two substantives are united by the genitive, the 
article occurs with both or is absent from both.? But note (H. 
Scott) that (1) the genitive may be anarthrous if it is a proper 
name, (2) the governing noun may be anarthrous if it depends 
on a preposition. The normal type may be well illustrated by 
TO vouw Ths amaptias (Ro. 7:23) and vouw ayaprias (7:25). The 
genitive duaprias is an abstract noun which may or may not have 
the article. But vouw is definite in either instance in ‘the law of 
sin.’ See again 76 vouw rod beod (7: 22) and vouw beod (7: 25). Oeds 
can be definite with or without the article. So, again, 76 ¢povnyua 
Tov mvevuaros (8:6) and mvedua Oeod, rvedua Xprorod (8:9), duorwpare 
capkos (8:3) and 7d ¢povnua tas capkos (8:6). Cf. also 6 vouds Tod 
mvevpatos THs CwHs (8:2), tiv EXevOepiay THs doéns Tav TéKYwV TOD Deod 
(8:21), rHv dwpedy Tod ayiov mvebyatos (Ac. 2:38), BiBdos yevécews 
*"Incod Xpiorod (Mt. 1:1). Cf.1Th.1:3; Rev. 1:1. These ex- 
amples could be multiplied indefinitely. If one member of the 
group is a proper name, the article does not always appear. So 
TH ExkAnoia Occoadovixewy (1 Th. 1:1), but rats exxAnolas rs Tada- 
tias (Gal. 1:2). Note also cod rarpds judy (Eph. 1: 2) and 6 6eds 

+ Blass, Gr, of Noel, Gk. p, tog, 


2 The Doctrine of the Gk. Art., 1833. Cf. Mk. 10:25 W.H. text and marg. 
® Cf. W. F, Moulton’s remarks, W.-M., pp. 146, 174, 175. 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 781 


kal maThp TOD Kupiou nuady (1:3). Cf. also 76 épyov Kupiov (Ph. 2:30), 
To Tve}ua Xpiorod (1 Pet. 1:11; cf. Ac. 16:7). Such examples as 
these with proper names are after all ‘‘very rare.”’! See Mt. 1: 
12; 16:18; Ac. 2:38; Rev.:12:17. Then again other phrases 
otherwise definite do not require the article. So the prepositional 
phrase é& de&a rod deod (Ro. 8:34; cf. Heb. 1:3), but note 77 
de&ta Tod Oeod (Ac. 2:33). In general, where the word without the 
article is not otherwise definite, it is indefinite even when the other 
one has the article. One is indefinite, the other definite. So 
apxnyv Tov onueiwy (Jo. 2:11)=‘a beginning of miracles.’ In Mk. 1: 
1, apx} Tod ebayyediov ‘Incod Xpiorod, the notion may be the same, 
though here apx7 is more absolute as the title of the book. In 
Ro. 3 : 25 it is possible to take els &derEw Tijs duxacocvyns avrod= ‘for 
a showing of his righteousness,’ while in 3 : 26 rpds thy Boeck ris 
dtxacoobyyns avrod may refer to the previous mention of it as a more 
definite conception. Compare also rv Tod bod dixavocbyny (Ro. 10: 
3) and dtxatoovvn Oeod (3 : 21), where, however, as in 1:17, the idea 
may be, probably is, ‘a righteousness of God,’ not ‘the righteous- 
ness of God.’ In examples like this (cf. #e06 vids, Mt. 27: 54) only 
the context can decide. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful. 
Cf. vids avOpmmov (Heb. 2 : 6) and roy vidv 70d avOpwmov (Mt. 16 : 13). 
In an example like didxovos to} Xprotod (Col. 1:7), therefore, the 
idea is a minister of the Christ, not the minister of Christ. So cdpa- 
ytda THs duxacoctvns (Ro. 4:11), ardornre THs Kowwvias (2 Cor. 9:13). 
Hence vids rod deod (Mt. 4:3, 6; Lu. 4:3) and 6 vids 70d Oeod (Jo. 
1:49; Mt. 16:16; Jo. 11 : 27) do not mean the same thing. The 
devil is represented as admitting that Jesus is a son of God, not 
the Son of God. In Jo. 5:25 Jesus claims 6érz of vexpot axovcovow 
Ths pwris ToD viod rod Beod. In Jo. 10:36 Jesus uses argumentum 
ad hominem and only claims to be vids tod deod. Cf. the sneer of 
the passers-by in Mt. 27:40 (W. H.), vids rod e080, and the demand 
of Caiaphas in 26 : 63, 6 vids rod Oeod. In Jo. 5:27 vids avOpwrov 
may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’ Cf. a simi- 
lar ambiguity in the Aramaic barnasha. The point may become 
very fine indeed. Cf. ravrds avépos 7) Kepad) 6 Xprotds and Kedar} 
yuvatkos 6 avnp (1 Cor. 11:3). At any rate man is not affirmed to 
be woman’s head in quite the same sense that Christ is man’s 
head. But see also xefadi tod Xprorod 6 Oeds. In these examples 
the anarthrous substantive is predicate as is the case with davyp 
éotw Kedar) THs Yuvatkos ws Kal 6 Xproros Kehadh Tis exkAnolas (Eph. 
5:23). Hence the matter is not to be stressed here, as another 
1 W.-M., footnote, p. 146. 


782 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


principle comes into play. It is possible also that the qualita- 
tive force of anarthrous nouns comes in here (Eph. 5 : 23, xedady 
Tis yuvatxds, Kepadr) THs ExKAnolas, TwTHP TOD gwuaTos). See VII, (J). 
Cf. evo. rev diabykdv rhs érayyedtas (Eph. 2:12). So éopry radv 
‘Toviaiwy (Jo. 5: 1)=‘a feast of the Jews,’ apxwv radv ’lovéaiwy (3 : 
1). Cf. Ac. 6:1. Cf. Bamriopa peravoias eis Adeow auapriay (Mk. 
1:4) and eis ddeow tv duapridyv budv (Ac. 2:38), els Kowwviay rod 
' viod (1 Cor. 1:9), prepositional phrase. But enough of a some- 
what thorny subject.? 

(c) Wira ApsuNcTs oR ADVERBS. In general the same usage 
applies to adjuncts as to adjectives. 

1. Between the Article and the Noun. Thus 4 a@vw kdjors (Ph. 
3:14), P Kar’ ExdoyHv rpdects (Ro. 9 : 11), 4} rap’ Euod diaOyKn (11: 27), 
6 & edaxloTw adtxos (Lu. 16:10), trav & 7S 6G ObOady@ Soxov (Mt. 
7:3), of & mepitoujs motot (Ac. 10:45), rats mpdrepov év TH ayvoia 
duav érOupias (1 Pet. 1:14). Cf. Ro. 2 : 27. 

2. Article Repeated Thus ravtwy trav omeppatwv trav ent rtijs 
yns (Mk. 4:31), aé dvvduers ati év rots odpavots (13:25), rHs aodv- 
Tpwoews THs &Y Xpiot@ *Inood (Ro. 3:24), ra mwabquata ta dua Tod 
vouov (7:5), » &rod} H es Cwhv (7:10). See further Mt. 5:16; 
Lut 20% 35; Joss 45; Acisrels e245 1265 4 Roms eee 50. 
15): 265° 16ntb a iGorw2 oh i eA ol ieee Cor ee Oe 
Ph 3:9; leh 8 se Tim1 314 Revab abs lene Oot cae bir 
Eph. 1:15 we find both constructions r7v Kal’ buds riotw Kal rHv 
eis Tavtas Tovs aylovs. In Rev. 8:3 (9:13), 7d OvcvacrHpiov 76 xpv- 
govv TO évwriov Tod Opovov, the article is repeated with both adjec- 
tive and adjunct. 

3. Only with Adjunct. So olxovouiay Oe0d tiv év riore (1 Tim. 
1:4), dcxacoobvny rHv &k Tictews (Ro. 9 : 30); ev ayarn TH &y XpiorS 
*Incod (2 Tim. 1:18). For numerous classic illustrations of these 
three positions see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 285 ff. 

4. Only with the Noun. In such cases the adjunct may be either 
attributive or predicate. Only the context can decide. In conver- 
sation the tone of voice, the manner, the inflection make clear 
what in written speech is ambiguous. Still in most instances in 
the N. T. the point is plain.? The cases here dealt with are those 
that occur without other defining phrases. In Eph. 6:5 some 
MSS. read rots xvpiows kata capxa. So in Lu.16:10 we find both 6 
év €XaxloTw adixos and 6 mares év EXaxloTw. I see no point in Blass’ 

1 Gh KGa pe edrt | | 


2 Cf. W.-Th., p. 133, for long list of exx. 
’ Ib., pp. 135 ff.; W.-Sch., p. 179 f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159 f. 


THE ARTICLE: (TO "APOPON) 783 


remark! that “the closely connected predicative clause could not 
be severed by the insertion of the article.” The article could easily 
have been repeated or the same order preserved in both clauses. 
It is much simpler and truer to say that the need of another article 
was not felt. The same remark applies to rots Xovatos ev TO viv 
aiéve (1 Tim. 6:17), r&v aredotvtwv & rH Tovéaia (Ro. 15 : 31), rov 
"Iopand Kata capxa (1 Cor. 10:18), ra evn & capxi (Eph. 2:11), 
Tov évToh\ov ev Soymacw (2:15), 6 dé€omos ev xupiw (4:1), of vexpot év 
XpiorG (1 Th. 4:16), ris xowwvias eis abrovs (2 Cor. 9:18), rov 
doxiuov €v Xptord (Ro. 16:10), of xouunOevres ev XprorS (1 Cor. 15: 
18). Cf. Ph. 1:1. In Col. 1:4, rHv riotrw tydv & Xpiord, and 
Ph. 4:19, 76 rdodros ai’rot év d6& &v Xpicrd *Inood, more than 
one adjunct occurs outside the article. Cf. Eph. 3:4,138. Blass? 
considers this idiom peculiar to the N. T., but pertinent examples 
are cited? from Herodotus V, 108, 7 ayyeNia repi trav LDapdiwr, 
Thucydides, II, 52. 1, ete. The vernacular character of the N. T. 
diction renders it more frequent. It is not common in classic 
Greek. 

5. When Several Adjuncts Occur. “It often becomes inconve- 
rient and clumsy to insert all of these between the article and the 
substantive.”’> Even so, but at bottom the matter does not differ 
in principle from the examples above. We have seen the same 
freedom with a second attributive adjective (cf. Mt. 24:45). 
See a good example of two adjuncts in Eph. 1:15, ry kad’ buds 
miotw év TO kuply “Inood. The first attribute may be adjective, 
genitive, adverb or adjunct. So 70 xa’ judy xerpoypadoy rots 
doyuaow (Col. 2 : 14), ris éufjs wapovcias wadw mpods buds (Ph. 1: 26), 
THhv €k Oeod Sixacoolyynv éexl TH TioTe (3:9), THY EuY dvactpopHy ToTeE 
év 7 “lovoatoud (Gal. 1:13). Cf. Ph. 1:5. The article and the 
participle readily yield examples like 6 kata odd dvayervjoas eis 
édrida (1 Pet. 1:3), rods & duvamer Oe0d ppovpovpévouvs bia mioTews 
(1:5). But sometimes the several adjuncts (cf. adjectives and 
genitives) are inserted between the article and the substantive. 
So ris &v TH Koouw ev erBuuia POopds (2 Pet. 1:4). Cf. Ac. 21: 
28. For similar position of several genitives and adjuncts see 
2 Pet. 2:7; Lu.-1:70. In particular note Ro. 16:17 for the 
various phrases between ro’s and zro.wtyras. Note the many ad- 
_ juncts in Ro. 8:25f. See further v1, (a), 6. 


Tear OLN eh cake Dis LOUs 

2 Ib., p. 159. 3 W.-Sch., p. 180. 

4 The three regular positions are common. Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 286. 
5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 160. 


784 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


6. Phrases of Verbal Origin. Phrases that are consciously verbal 
in origin readily do without the repeated article.1 So in Ro. 6:3 
we have els rov Oavarov aitod éBarricOnuey and in the next verse we 
read ovveradnuey atT@ 61a Tod Barriopatos els Tov Oavarov. It is plain, 
therefore, that here eis tov Oavarov is to be construed with Barricua- 
ros, not with cuveradnuev. In other examples the verbal construction 
appears in other contexts. It is, however, possible that the usage 
with the verb renders the anarthrous construction more frequent. 
So Ph. 1: 26, 77s €ufis rapovcias radu mpds buds, May be compared with 
mapetvar pos vuas (Gal. 4:20). Cf. also ra@juata brep (Col. 1: 24) 
with racxew brép (1 Pet. 2:21), O\iWeow brep (Eph. 3:18) with 
O.Boucba brep (2 Cor. 1:6). The classic idiom shows similar 
examples.? 

7. Exegetical Questions. Sometimes it is quite important for 
doctrinal reasons to be careful to note whether the adjunct is 
attributive or predicate. Thus in Ro. 8:3, karéxpive THv duapriav 
év 7H capkl, if &v TH capki is attributive with ayuapriay, there is a defi- 
nite assertion of sin in the flesh of Jesus. But if the phrase is 
predicate and is to be construed with xarexpive, no such statement 
is made. Here the grammarian is helpless to decide the point. 
The interpreter must step in and appeal to the context or other 
passages for light. One conversant with Paul’s theology will feel 
sure that é capxi is here meant to be taken as predicate. The 
same ambiguity arises in verse 2, 6 vouos tod rvebuatos THs Cwhs 
XpicTt@ Hnrevlepwoev oe ATO TOV vO“ou THS GuapTias Kai TOD Oavarov. Here 
it is reasonably clear that é Xpiord is predicate with 7rebépwoer. 
So in Ro. 3:25 probably & 76 airod atuart, as well as eis evderéw is 
predicate with zpoéero. Another example from Romans is found 
in 5:8, where eis judas belongs to cvvicrnow, not ayarnv. So in 
Jo. 15:11 é& styty is construed with 7, not 7 éu7. For further 
illustration see Ac. 22:18; 1 Cor. 2:7; 9:18; Eph. 2:7; 3:12; 
§::263.Phits 14329 3Coleig GO aRhile20* Hebeelsan 20) 

8. Anarthrous Attributives. Examples occur also of attribu- 
tives when the article is absent from both substantive and ad- 
junct. Thus dvOpwrov tudddv ék yeverfs (Jo. 2:1), avOpwiros ev 
mvevmate axabaptw (Mk. 1:23), xapa ev mvebuare ayiw (Ro. 14:17), 
ére kal’ brepBody dddv (1 Cor. 12:31), ete. Note in particular 
2 Cor. 11:23, 27. The older Greek furnishes illustration of this 
idiom. | 

1 W.-Th., p. 136; W.-Sch., p. 180. 


2, W.-Sch., p. 180. 
3 Ib. But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 159) doubts it. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) 785 


(d) SevERAL ATTRIBUTIVES WITH Kai. 

1. Several Epithets Applied to the Same Person or Thing. See 
already under vi, (a), 4. Usually only one article is then used. 
For classic examples see Gildersleeve, Syntaz, p. 330. So, for in- 
stance, 6 radalrwpos kal édevvds Kal TIWKOs Kal TUPNOs Kal yuuvds (Rev. 
3:17). This is the normal idiom in accord with ancient usage. So 
Mk. 6:3 6 vids 7Hs Mapias kai ddeddds laxwBov, Lu. 6 : 49 6 6€ axobcas 
Kal py tornoas, Ac. 3:14 rov ay.ov xal dixaov, Jas. 3:9 rov Kiprov 
kal matépa, 2 Pet. 2:20 (3:2) rod xupiov cal owrfpos, 1 Tim. 4:3 
Tots motos Kat éreyvwxoor. Cf. also Gal. 1:7; Eph. 6:21; 1 Tim. 
6:15; Heb. 3:1; Rev. 1:9 (both 6 and 79). When a second 
article does occur, it accents sharply a different aspect of the 
person or phase of the subject. So in Rev.1:17 6 rpé&ros xai 6 
éaxatos, kai 6 (Hv, one article would have been sufficient, but would 
have obscured the separate affirmations here made. Cf. also 76 
"Adda kat 76 °Q in 1:8; 21:6. In Jo. 21:24 W. H. read 6 pwaprupav 
meplt TouTwy Kal 6 ypawas tadra, but they bracket xat 6. The second 
article is very doubtful. A similar superfluity of the second ar- 
ticle appears in the second 7 (brackets W. H.) in Ac. 17:19, 
and in the second 76 in 1 Pet.4:14, 76 rijs dofns Kal 7d Tod Oeod 
mvedua (due probably to the second genitive to emphasize each). 
So Jo. 1:40. See pp. 762, 782. Outside of special cases like these 
only one article is found when several epithets are applied to the 
same person. The presence of a genitive with the group of words 
does not materially alter the construction. The genitive may occur 
with either substantive and apply to both.! So 6 Oeéds xat raryp 
quav (1 Th. 3:11) and rod kupiov judy cat owrfpos (2 Pet. 1:11). 
As a matter of fact such genitives (see above) occur either inside 
or outside of the regimen of the article. Cf.7 6€6 xat rarpl qudv 
(Ph. 4 : 20), 6 Oeds kai rarjnp rod Kkupiov nuav (1 Pet. 1:3; 2 Cor. 
1:3; Eph. 1:3). The presence of jyudv with xvpiov does not 
affect the construction any more than the use of xvpiou itself or 
juav above. In Ph. 3:3 one adjunct comes before one participle, 
the other after the other participle, but only one article occurs. 
A most important passage is 2 Pet. 1:1, tod 6c0d qudy xal owrijpos 
’"Inood Xprorod. Curiously enough Winer? endeavours to draw a 
distinction between this passage, ‘‘where there is not even a pro- 
noun with owrfpos’”’ and the identical construction in 2 Pet. 1:11, 
Tov Kuplov Huav Kal swrtHpos *Incod Xprorod, which he cites? as an 
example of “‘merely predicates of the same person.” Stranger 


1 Cf, W.-Sch., p. 155. 
2 W.-Th., p. 130. 3 Ib., p. 126. 


786 A GRAMMAR OF THE’ GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


still, he bases his objection on doctrinal grounds, a matter that 
does not. per se concern the grammarian. The matter is handled 
in Winer-Schmiedel,! where it is frankly admitted that the con- 
struction in 2 Pet. 1:1 is the same as that in 1:11 and also in 
2:20;.3:2, 18. Schmiedel says also that “grammar demands 
that one person be meant.” In Ju. 4, 7dv povoy deorornv Kal Kbptov 
Auav “Inootv Xpiorov, the same point holds, but the fact that 
kbpios is so often anarthrous like a proper name slightly weakens 
it. The same remark applies also to 2 Th. 1:12, 70d dc0d judy 
Kat kupiov *Incod Xpiorod, and Eph. 5:5, & rq Baoidrela rod Xpictrod 
kal Oeod (since Oeod often occurs without the article). One person 
may be described in these three examples; but they are not so 
clear as the type 700 xupiov judy Kal owrfpos (2 Pet. 1:1, 11). In 
Tit. 2:13, rod peyadou bed Kal owrhpos nudv Xpicrod "Incod, it is 
almost certain that one person is again described. Cf. also ry 
pakaplay édrida Kal éripavecay THs 60&ns, where the one article unites 
closely the two substantives. Moulton? quotes most pertinently 
papyri examples of vii/a.p., which show that among Greek-speak- 
ing Christians ‘‘our great God and Saviour” was a current form 
of speech as well as the Ptolemaic formula, rod peyadouv Geod 
evepyérou Kal awrhpos (G. H. 15, ii/B.c.). He cites also Wendland’s 
argument? that the rival rendering in Titus is as great an ‘‘ex- 
egetical mistake”’ as to make two persons in 2 Pet. 1:1. Moul- 
ton’s conclusion‘ is clear enough to close the matter: “ Familiarity 
with the everlasting apotheosis that flaunts itself in the papyri 
and inscriptions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times lends strong 
support to Wendland’s contention that Christians, from the latter 
part of i/A.p. onward, deliberately annexed for their divine Master 
the phraseology that was impiously arrogated to themselves by 
some of the worst of men.” | 

2. When to be Distinguished. Then the article is repeated. So 
Mt. 23:2 of ypauparets cal of Papicatn, Mk. 2:18 of padnral 
"Twavou kal of Papioator, 6 : 21 rots weyrotaow abrod Kal Tots xudLapyxots 
Kal. Tots mpwtots, 11:9 of mpoayovres kal of dxodovOodyres, 11 : 18 (cf. 
14:43) of dpxepets Kal of ypauparets, Mk. 12:13 trav Papicaiwy 
kat. trav ‘“Hpwocavdv, Lu. 11:39 rod rornpiov kal rod rivaxos, 15:6 
tovs didrovs kai todbs yeltovas, 23:4 Tods apxuepets Kal tobs dxdous, 
Jo. 4:37 6 oreipwr Kal 6 Oepifwr, 1 Cor. 3:8 6 dutebwy kal 6 roTitwr, 
Jas. 3:11 7d yduxd kal 76 mixpdv, Ac. 26:30 6 Bacideds kal 6 Hyeuer, 
Rev. 18 : 20 of Gyo kal'oi améaroNo Kal of rpopfra. Cf. Rev. 11:4; 


ed cA BSS}. 3 On Lwrp in ZNTW, v. 335 f. 
2 Prol., p. 84. 4 Prol., p. 84. 


THE ARTICLE (TO “APOPON) — 7837 


13:16; 2 Th. 1:8. The list can be extended almost indefinitely.! 
But these are examples of the same number, gender and case. 
Nor have I referred to abstract words of quality like the list in 
Rev. 7:12, or examples like tas cuvaywyds kal tas apxds Kal tds 
éfoucias (Lu. 12:11). It is not contended that these groups are 
all absolutely distinct (cf. of ypauparets cal of Papicator), but that 
they are treated as separate. Even with the scribes and Pharisees 
they did not quite coincide. Cf. Mt. 21:45; Ac. 11:6. The use 
of another attributive may’ sometimes be partly responsible for 
two articles. So Lu. 8:24 76 dveuw cal 7G kdVdwrr Tod bdaros, Mk. 
2:18 of pabyntal “Iwavov Kal of Papicator, 11:15 ras tparevas Trav 
Ko\AuBioTay Kal Tas Kabedpas Tv twdAovvTwv. Cf. also Lu. 20 : 20; 
AGwizo slo peGoreLinon2s  Revints +10: 
— 3. Groups Treated as One. Sometimes groups more or less dis- 
tinct are treated as one for the purpose in hand, and hence use 
only one article. Cf. ras didas kal yeitovas (Lu. 15 : 9), rods voutxovs 
kat Papioaious (14: 3), ras wAarelas kal pluas (14: 21), rdv rpecBuTepwvr 
kat ypaypatewy (Mk. 15:1), rdv ’Emxoupiwy cal Lrwudv (Ac. 17: 
18), taév Papicaiwy kal Laddovkaioy (Ac. 23:7), rdv amocrdd\wy kal 
tpodyntav (Eph. 2:20), 77 arodoyia Kal BeBavwoer Tod evayyeXtov 
(Ph. 1:7), 7d wAdros kal piixos Kal Babos cat bYos (Eph. 3:18), ry 
KAjow Kat éxroynv (2 Pet. 1:10). Cf. rnv in Tit. 2:13. So in Mt. 
17: 1(W. H. text) we have rov IHerpov kai TaxwBov Kai ’Iwavnv, where 
the three are one group: This is probably more frequent in ex- 
amples where. a genitive occurs also, or some other attribute.? 
So Ph. 1:20 riv aroxapadoxiay kat €drida wou, 1:19 ris bud denoews 
Kal ér-xopnyias TOU mretpatos, 2:17 TH Ovoia Kal NeLTOUPYla Tis TidTEws. 
Ciralsouleth: 2212-32 7 Mt 24): 3; Row) +20: Col. 2 : 8s Eph: 
De eee Oleh 0; 1 Pet. 2: 25. Ph. 1:25. These are all the simplest 
“aitil clearest Hiiserationsy 

4. Point of View. Obviously, Feats whether one or more 
articles are to be used depends on the point of view of the speaker 
or writer. In geographical terms the matter of freedom is well 
illustrated. Thus inl Th. 1:7 we have & 7H Makedovia kai ev TH 
’Axaia, while in the very next verse we meet év 77 Makxedovig xal 
"Axaia asin Ac. 19:21. These two Roman provinces are distinct, 
but adjacent. Cf. also rijs "Iovéaias cal Lapapias (Ac. 8:1; cf. 1: 
8), ris “lovdalas cal TadtAaias cal Lapyapias (9 : 31), where these sec- 
tions of Palestine are treated together. Cf. Ac. 27:5. In Ac. 
15:3 note rhv re Powixny kal Layapiav, the two sections treated 
together are not even contiguous. _In Ac. 15 : 23, kara tiv ’ Avtid- 

1 Cf. W.-Th., p. 128. 2 W.Sch., p. 156 f. ‘ 


788 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


xevav kai Dupiav cal Kiduxiav, we have a city grouped with two coun- 
tries (as in Lu. 5:17; Mt. 4:25), while in 15:41 we meet rv 
Lupiav kal rHv Kidscxiay (W. H. text). Hence no absolute conclu- 
sions can be drawn from the one article in Ac. 16 : 6, 7Hv Bpvyiay 
kal adarixyy xwpav (cf. reverse order in 18 : 23) as to the separate- 
ness! of the terms ‘‘Phrygia”’ and “Galatic region.”’ Cf. also 
Lu. 3:1, ras "Irovpatas cai Tpaxwvitidos xwpas. But the matter is 
not wholly whimsical. In Ac. 2:9 f. note the ryv with Meoo- 
motapiav, Which stands alone, while we have also Ilovrov kal rHv 
’Aciav, probably because the province of Asia (not Asia Minor as 
a whole) is meant. Then again we meet 7a pépn tis ArBins THs KaTa 
Kupnrynv, because of the details stated. In Ac. 6:9 the use of ray 
twice divides the synagogues into two groups (men from Cilicia 
and Asia on the one hand, men from Alexandria, Cyrene and 
Libertines (?) on the other). The matter is simple geography but 
for ArBeprivwy, and may be after all if we only knew what that 
term means. See Winer-Schmiedel, p. 158. Cf. also Rev. 14:7, 
where two words have articles and two do not, and Ac. 15 : 20, 
where three words in the list have articles and one, zvxrod, does 
not. So in Ac. 13:50 we have rov Tladdov xat B., while in 15:2 
we find 76 II. xal 76 B. Then (cf. 4) in Mt. 17:1 observe the one 
article with Peter, James and John, while in Heb. 11:20 we see 
ev\oynoev "Ioadk tov "laxwB8 xat rov "Hoad. The articles here empha- 
size the distinction between subject and object, as in Mt. 1 : 2-16. 
Cf. also rév am. xal r&v mp. (Ac. 15 : 4) and of az. xai of zp. (15 : 6) 
with 7&v am. kal mp. trav (16:4). . 

5. Difference in Number. If the words combined differ in 
number, usually each one has its own article. The reason is that 
they generally fall into separate classes. So 6 avaywwoxwy xal ot 
axovovres (Rev. 1:3), rijs capxds kai rdv davordy (Eph. 2:3), rH 
aoéBevav Kal Tas Koomixas érOuulas (Tit. 2:12). But one article may 
also be found, as in 76 koopw kal ayyédors Kal avOpwmo.s (1 Cor. 4: 9). 
Here, however, the anarthrous words “ particularize the 74 xécpw.’’? 
Yet in 1 Jo. 2:16 way 76 év 7G Koop is “particularized” by three 
words each with the article. 

6. Difference in Gender. So, if the gender is different, there is 
likewise usually the repetition of the article. Cf. Ac. 17:18 rév 
‘Inootv kal riv avacraow, Mt. 22:4 of radpoi pov kal ra owticta, Lu. 
10:21 rot obpavod cai rhs yas, Ac. 13:50 tas evoynuovas Kai todls 
mpwtouvs, Ro. 8:2 rhs auaprias cal rod Oavarov, Col. 4:1 76 dixacop 


1 Cf. W. M. Ramsay, Expos., 1895, July, pp. 29-40, 
3 W.-Th., p. 127. ; Ree) 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 789 


kal thy icdtnta, Eph. 2:1 rots rapartmpacw kal tats duaprtiats, 
Heb. 3:6 riv rappnciav xat 7d xabynua. Though usual, the re- 
peated article is not necessary.! See ras dd0vs kal dpayyots (Lu. 
14 : 23), r&v ddAoKavTwUaTwv Kai Ovordv (Mk. 12 : 33), ra Evradpara Kal 
ddacxadias (Col. 2 : 22). 

If indeed the words differ in both gender and number, in that 
case it is still more customary to have separate articles. Cf., 
for instance, Lu. 14:26, rov marépa éavrod Kal tiv pntépa Kal Thy 
yuvatka Kal Ta Texva Kal Tos ddeAdols Kal Tas ddeAdas. So also Ac. 
1p 4 20 8 2G aC Olni2): lovee amy, 2d Revs 27194 The 
papyri illustrate the N. T. usage of the article with several sub- 
stantives (cf. Volker, Syntax, p. 20). So 6 #duos kal cednvn, Pap. L, 
Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 195. 9. 

7. With Disjunctive Particle. If a disjunctive preposition be 
used, there will naturally be separate articles (even when kai is 
the connective), whatever be true about number and gender. So 
metatd Tod vaod Kal Tod Ovotacrnpiov (Mt. 23:35=Lu. 11:51). So 
when the conjunction 7 occurs as in Tov vouov 7} Tobs tpodyras (Mt. 
5:17), 76 warpi 7 TH wnrpi (15: 5), 76 cxoTos 7 TO HGs (Jo. 3:19), 
iro TOV mod.ov 7 bd THY KAWhY (Mk. 4: 21), 73 AaG 7H Tots Beor (Ac. 
28:17). Blass? makes the point that outside of Ac. 14:5, trav 
eOvav te kai Jovdaiwy, we generally find the repeated article with 
te kai. Even here ’Iovéaiwy as a proper name does not need the 
- article. Cf. Iovéatwy re cat ‘EXAjvwy in 14:1, but 6 re orparnyos 
kal of apxvepe’s (5 : 24) with difference in number also. 

VII. Position with Predicates. It is not the use of the article 
with the predicate noun, like ot7ds éoriv 6 KAnpovouos (Mk. 12:7), 
that is here before us. That point has already been discussed 
under v, (7). When the article occurs with the substantive, but 
not with the adjective, the result is the equivalent of a relative 
clause. Cf. pweyadrn dwrq (Ac. 14:10) and gwri weyadn (7: 57) = 
‘with a loud voice,’ with peyadn 7H dwr7 (26: 24)=‘with the voice 
elevated.’ See also dvaxexaduppéevw tmpoowmw (2 Cor. 3: 18)=‘with 
unveiled face’ and dxataxad\itTw 7H Kepady (1 Cor. 11 : 5)=‘with 
the head unveiled.’ Cf. Mk. 3:1, e€&npauperny Exwv thy xeEtpa. 
Other examples are retwpwyerny tiv Kapdiav (Mk. 8:17), trav waptv- 
piav peifw (Jo. 5:36), riv ayarny éextevn (1 Pet. 4:8), tiv avacrpodiy 
kadnv (2:12), amapaBarov tiv iepwovvnv (Heb. 7: 24), ra aicOnrnpra 
vyeyupvacpeva (5:14). In all these and similar examples the point 
is quite different from that of the attributive position of the article. 
Most of the instances occur with éxw. Note the absence of the 

1 Tb. 25Gr. of Nz Lb. Gk. p. 163; 


790 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


article with aroypad} mpwrn (Lu. 2: 2) because it is in the pred- 
icate. Cf. rodro adnOes eipnxas (Jo. 4:18). The position of airy 
Th Kadouuern (Lu. 1:36) may be noted. D in Mk.7: 5 reads xoi- 
vais tats xepoiv.: Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 292) considers this 
use of the predicate position “a gnomon of artificial style’’ out- 
side of the more simple combinations. See also Milden, The 
Limitations of the Predicative Position in Greek (1900, p. 43). It. 
is noticeable in prepositional phrases, as in Xen., Anab., 1, 3, 14, 
dud diAlas THS Xwpas. . 

VIII. The Absence of the Article. I do not care to use the 
term ‘‘omission”’ in connection with the article. That word im- 
plies that the article ought to be present. As has been already 
shown, the article is not the only means of showing that a word is 
definite. This luxury in language did not become indispensable. 
The servant never became master. There remained in the classic 
period many parallel phrases which were intelligible without the 
article. Indeed, new phrases came into use by analogy without 
the article. I do not think it is necessary to devote so much space 
to this phase of the subject as is done in most grammars. Most 
of the cases have already come up for discussion in one way or 
another. It is sufficient here to give a résumé of the chief idioms 
in the N. T. which are without the article and are still definite. 
Much of the modern difficulty about the absence of the Greek 
article is due to the effort to interpret it by the standard of the 
English or German article. So Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 119) 
speaks of ‘‘appellatives, which as expressing definite objects should 
have the article’! Even Gildersleeve, in discussing the ‘‘Absence 
of the Article” (note the phrase, Syntax, p. 259), says that ‘ prep- 
ositional phrases and other formule may dispense with the ar- 
ticle as in the earlier language,’ and he adds ‘‘but anaphora or 
contrast may bring back the article at any time and there is no 
pedantical uniformity.”’ Admirably said, except ‘dispense with”’ 
and “bring back,” dim ghosts of the old grammar. Moulton? 
cites Jo. 6: 68, pnuata fwHs aiwviov, which should be translated 
‘words of eternal life’ (as marg. of R. V.). There are indeed “few 
of the finer points of Greek which need more constant attention’’’ 
than the absence of the article. ‘The word may be either definite 
or indefinite when the article is absent. The context and history 
of the phrase in question must decide. The translation of the 
expression into English or German is not determined by the mere 


1 Blass, Groot N. T. Gk., p. 316. 
2 Prol., p. 83. 2alb: 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON).. 791 


absence of the Greek article. If the word is indefinite, as in Jo. 
4:27; 6:68, no article, of course, occurs. But the article is ab- 
sent in a good many definite phrases also. It is about these that 
a few words further are needed. A brief summary of the various 
types of anarthrous definite phrases is given.! A sane treatment 
of the subject occurs in Winer-Schmiedel.? 

(a) WitH Proper Namgs.. Here the article is used or not at the 
will of the writer. So rov *Incoty dv Iatydos xnptoce (Ac. 19: 13), 
but rov Ilad\ov in verse 15. The reason is apparent in these three 
examples. Words in apposition with proper names are usually 
anarthrous. Cf. Mt.3:6=Mk. 1:5. See further v,.(a), 3. 

(b) WitrH GeENITIVES. We have seen: that the substantive 
may still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so. 
Cf. ridac adov (Mt. 16 : 18), avacracis vexpdv (Ac. 23 : 6), xapute Oeod 
(1 Cor. 15:10), A\éyov Geos (1 Th. 2:13), rornpiov xvpiov (1 Cor. 
10:21), vié dia8ddov (Ac. 13:10), etc. In particular, personal 
pronouns in the genitive were not always felt to need the article. 
Cf. Kirov éavrod (Lu. 13:19). See further v, (h), The LXX uses 
this idiom freely (Blass-Debrunner, p. 151). English can show the 
same construction. 


“Kye of newt and toe of frog, 
Wool of bat and tongue of dog, 
Adder’s fork and blind worm’s sting, 
Lizard’s leg and hornet’s wing.’’ — Macbeth. 


(c) PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES. These were also often consid- 
ered definite enough without the article. So év oikw (1 Cor. 11: 34. 
Cf. év 7G olxw, ‘in the house,’ Jo. 11 : 20)=‘at home.’ So we say 
“oo to bed,” ete. Moulton‘ pertinently cites English “down 
town,’ “on ’change,”’. “in bed,’ “from start to finish.’’*- This 
idiom is not therefore peculiar to Greek. It is hardly necessary 
to mention all the N. T. examples, so common is the matter. 

Thus with ava observe ava pepos (1 Cor. 14: 27). With azo note 
am’ aypod (Mk. 15:21), am’ ayopas (Mk. 7:4), am’ ovpavod (Lu. 
17: 29), ax’ otpavav (Heb. 12 : 25), ard avarodjs (Rev. 21:13), amd 
avatosav (Mt. 2:1), am’ apxfs (1 Jo.1:1), ard xaraBorjs (Mt. 13: 
35), amd pépouvs (Ro. 11: 25), ard vexpdv (Lu. 16:30). Cf. Rev. 
21:18, a6 Boppa, ard vorou, amo dvapav. So axpe xarpod (Lu. 4 : 18). 
_ For éva note 6a vuxrds (Ac. 5:19), da péoou (Lu. 4:30), da péoor 
Gl fess 1): 

1 See on the whole subject K.-G., I, pp. 598 ff. = Pp. 162 ff. 
3 See extensive list in W.-Sch., p. 166 f. 4 Prol., p: 82. 


792 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


For els see els &dnv (Ac. 2: 27), eis otpavoy (1 Pet. 3: 22), 
els aypov (Mk. 16:12), eis O4Xaccav (Mt. 17: 27), eis ofxov (Mk. 
3:20), els mpdcwmrov (Mk. 12 : 14), eis peoov (Mk. 14:60), els olkiay 
(2 Jo. 10), eis réXos (Mt. 10 : 22). 

For é may be noticed & otpavd (Mt. 6: 20), év obpavots (Heb. 
12:23), & wWioros (Lu. 2:14), & de&G (Heb. 1:3), & koopw 
(Col. 2 : 20), & aypd (Lu. 15 : 25), & ayopd (Lu. 7:32), éy oikw (1 
Cor. 14:35), & &xAnoia=‘at church’ (1 Cor. 14:19), & rpocwrw 
(2 Cor. 5:12), & tyépa (Ro. 13:18), & KxatpS (Mt. 24: 45), e& 
apx7 (Jo. 1: 1), é&v capxi (2 Cor. 10: 3), &y avOpmmos (Lu. 1 : 25), & 
vuxti (Ac. 18 : 9). 

Examples of é& are ék peépous (1 Cor. 12:27), éx Yuxis (Eph. 6 : 6), 
éx veotntos (Ac. 26:4), €& apxjs (Jo. 6: 64), & dey (Mt. 27: 38), 
éE ebwvipwv (Mt. 25:41), é& aprorepSv (Lu. 23 : 33), &k wéoov (2 Th. 
2:7), & Kapdias (Ro. 6:17), & vexpdv (Lu. 9:7), €& obpavod (Jo. 
16352) 

For éws observe éws gdouv (Mt. 11: 23), éws ovpavod (Mt. 11: 23), éws 
dvopav (Mt. 24: 27), ews éorepas (Ac. 28: 23), éws rédous (1 Cor. 1: 8). 

Examples of éi are émt yfs (Lu. 2 : 14), éai Oipars (Mt. 24 : 33), 
él mpoowrov (Lu. 5: 12). 

For xara see xat’ dpbadpots (Gal. 3:1), xara NiBa Kal Kata xBpov 
(Ac. 27:12), xara peonuBpiay (Ac. 8 : 26), car’ apxas (Heb. 1 : 10), 
kata tpoowrmov (Ac. 25 : 16), kara wépos (Heb. 9 : 5), kara capxa (2 Cor. 
10 : 3), xara avOpwrovs (1 Pet. 4:6): 

For peéxpe observe pexpe pecovuxtiov (Ac. 20:7), péxpe rédovus 
(Heb. 3 : 6). 

For zapa note mapa Oadaccav (Ac. 10:32), mapa rorapyov (Ac. 
1GGelo): 

For zepi see repi weonuBpiay (Ac. 22 : 6). 

For po see po xatpod (Mt. 8 : 29). 

For pds observe mpdcwrov mpds tpdocwmov (1 Cor. 13:12), rpéds 
éomrepay (Lu. 24:29). 

For b7o see br’ obpavov (Lu. 17: 24). 

It will be noted that this usage after all is confined to a rather 
narrow range of words, some of which, like ovpavés and yj, repre- 
sent single objects. More of this a little later. Most of these 
examples have articular parallels. See also v, (f). For classic 
examples see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 259f. The papyri furnish 
abundant parallels (Vélker, Syntax, pp. 15-17) as do the inscrip- 
tions (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 92). 

(d) WitH BotH PREPOSITION AND GENITIVE. It is not sur- 
prising to find no article with phrases which use both preposition 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) 793 


and genitive like eis ebayyédvov Beod (Ro. 1:1), ard dfOadpdv cov 
(Lu. 19:42), & de&av wou (Mt. 20:23), ax’ dpxis xoopov (Mt. 
24:21), mapa xatpdv Hrukias (Heb. 11:11), & Kxatpd retpacyod (Lu. 
8:13), ad xataBodjs Koopou (Mt. 25:34), év Bpaxiom airod (Lu. 
io) etc. 

(e) TirLEs oF Booxs or Sections. These may be without 
the article, being already specific enough. So Evayyédov xara 
Mapxov before the Gospel in many MSS., apx7) rod ebayyediov (Mk. 
1:1), BiBdXos yevecews ’Inood Xpicrod (Mt. 1:1), ’Aroxadvyis ’Inood 
Xptorod (Rev. 1:1). A good example of anarthrous headings may 
be seen in 1 Pet. 1 f. (ef. Hort, 7 Peter, p. 15), where no article 
occurs in the whole opening sentence of five lines. The article 
is used quite idiomatically in 1 Peter. 

(f) Worps 1n Parrs. These often do without the article. 
Very often, of course, the article is used. Words for day and night 
(as in English) frequently occur together. Cf. vuxrds kai fuepas 
(Mk. 5:5), juépas cai vuxros (Rev. 4:8). They occur singly also 
without the article, as vuxros (Jo. 3:2), juepas (Rev. 21:25), 
peéons vuxros (Mt. 25:6). See also other pairs like é otpavé eire 
éxl vis (1 Cor. 8: 5; cf. 2 Pet. 3:5), zarépa 7 unrépa (Mk. 7: 10), 
(Gvras kal vexpovs (1 Pet. 4:5). Indeed the anarthrous construc- 
tion is common in contrast with 7, eire, otre, unre, ob — adda (cf. 
Ro. 6:14). For long lists of anarthrous words (definite and in- 
definite together) see Ro. 8 : 35; 1 Cor. 3 : 22; 12 : 18, 28; 2 Cor. 
Deo, aleeeta 2 Hebe i218) 23%1 Tims 3164 Cfalso 
avip ék yuvatkos (1 Cor. 11:8). Some of these usages belong to 
proverbs, formule and enumerations. See Gildersleeve, Syntax, 
p. 260. The xow# (inscriptions and papyri) shows the idiom (Ra- 
dermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 94). 

(g) ORpINAL NuMERALS. The article is usually absent in ex- 
pressions of time. The ancient idiom is here followed.2. The ordi- 
nal was often felt to be definite enough alone. This was true of the 
predicate. Cf. droypady rpwrn (Lu. 2 : 2), Av dpa tpitn (Mk. 15 : 25), 
nv ws extn (Jo. 19:14). Cf. Eph. 6:2; Ac. 2:15. But it was not 
confined to the predicate by any means, nor even to prepositional 
phrases like 476 rpwrns uépas (Ac. 20:18), éws rpirov obpavod (2 
Cor. 12 : 2), amo reraprns juépas (Ac. 10 : 30), rept &pay exrnv 
(Ac. 10:9), & ever revrexatdexatw (Lu. 3:1), ws pas évarns (Mk. 
15 : 33), ete. Cf. Ac. 23:23. The same construction occurs also 


1 Cf. W.- Sch., p. 168; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 149. 


2 Thompson, Synt., ete., p. 54; W.-Th., p. 126. See further J. Thompson, 
Cl. Rev., 1906, p. 304; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 261. 


(‘794 A GRAMMAR OF: THE GREEK NEW “TESTAMENT 


in due\Odvres rpwrnv hvdrakny Kal devtépay (Ac. 12:10). Cf. Mk. 
15 : 33, yevouerns pas extns,' Examples with the article are not 
wanting. Cf. Mt. 27:64; Lu. 12:38; Ac. 10.: 40. 

(h) IN THE PREpICcATE. As already shown in v,. (7), in the predi- 
cate the article is often absent. See v, (7). Cf. Oeds. Av 6 doyos 
(Jo. 1:1), 60€0s ayarn éoriv (1 Jo. 4: 8), etc, This is the rule unless 
the terms be convertible or the predicate is singled out as promi- 
nent. For the superlative without the article see also 1 Jo. 2: 18. 
Cf. 1 Pet. 1:5, ev éoxaTw Kapa. 

(1) ABsTRACT Worps. In English the presence, not the ab- 
sence, of the article with abstract words needs explanation. Hence 
the anarthrous lists in Gal. 5 : 20 f., 22 f., seem to us much more 
in harmony with our idiom than the lists with the article in Rev. 
5:12, 18; 7:12. In German,! however, the opposite is ‘often 
true. The article is often absent in the Greek, where the German 
would have it. Cf. Ro. 1:29. See rv; (c), for discussion of article 
with abstract nouns. No vital difference was felt between articu- 
lar and anarthrous abstract nouns.(Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 259). 

(7) QUALITATIVE ForcE. This is best brought.out in anarthrous 
nouns. So ei é£ecrww avdpl yuvatka amoddoau (Mk..10 : 2; cf. 1 Cor. 
7:10), rapadwoe adeddds adeddov eis Oavaroy Kal TaTHp TEKVOY — TEKVA 
éml yovets (13 : 12), ws povoyovots mapa matpos (Jo. 1:14), yovedaw 
ameeis (Ro. 1:30). Cf. also Eph. 5: 23, dvnp. eorw xepady  rijs 
yuvaixos, 6 Xpratos Kehadi Tis ExxAnolas and aitos cwrHp TOD cwparos. 
In ai yuvatxes Tots avdpacw (verse 24) note the generic article, class 
and class. . See vids — rarnp (Heb. 12 : 7).? 

(k) ONLY OpsEcT or Kinp. These partake Se the rant of 
proper names and often occur without the article. They also 
often have the article. Some of these anarthrous examples ap- 
pear in prepositional phrases like é& aprorepSv (Lu. 23 : 33), é& 
decay (2b.), etc. These may be passed by (already discussed). The 
point is best illustrated by such words as: yj and ovpavoi (2 Pet. 
3:5). Cf. English ‘‘heaven and earth.” Cf. (f), Words in Pairs. 
Oadacca we find sometimes anarthrous with prepositions (Ac. 7 : 36; 
10 : 32) and in Lu. 21: 25 nyots Oadacons kal cadov. But it has the 
article in contrast with 77.3 See also Lu. 21: 25 év 7Xlw Kal cednvy Kal 
‘aotpos, Mt. 13: 6 AAlov avareiNavtos, 1 Cor. 15: 41 dd£a HAiov. So we 
can say “‘sun, moon and stars,” etc. Odvaros should also be noted. 
Cf, 1:Cor2.152 21 Mt. 16228" 202 18" Lui 232 1b ih. lee etcaeee 
is anarthrous as subject, object, with adjectives and with preposi- 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 150. . 
2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p.'82 f.; W.-Sch., p. 170. ie. &Wielh., pet2k 


THE ARTICLE (TO "APOPON) |... 795 


tions. Many of these examples occur with prepositions like Lu. 21: 
25 above, or with a genitive like vié duaBddou (Ac. 13: 10).! Cf. 1 Pet. 
5:8. The word 6eds, like a proper name, is freely used with and 
without the article. But it is “beyond comparison the most fre- 
quently in the Epistles without the article.”* I doubt that. As 
subject 6 Oeds, but as a predicate, deds qv 6 Adyos (Jo. 1:1); as 
genitive, yrwcews Oeot (Ro. 11:33); with prepositions, & bed (Jo. 
3:21); with adjectives, beds evAoynrés (Ro. 9 : 5); with participles 
also, Oe (Svre kat adynfvg (1 Th. 1:9); in conjunction with zarhp 
(Gal. 1:1). These illustrations can be greatly multiplied. So 
also wvedua and zvedua aywov may occur with and without the ar- 
ticle. Garvie* quotes Bartlet on Acts as saying that when zvedua 
aycov is anarthrous it describes the human condition, not the divine 
agency. But it may be questioned if this is not a purely artificial 
rule, as there are evident exceptions to it. The use of mvedua with 
a genitive like rvedua Xprorod (Ro. 8:9) and with a preposition, 
éx mvevpatos (Jo. 3 : 5), accounts for some examples. An example 
like otrw jv rvedua (Jo. 7:39) merely illustrates the use of rvedua 
like 6e6s as substantially a proper name. As for Middleton’s rule 
that the article is present when the personality of the Holy Spirit 
is taught,‘ that is illustrated by Jo. 14 : 26, 76 rvedua 76 &yrov, Where 
the Holy Spirit is spoken of in distinction from the Father and 
the Son. Cf. also 15:26. See also 76 rvedyua 7d ayrov (Lu. 3 : 22), 
at the baptism of Jesus. Kdpuwos, like eds and rvedya, is often prac- 
tically a proper name in the N. T. In the Gospels it usually refers 
to God, like the O. T. Lord, while in the Epistles of Paul in par- 
ticular it nearly always means the Lord Jesus.> It is not merely in 
a prepositional phrase like the common é& xupiw (1 Cor. 7: 22), or 
the genitive like 7d épyov xvpiov (1 Cor. 16:10), but especially 
kupios *Incotds Xpioros (Ph. 1:2; 2:11, ete.). In the Gospels 6 
Xptoros is usually a verbal adjective=‘the Anointed One,’ the 
Messiah (Mt, 2 -4: Jo. 1:41). ‘In Mt..1:1; Mk. 1:1, we have 
Xpistos, aS & proper name and even:in the words of Jesus as re- 
ported in Mk. 9:41, Xpiorod, and in the address of Peter in Ac. 2: 
38, "Incod Xpiorod. It was a natural growth. In Paul’s Epistles 
Xpiords is more frequent than 6 Xpiorés.6 There is even a de- 
velopment in Paul’s use of "Incods Xpiords and Xpiords Inaods. 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T.'Gk., p. 148. 4 Cf. W.-M., footnote, p. 151. 

20 We= Lh DL ec eek Wide 5 W.-Th., p. 124. 

8’ Expos., Oct., 1909, p. 327. 

6 See Rose’s list for Paul’s use of xiptos, Xprords, etc., in Middleton’s Doc- 
trine of the Gk. Art., pp. 486 ff. It is based on Textus Rec. 


"06 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


In his earlier Epistles the former is the rule (cf. 1 Th. 1 : 1), while 
in the later Epistles he prefers Xpicrés “Incods (2 Tim. 1:1). 
Other examples of this idiom are seen in xécpos, which even in the 
nominative is anarthrous, éuol kdcpos éorabpwrat (Gal. 6:14). Cf. 
Ro. 4:13. See also é& xoopw (Ro. 5:18) and amd xataBodjs Koopou 
(Lu. 11:50), etc. Noyos is a word that is used with a deal of free- 
dom by Paul. In general when voyos is anarthrous in Paul it 
refers to the Mosaic law, as in éravaraty vouw (Ro. 2:17). So 
éay vouov mpdcons (2:25), etc. It occurs so with prepositions, as 
év vouw (2 : 23), and in the genitive, like é£ epywy voyov (Gal. 2 : 16). 
Cf. éy@ 61d vopov vouw aréBavov (2:19), brd vouov adda bd yap 
(Ro. 6:14). In érepov voor (7: 23) vouos=‘principle,’ and is here 
indeterminate. In 2:14, vn 7a uw vouov Exovra, the Mosaic law 
is meant, but not in éavrots eiaivy vouos. It is at least problematical 
whether véuos in 2:13, of dxpoarai vouov, and of ronral vouov (note 
the article with the other words) means the Mosaic law and so 
really definite or law as law (the hearers of law, the doers of law).1 

IX. The Indefinite Article. The Greek had no indefinite article. 
It would have been very easy if the absence of the article in 
Greek always meant that the noun was indefinite, but we have 
seen that this is not the case. The anarthrous noun may per se 
be either definite or indefinite. But the Greek made an approach 
to the modern indefinite article in the use of ets and tis. The later 
writers show an increasing use of these words as the practical 
equivalent of the present indefinite article. This matter has al- 
ready been discussed under these two words (ch. XV). An 
example of zis is seen in voutxds tis (Lu. 10:25). The tendency 
was constantly for efs to displace tis, so that “‘in modern Greek 
the process is complete,’’? i.e. eis drives out zis in this sense. 
This use of ets is seen in the papyri and need not be denied in the 
N. T2 As a N. T. example of eis=‘a’ see eis ypayparebs (Mt. 
8 :19).4. The indefinite article does not appear with predicates in 
the modern Greek.’ Unus in the sense of the indefinite article 
is one of the peculiarities of the Latin Vulgate (Jacquier, Le 
N. T. dans VEgl. Chr., Tome II, p. 122). 


1 For a full and detailed discussion of the whole matter see W.-Sch., pp. 
174 ff. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 96. See Thumb, Handb., p. 41. 

8 Moulton, ib., p. 97. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 164 f. 

4 Cf. for LXX use, C. and &., Sel., p. 25. 

5 Thumb., Handb., p. 42. 





CHAPTER ‘XVII 
VOICE (AIAOEZIS, Genus) 


I. Point of View. For a discussion of the nature of the verb 
see chapter VIII, Conjugation of the Verb, 1 and 1. 

(a) DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOICE AND TRANSITIVENESS. See 
1, (b), and chapter VIII, v1, for a discussion of this point. The 
matter might have been well reserved for syntax, but it seemed 
worth while to set forth at once the fundamental facts about 
voice. It is here assumed, therefore, that one understands that 
voice per se does not deal with the question of transitive or in- 
transitive action. That point concerns the verb itself, not the 
voice. Active and middle verbs may be either transitive or in- 
transitive. Passive verbs may even be transitive, though usually 
intransitive, in one sense of “‘transitive.”’ But Gildersleeve! holds 
that “‘a transitive verb is a verb that passes over to a passive 
rather than one that passes over to an object.”? That is truer of 
Latin than of Greek, which, “with a lordliness that reminds one 
of English,’ makes a passive out of any kind of an active. Ter- 
minology in syntax is open to dispute at many points, but I see 
only hopeless confusion here unless voice is kept to its real mean- 
ing. In Kihner-Gerth? it is held that “the active has a double 
meaning,” either intransitive or transitive. My point is that the 
voice per se has nothing to do with that question. Some verbs 
are intransitive, some are transitive, some are used either way. 
This freedom in the use of verbs increased till in the later Greek 
verbs that were once intransitive become transitive.? Brugmann4 
properly separates the question of transitive and intransitive 
verbs from that of voice (cf. iterative, intensive, inchoative, de- 
siderative verbs). Some of the intransitive uses of verbs were due 
to the absence of the reflexive pronoun, as in zepifye (Mk. 6 : 6), 
amoppivavtas (Ac. 27: 43). The modern Greek preserves the same 


1 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p.279. 4 Griech. Gr., p. 467. 
2 Bd. I, p. 89. 5 Jebb.,V. and D.’s Handb., p. 318. 
3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 357. 

797 


798 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


freedom in the use of transitive and intransitive verbs and has 
peculiarities of its own.! 

(b) MmaANnING oF VoicE. Voice relates the action to the sub- 
ject. The use of voice then is to direct attention to the subject, 
not to the object. That concerns transitive and intransitive verbs. 
Stahl? puts it crisply: ‘‘The voice of the verb describes a relation 
of the verb-idea to the subject.”’ 

(c) NAMES OF THE Voices. Cf. chapter VIII, v1, (0). The 
names come from Dionysius Thrax (about B.c. 30), but “he has 
no inkling of a middle sense,’”’? showing that already the middle 
is disappearing before the passive. The terminology is very poor. 
Gildersleeve* calls the fashion of the Germans “a positively in- 
decent nomenclature,” since they call the voices genera (yen), 

~ “based on a fancied resemblance to the genders.’”’? We in English 
follow the French voix (Latin vox), found first in this sense in the 
Grammatica graeca nova of J. Weller (a.p. 1635).5 

(d) History oF THE VorcEs. See chapter VIII, vi, (c), (d), (e). 
Cf. also Jannaris, Historical Gr., p. 362 f.; Moulton, Prol., p. 152. 
In the pro-ethnic language there were probably both active and 
middle. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Syntax, Bd. II, p.413. There was 
no passive as there was none in the Sanskrit, save in the present 
system.’ The rise of the passive meaning with the use of middle 
and active endings was sure to bring confusion and a tendency 
towards simplification. It was inevitable that the three voices 
should go back to two. In the actual outcome, the passive, 
though an interloper, ousts the middle of its forms and of most of 
its uses.’?. In the modern Greek vernacular, therefore, we find only 
two voices as to form, for the passive has taken over the meaning 
of the middle also (Thumb, Handb., p. 111 f.). In the beginning 
there were only active and middle. In the end we find only active 
and passive. 

(ec) HELP FROM THE SANSKRIT. The verb development in the 
Indo-Germanic languages has been more independent than that 
of nouns. Latin, for instance, has recast its verb-system, and it 
is quite difficult to compare the Greek and Latin voices. Sanskrit 


1 Thumb., Handb., p. 112 f. 

2 Krit.-hist. Synt. d. griech. Verbums, p. 42. 

3 Thompson, Synt., p. 158. 

4 Notes on Stahl’s Synt. of the Gk. Verb in Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, 
Dwetos 

5 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 233. 

© Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201. 7 Jann, sHiste Gke Gre pcos: 


VOICE (AIAGOEZIS) 799 


and Greek have preserved the voices best of all. Hence the San- 
skrit can throw a good deal of light on the Greek voices.! , 

(f) DerectivE Verss. Not all verbs were used in all the voices. 
Some were used only in one, some in two, some in all three. Then 
again, some verbs had one voice in one tense, another voice in 
another tense. This is just like the Sanskrit,? and just what one 
would expect from a living language in contrast with an artificial 
one. Brugmann,’ indeed, divides verbs, as to voices, according to 
this principle (those with active only, middle only, with both, etc.). 
In the N.T. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 180) finds the same general 
use of the voices as in the older Greek, the same difficulty in differ- 
entiating the voices, and the same “arbitrariness” in the use of 
individual verbs. But much of this difficulty is due to coming at 
the matter with preconceived rules. Blass’ treatment of the voices 
is quite unsatisfactory. Cf. further for this matter, chapter VIII, 
vi, (d). a | 

II. The Active Voice (5td8eots evepyeTiKy). The Stoics called 
the active 696% also. 

(a) Meanine or THE AcTIVE Voice. In this voice the sub- 
ject is merely represented as acting or existing, for state (cf. edu) 
must be included as well as action. It is not certain whether the 
active or the middle is the older, but the active is far the more 
common. 

(b) Errner TRANSITIVE OR INTRANSITIVE. There is nothing 
peculiar in the N. T. about this. Each verb has its own history. 
One originally transitive may become intransitive and vice versa.* 
Cf. ayw which may be intransitive déywue (Mt. 26:46; cf. the 
interjectional dye, Jas. 4: 13) or transitive jyayov a’rov (Lu. 19:35). 
In apavres (Ac. 27: 13, 17) the object is probably understood (rnv 
vabv). Cf. also atéavw in Mt. 6:28 and 2 Cor. 9:10. Bdaddw is 
usually transitive, even in Jo. 13:2 (cf. Ac. 22:23), but it is 
intransitive in Ac. 27: 14 (€Bade, ‘rushed’). Cf. BAaoravw in Jas. 
5:18 (tr.) and in Mt. 13:26 (intr.). So @pexw is transitive in 
Lu. 7: 38, but intransitive in Mt. 5:45. ’Evyeipw is usually tran- 
sitive (Mt. 10:8), but see Mt. 26:46. Evayyedifw is transitive 
in Rev. 10:7, but intransitive in 14:6. ”Exw is transitive except 
when used with adverbs, when, as in ancient Greek, it may be 
intransitive. Cf. rods kax&s éxovtas (Mt. 4: 24), éoxarws Exes (Mk. 


1 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 404 f. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. 

’ Griech. Gr., pp. 459 ff. Cf. Thompson, Synt., p. 159. 
SECT ADT eC LIsu GG Kemal De o0s > 


800 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


5:23), én exovra (Jo. 11:17), obrws exe (Ac. 7:1), 76 viv exov 
(Ac. 24:25). K)vw is transitive in Mt. 8: 20, but intransitive in 
Lu. 9:12. In Ac. 7:42 orpédw is intransitive, though also transi- 
tive elsewhere. In the N.T. @p:auPebw is transitive and the same 
is true of pabnrebw. But in Text. Rec. éuabprevce is intransitive in 
Mt. 27:57. Cf. dtvw intransitive in Lu. 4:40 and ¢iw in Heb. 
12:15. Let these serve as specimens of many such verbs in the 
N. T. Modern Greek is specially rich in intransitive active verbs 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 112) and verbs that oscillate from one use 
to the other. 

(c) Errecr oF PREPOSITIONS IN ComposiTION. These may 
make the verb transitive or the result may be just the opposite. 
As examples of transitive compounds from an intransitive symplex 
take diaBaivw (Heb. 11:29), but intransitive in Lu. 16:26. So 
dunpxeto tiv lepecxw (Lu. 19:1), wapépxecbe thy xpiow (11:42). On 
the other hand, instransitive compounds abound. The compounds 
of a@yw (simplex either tr. or intr.) which are often intransitive 
are amayw (Mt.7:18), wapayw (Mt. 9:9), repiayw (Ac. 13: 11), 
mpoayw (Lu. 18:39), drayw (Jo. 3:8), but not davayw. Cf. also 
mapadiowue In Mk. 4:29. With Badrrd(w note émBadtrAw In Mk. 4: 37 
and the peculiar ém:Badwv in 14:72. Examples of several intran- 
sitive compounds of éxw occur in the N. T. Thus arexw (Mk. 
14:41), evexw (Mk. 6:19), ewexw (Lu. 14:7; Ac. 19 : 22), reprexw 
(1 Pet. 2:6), mpocéxyw (Mt. 7:15), brepexw (Ph. 4:7). Here the 
substantive has dropped out in most cases and the verb comes to 
stand alone (cf. rpocéxw vodv). Cf. avaxaurrw (Mt. 2:12), exxrtvw 
(Ro. 16:17) and zpocxérrw (Jo. 11:9). Kararatw is transitive 
in Ac. 14:18, but intransitive in Heb. 4:4,10. Cf. droppirrw in 
Ac. 27:48. Zrpédw shows intransitive compounds with dva— (Ac. 
5:22), amwo— (Ac. 3:26), émc— (Lu. 2:39). The modern Greek 
surpasses even the xo.vy in its facility for making all sorts of com- 
pound verbs (tr. and intr.) and in particular verbs compounded 
with nouns, like érexvorpddnoe and é£evoddxnce (1 Tim. 5:10). Cf. 
Thumb, Handb., p. 112. 

(d) DirrERENT TENSES Vary. Thus where both second and 
first aorists occur, the second is intransitive and the first transitive. 
Cf. éorn (Lu. 6: 8), but éornoer aito (Mk. 9 : 36). This distinction 
applies to all the compounds of tornmw. Acts 27:28 (Svacrhoarres) 
is no exception, as 77)v vaby is to be supplied. Some of the “strong” 
or primitive perfect actives are intransitive when the present is 
transitive. Thus dvewya (1 Cor. 16:9) from dvoiyw, aré\wda (Mt. 
10:6) from aroddAum, éoravar (Lu. 13:25) from tornum, rémroba 


VOICE (AIAGEZIZ) 801 


(Ro. 2:19) from reidw, céonra (Jas. 5:2) from ofrw. Moulton! 
seems to confuse ‘transitive’ with “active,” and “intransitive” 
with “middle” in his discussion of these perfects: “‘“We have a 
number of cases in which the ‘strong’ perfect active attaches itself 
in meaning to the middle.”” The middle is not in itself intransitive, 
nor is the active in itself transitive. ‘The conjecture that the 
perfect originally had no distinction of active and middle, its 
person-endings being peculiar throughout, affords the most prob- 
able explanation of the facts: when the much later —xa perfect 
arose, the distinction had become universal.’”’ It is doubtless true 
that in the primitive —a perfect there was no distinctive middle 
form. But why seek for a middle sense in the primitive perfect 
active because it happens in many cases to be intransitive? It 
does happen that yeyova (Jo. 1: 4) is found with yivouwac and é\ydv8a. 
(Jo. 17:1) from épxoua, two intransitive middles. It is also true 
that future middles are the rule with a few verbs which have 
this primitive, but not always intransitive, perfect. So it is with 
axnxoa (trans., Ac. 6:11), eiAnda (trans., Rev. 11:17), wézovOa 
(intr. as the verb itself is, Lu. 13:2), rervxa (trans., Heb. 8 : 6). 
So with xexpayey (Jo. 1:15, intr. like the verb itself), though 
kexpagouat (some MSS. in Lu. 19:40) is future perfect middle. 
Oiéa (Jo. 10:4) is transitive, though defective, while éoxa (Jas. 
1:6), like elw6a (Mk. 10:1), is intransitive. But yéypada (Jo. 
19 : 22) is transitive. 

(e) THE AcTIVE AS CausATIvE. But this usage is not due to 
the voice, and is, besides, common to all languages.? Cf.the Hebrew 
Hiphil conjugation. Viteau (“Essai sur la Syntaxe des Voix dans 
le Gree du N. T.,’”’ Revue de Philologie, 1894, p. 2) says that the 
Greek voices would not be strange to a Jew who was used to the 
seven conjugations of the Hebrew verb. But the point is not 
strictly parallel. In one sense this idiom is due to the fact that 
what one does through another he does himself. Cf. tov #Avov 
avrod avareddee (Mt. 5 : 45), strictly causative. But in Jo. 19:1, 
édaBev 6 IltAatos tov “Inoody xat euactiywoer, the other kind of causa- 
tive occurs. So also with qepiereuey (Ac. 16:3). There was in- 
deed a remarkable increase in the LXX in the number of verbs 
used in the causative sense, many of which had been usually in- 
transitive. Cf. BactAebw, which occurs 36 times in the causative 
sense in the LXX (cf. Judg. 9:6).4. The Hebrew Hiphil is partly 


1 Prol., p. 154. 2 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 359. 
3 Gildersleeve, Synt. of Cl. Gk., p. 63. 
4 C. and S., Sel., p. 76, 


802. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


responsible for this increase. See further verbs in —ow, like 
Katadovdow (Gal. 2 : 4). 

(f) Active with ReEFrLextives. Certainly there is nothing 
unusual in this construction. Cf. cdcov ceavtrov (Mk. 15: 30), 
éBarev éavrov (Jo. 21:8), mpocéxere éavrots (Lu. 17:3). Cf. Jo. 
21:18. Blass? indeed says that the “active for middle” occurs. 
One hesitates to subscribe to that dictum. It is indeed true that 
the use of the reflexive pronoun with the active brings out much 
more sharply the reflexive relation than the mere middle. It is 
not necessary to say that xcaradovAot (2 Cor. 11:20) is used “for” 
the middle. It is true that recpatw in the cow7n supplants the Attic 
retpaoua, but this is not due to a confusion of voice. With rovéw 
the N. T. does show a number of examples of the active where 
the middle was more common in the Attic, though the N. T. 
generally has sovetofar dvaBornv, Oyov, Topetar, orovsny. And 
the MSS. vary greatly between active and middle of zovéw 
with words like povnvy (Jo. 14: 23), corerov (Ac. 8:2), cvvwpociav 
(23:13), but not with cvpBotdAov (Mk.15:1), éxdixnow (Lu. 18:7 f.), 
ovotpopny (Ac. 23:12), rédeuov (Rev.11:7). But this is precisely 
what we find in the xown (inscriptions and papyri). Cf. Rader- 
macher, NV. 7. Gr., p. 120. So even Biafw and ériAavOavw (Mayser, 
Gr., p. 386). The same tendency appears in modern Greek 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 114). Cf. dveppntey ra tuatia atrod (Mt. 
26:65). In these examples Blass has in my judgment read too 
much into the active voice. But it is certain that in mpocéxere 
éavrots (Lu. 12 : 1) there is more emphasis on the reflexive idea than 
in duddocecbe (12:15). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 157. 

(g) ImpERSONAL AcTIVE. Some impersonal verbs occur in the 
active. Cf. mepexe ev TH ypadH (1 Pet. 2:6), and é8petev (Jas. 
Deal Ay 

(h) Inrin1ttves. These do not always reflect the force of the 
voice, especially in the ‘“epexegetic”’ use,? like our English “fair 
to see,’ “good to eat.”” Cf. xpjvac and dAaBeiv, Mt. 5: 40. The 
infinitive has no voice in Sanskrit. See further under Infinitive 
(ch. XX, Verbal Nouns). 

(1) Active VERBS AS PASSIVES OF OTHER VERBS.4 Thus azo- 
Ovnokw is More common than the passive of amoxretyw (—-Krévvw), 
though examples of this passive occur in the N. T. (Rev. 6:11, 
etc.). W. H. read xaxds évee in Mt. 17:15 rather than xaxds 
maoxet (Cf. rod Kaxas, etc.). So éxrimrw (Ac. 27: 17, 26, 29) occurs 


1 Thack., Gr. of the O. T. in Gk., p. 24. 3 Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 63. 
2eGrror NL kero ode 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 172. 


VOICE (AIAQESI®) : 803 


as passive of éBad\d\w, but note exBadreoOar in Mt. 8:12. Cf. 
Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 75. In 1 Cor. 11:18 dxotw has the classic 
turn ‘I am told.’ But in 5:1 dxoverac the passive itself occurs 
in the sense ‘It is reported.’ But in all such cases the distinction 
between the voices is not really lost. 

Ill. The Middle Voice (S1a8eots péon). 

(a) ORIGIN OF THE MrippLE. See chapter VIII, vi, (c), for the 
uncertainty as to the priority of active and middle. That ques- 
tion is an open one and must be left open. Both active and 
middle appear in Sanskrit and in Homer. The prehistoric situation 
is purely speculative. Logically the active would seem to come 
first, though the difference in form may be due to variation in 
sound (ablaut).1 Probably at first there was neither active nor 
middle, the distinction being a development. In the Sanskrit? 
we meet a full system of both active and middle forms for all the 
tenses (not all the modes), the participle, however, having only a 
partial system and the infinitive no voice at all. But each verb 
has its own development and that was by no means uniform. 
Some had a very limited use as to voice, tense and mode. In 
Homer indeed the middle is rather more common than in later 
Greek. It is only in the Sanskrit, Zend (Old Persian), Greek and 
Gothic that the middle is kept as a distinct voice.t| In the Gothic 
only remnants of the middle are found,® while in Latin the middle 
as a separate voice disappears.® It is very difficult to run a parallel 
between the Latin and Greek voices. But there is a considerable 
remnant of Latin middles like miror, sequor, utor (cf. Draeger, Hist. 
Syntax, pp. 145 ff.). The final disappearance of the Greek future 
and aorist middle before the passive is well sketched by Jannaris.” 
But at first we are not to think of the passive at all, that inter- 
loper that finally drove the middle out of use. 

(b) MEANING OF THE MippLE. It is urged that the term 
“middle” is good because the voice in meaning stands between 
the active and the passive.’ But, unfortunately for that idea, 
the middle is older than the passive. It is true that the passive 
arose out of the middle and that the middle marks a step towards 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 152. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 200. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 7. 

4 Cf. O. Hoffmann, Das Prisens der indoger. Grundspr., 1889, p. 25. In 
the Bantu language Mr. Dan Crawford finds 16 voices (reflexive, pores 
intensive, ete., all having special forms). 

5 Giles, Cann Philol., p. 406. 7 Hist. Gk. Gr., p; 362 f. 

6 Ib., p. 405. 8 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 57. 


S804. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the passive. The passive idea existed before there was a sepa- 
rate passive form, a thing never true of all tenses and all verbs. 
The Hebrew Hithpael conjugation is somewhat parallel,! but not 
wholly so. The only difference between the active and middle 
voices is that the middle calls especial attention to the subject. 
In the active voice the subject is merely acting; in the middle the 
subject is acting in relation to himself somehow. What this pre-- 
cise relation is the middle voice does not say. That must come out 
of the context or from the significance of the verb itself. Gilder- 
sleeve? is clearly right in holding that the interpretation of the 
difference between active and middle is in many cases more 
lexical than grammatical. ‘The middle adds a subjective ele- 
ment.’’? Sometimes the variation from the active is too minute 
for translation into English. This ‘word for one’s self’ is often 
very difficult of translation, and we must not fall into the error 
of explaining the force of the middle by the English translation. 

(c) OrTEN DIFFERENCE FROM ACTIVE AcuTE. As examples 
note: aipéw, ‘I take’; aipéoua, ‘I take to myself’ (‘choose’) ; dvayimry- 
oxw, ‘I remind’; dvayiuvnoxowa, ‘I remind myself’ (‘remember’); 
amexw, ‘I hold off’; améxoua, ‘I hold myself off’ (‘abstain’); 
amodiéwur, ‘I give back’; dmodiédoum, ‘I give back of my own’ 
(‘sell’) ; aadddume, ‘I destroy’; aroddvyar, ‘I perish’; a7, ‘I fasten’; 
amropat, ‘I touch’; apxw, ‘I rule’; adpxouwar, ‘I begin’; Bovrebw, ‘I 
counsel’; BovAeboua, ‘I take counsel’ (‘deliberate’); yayew, ‘I 
marry’ (‘bridegroom’), yauéouar (‘bride’); yebw, ‘I give to taste’; 
yebouar, ‘I taste’; ypadw, ‘I enrol’; ypadouar ‘I indict’ (but ‘enrol 
one’s self? in Lu. 2:5); daveiew, ‘I lend’; daveitoua, ‘I borrow’; 
didackw, ‘I teach’; ddacxoun, ‘I get taught’; iornuw, ‘I place’; 
icrauat, ‘I stand’; AavOavw, ‘1 escape notice’; AavOavoua, ‘I forget’; 
piobow, ‘I let,’ wrcOdouar, ‘I hire’; zatw, ‘I make to cease’; ravouar, 
‘I cease’; weidw, ‘I persuade’; meifouat, ‘I obey’; daivw, ‘I show’; 
daivoua, ‘I appear’; doBew, ‘I frighten’; doBéoua, ‘I fear.’ These 
examples in the N. T. illustrate the difference between the two 
voices.4 

(d) THe Us oF THE MIDDLE NOT OBLIGATORY.” This remark 
may sound like a truism, but it is justified when one can read 
this: “As the active is used in place of the middle, so the middle 


1 Ewald, Heb. Gr., § 243. 2 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 277. 

3 Viteau, Essai sur la Synt. des Voix, p. 17. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 153. 

4 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 360; Clyde Gk. Synt., p. 58 f.; Farrar, Gr. 
Synt., p. 117 f.; Thompson, Synt., pp. 168 ff. 

5 Gildersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gk., p. 66. 





VOICE (AIAOESIZ) 805 


often stands for the active which would naturally be expected.’’! 
Winer? also speaks of the two voices being used “interchangeably.” 
But Winer loses one of his examples, for W. H. have ovyxade7 in 
Lu. 15:9, as in verse 6. Winer correctly says that ‘it depended 
on the writer’? which he would use. Of course, but that is not to 
say that no distinction existed. In Jas. 4:2 f., aivetre kal ob Aap- 
Bavere, dott Kak&s aitetobe, the middle seems rather on purpose 
(‘ye ask for yourselves amiss,’ Farrar, Gk. Syntax, p. 118). Blass* 
calls this “an arbitrary interchange,” though he admits in general 
the N. T. use of aivéw for ordinary requests (as from God), but 
airéouac in business transactions (its usual use in the N. T., Mt. 
27: 20; Lu. 23 : 23). This may be the very point in Jas. 4:2 f. 
and 1 Jo. 5:14. Moulton‘ agrees with Mayor (James in loco) on 
the correctness of the distinction. Mayor (in loco) says: “‘ When 
airetre is thus opposed to airetofe, it implies using the words, 
without the spirit of prayer.’”’ See the same distinction drawn in 
WMik?6)2 22-25-10 235, 38 (Mt. 20:20,'22)> 1 Jo. 5:15. > Blass (Gr. 
of N. T. Gk., p. 186 note) observes that Herod’s offer to Salome 
gave her business relations to him justifying her use of the middle 
(Mk. 6:24f.). When the active and the middle occur side by 
side the attention is drawn to the distinction. It is to be recalled 
again that the same verb varied in different stages of the language 
in the voice used. Hence it is hardly pertinent to bring an in- 
dictment against the N. T. writers, because the middle is not used 
with all verbs just as it was in the Attic Greek. As a matter of 
fact, Homer differs from the Attic. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 186) 
succinctly says that ‘‘the New Testament writers were perfectly 
capable of preserving the distinction between the active and the 
middle.”’ So in Mk. 14:47 note oracdyevos tiv waxarpay, while in 
Mt. 26: 51 we have aréoracey tiv waxatpay aitod. In Matthew we 
have the pronoun atrod and azé supplanting the middle in Mark 
(cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 120f.).. Radermacher (op. cit., 
p. 119), however, as a result of his researches, finds in the 
xown “ Unsicherheit im Gebrauch des Mediums.” The point of 
the middle is not the same always. So in Ac. 7: 24 dubvecOar = 
‘assist,’ not ‘ward off from one’s self,’ but the force of the middle 
is present. So in Col. 2:15, daexévcduevos tas apxas, it is not 
‘undress,’ but ‘throw off from one’s self.’ Cf. also rAnpotcGac in 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 185. 
2 W.-Th., p. 256. 

Gr OL Nl Gk, DA186. 

4 Prol., p. 160. 


806 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK; NEW TESTAMENT 


Eph. 1:23 and rdnpoty in 4:10. Moulton! shows that there is 
as much freedom in the papyri in the use of active and middle 
as in the N. T. Thus éav alpfre and éav aipjobe (G. H. 36, B.c. 
95) occur side by side. So yapetobar=nubere fell out of use. See 
also m1, (f). 

(e) ErrHeER TRANSITIVE OR INTRANSITIVE. . Thus édy py vipwvrae 
ras xetpas (Mk. 7:3) and jWavto airod (6:56), but eficravro (6: 
52) and eiceropevovro (6: 56) are intransitive. The middle is not, 
therefore, intransitive in itself. That is a matter that belongs to 
the verb-stem. As to the future middles, like Bycouat, see discus- 
sion a little later. Some verbs, indeed, are transitive in the active, 
but intransitive in the middle (a76\Avmt, droANvpAL, halyw, Paivoyar). 
Cf. Hatzidakis, Einl., pp. 201 ff.; Thompson, Syntax, p. 161. 

(f) Direct Mippie. It is necessary to discuss the various uses 
of the middle, but the divisions made by the grammarians are more 
or less arbitrary and unsatisfactory. They are followed here merely 
for convenience. The middle voice is very broad in its scope and 
no one word, not even reflexive, covers all the ground. It is essen- 
tially the voice of personal interest somewhat like the dative case, 
Grosse (Beitrdge zur Syntax des griechischen Mediums und Passi- 
vums, 1891, p. 4) denies that the reflexive is the original use of the 
middle. But Rutherford (First Gk. Syntax, 1890, p. 74), derives 
both passive and middle out of the reflexive use. For the various 
uses of the middle in Homer, who is specially fond of this voice, 
see Monro, Homeric Gr., p. 7. But, curiously, Monro mentions 
“the Intransitive use’? as one of the separate idioms of the 
middle. Nearly every grammarian? has his own division of these 
“uses”? of the middle, none of which the Greeks themselves had. 
Gildersleeve*® is justly impatient with this overrefinement and 
observes that “‘one must needs fall back on the way of the lan- 
guage,’ which “is capricious in such matters.’’ It is needless to 
take up philosophical abstractions like ‘‘subjective” and ‘ ob- 
jective.” It is not possible to tell whether the direct middle 
(reflexive middle) was the original use of the voice or not. The 
direct middle is comparatively rare in Homer and in the early 
Greek generally. It began in the xowy to disappear, before the 


active and the reflexive pronoun (cf. N. T.), but the direct middle 


1 Prol., p. 158f. He cites also cvvapar \byor, B.U. 775 (ii/A.v.). But the 
pap. use the middle also. 

2 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 117; Brug., Griech. ;Gr., pp. 459 ff.; K.-G., 
Bd. I, pp. 100 ff.; Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., pp. 49 ff. 

3 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 278. * Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 7. 





VOICE (AIAOEZIS) 807 


revived again as the indirect middle disappeared before the passive 
‘because of “its subtle meaning.’’! Hence in Neo-Hellenic “al- 
most every transitive verb, if active, admits of a direct middle.’’? 
In modern Greek this direct reflexive is nearly the sole use of the 
middle. The modern Greek has no distinction in forms between 
middle and passive, but the middle signification survives. Thus 
Nobfouac means ‘I bathe myself’? (Thumb, Handb., pp. 111, 114). 
Thumb finds the direct reflexive use common. Moulton‘ practi- 
cally confines this idiom in the N. T. to amnyéaro (Mt. 27: 5), ‘he 
hanged himself,’ and even here Moulton suggests ‘choked’ as a 
truer English translation. This is indeed ‘‘a survival from clas- 
sical Greek,’’ but there seem to be other N. T. examples also. 
The example cited by Winer’ from Jo. 8 : 59 (cf. also 12 : 36), 
éxpuBn, 18 passive, as Moulton® points out. But in ts Novcayevy 
(2 Pet.2 : 22) the direct middle is evident, as Moulton admits in 
the Appendix (p. 238). Cf. Nobcacbe (Is. 1:16), ‘wash you.’ Note 
also amedovoacbe, ‘washed yourselves’ (1 Cor. 6:11, correct transla- 
tion in margin of Rev. V.). A good example also is depuavouevos 
(Mk. 14: 54), ‘warming himself’ (Rev. V.). It is rather gratuitous 
to doubt the direct middle rapacxevacerar, ‘prepare himself’ (1 
Cor. 14:8). But Moulton adds yu cxtd\dov (Lu. 7: 6) to Winer’s 
list and illustrates by “the illiterate contemporary papyrus O.P. 
295, wi oxdvAXe éatnv’’ (active and reflexive pronoun). So also 
pavtiowyrac (W. H., Mk. 7:4) and Barricwvra (marg.) are both 
direct middles. Zéca (Ac. 12:8), ‘gird yourself,’ is also direct 
middle. Aoypyarifeobe (Col. 2 : 20) is probably direct middle, ‘sub- 
ject yourselves to ordinances.’ And btzoraccecbe (Col. 3 : 18) may 
be also. “Amrowae (‘fasten myself to,’ ‘touch’) is really the direct 
middle (Mk. 8: 22). ’Ezexrewoyevos (Ph. 3: 13) is ‘stretching 
myself forward.’ Cf. also treorerAaunv (Ac. 20: 27), ‘withdraw 
myself’; avtiraccouevos (Ro. 13:2), ‘line one’s self up against.’ 
In the case of zepiBaddAouar it is probable that we have the direct 
middle ‘clothe one’s self’ (Mt. 6 : 29). The accusative of the thing 
is added in Rev. 3:18. It is possible to regard dvaratecde (Mt. 
26:45) as direct middle. ’Azoypayacba. (Lu. 2:5) may be 
merely the direct middle, ‘enrol himself,’ though the causative 
idea is possible. In Lu. 12:15 ¢vddccecbe (‘guard yourselves 
from’) follows the classic idiom. ’Avexduevor dd\dAnAwY (Hph. 4: 2) 
is also the direct middle, ‘holding yourselves back from one an- 


4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 360. 4 Tb. 


a2 1b. 5 W.-Th., p. 253. 
3 Moulton, Prol., p. 156. 6 Prol. ps 156; 


808 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


other.’ The same thing is true of améxecOar eldwdofirwv (Ac. 
15:29). In 1 Pet. 5:5 rarewvoppootvny &yxouBacacbe, ‘gird your- 
selves with humility,’ we may have the same idiom. In Ac. 18: 
5, cuvetxero TS NOyw, We may have the direct middle, ‘held him- 
self to the word.’ There are to be added, besides, some of the 
causative middles, like Bamrrica (Ac. 22:16), ‘get yourself bap- 
tized’ (cf. éBarricavro, 1 Cor. 10:2). It is true that the list is 
not a large one, but the idiom is clearly not obsolete in the N. T. 
The causative middle has a wider use also, as will be shown 
directly. 

(g) CAUSATIVE OR PERMISSIVE Mippie. Cf. the German sich 
lassen. This occasional use of the middle does not distinguish 
it from the active and occurs both with the direct and the indi- 
rect use of the middle.! It is just so in modern Greek (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 114 f.). It is, like transitive and intransitive, more 
the notion of the word than a phase of the middle voice.? In 
later Greek the causative sense occurs only with the direct middle.’ 
It is not to be forgotten that originally there was no passive form 
at all. The verb-idea and the context then alone decided the 
voice as between middle and passive. Even in the aorist and 
future, where the passive later has a distinct form, the line was 
not always sharply drawn, especially in the future. More about 
this a little later.. But in the aorist in particular one hesitates to 
find a passive voice in the middle form, though it sometimes 
happens. Some few of these causative middles could be explained 
as passives, but by no means all. Certainly éxX\e~apevous (Ac. 15: 
22) is a true middle. A considerable residuum remains. “In 
Tb.P. 35 (i1/B.c.) éavrov aittacerat, ‘will get himself accused,’ is a 
middle.”’* In Ac. 22:16, Barrica cal arodovoa Tas ayapTias cov, 
we have the causative middle, one a direct, the other an indirect, 
middle, ‘get yourself baptized and get your sins washed away.’: 
So then é¢8arricavto (W. H. text in 1 Cor. 10:2) is causative, 
though many MSS. read é8azric@noav. Blass® has eccentric notions 
of textual criticism, for he rejects the middle here and contends 
for it in Lu. 11:38 on the authority of one minuscule! Blass® 
also argues that the sense of ‘let’ or ‘allow’ belongs to the pas- 
sive rather than to the middle, but this is by no means certain. 
Thus dduxetoe and aroortepetobe (1 Cor. 6:7) may be middles (ef. 
actives in next verse), ‘let yourselves be wronged and robbed.’ 


1 Gildersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gr., p. 67. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 162. 
2 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 162. § Gro of Ne TiGke nase. 
§ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 361. 6 Tb., p..185. 


VOICE (AIAQEZIZ) 809 


This permissive sense of the middle is closely allied to the causa- 
tive and approaches the passive.1 In Lu. 2:5 droypapacbac may 
be (see (f) above) causative, ‘have himself enrolled,’ though azo- 
ypapecbar (2:1) is passive. In Mt. 5:42 davicacba is ‘to have 
money lent’ (‘to borrow’). Mucbwcacda (Mt. 20:1) is ‘to let 
out for wages’ (‘to hire’). In 1 Cor. 11:6, KepacOw, Keipacbar 7 
Evpdcbar (or Ebpacbar), we find the permissive middle. Cf. évp7- 
govrar THv Kepadnv (Ac. 21:24). But doxoporrac (Gal. 5:12) is 
causative, ‘have themselves castrated’ (cf. Deut. 23:1). So aze- 
Novcacbe, according to text of Rev. V. (1 Cor. 6:11). In Rev. 
3:5 mepiBaretrar comes rather close to the passive sense. See 
(f) above. In Lu. 14:18, 19, éve we rapntnuevov, we have a con- 
struction more like modern English. The causative idea in ava- 
Kedarawoacbar Ta TavTa év TH XprorS (Eph. 1:10) is not due to 
the voice, but to the verb itself (—dw). 

(h) InpireEcT Mippue. In the flourishing period of the language 
this was by far the most frequent use, but it finally faded before 
the active and the intensive (reflexive) pronoun or the passive.2. In 
1 Cor. 15 : 28, broraynoera, the passive may bear the middle force 
(Findlay, Expos. Gr. T., in loco). But in general the indirect 
middle is abundant and free in the N. T. In the modern Greek 
Thumb gives no instances of the indirect middle. The precise 
shade of the resultant meaning varies very greatly. The subject is 
represented as doing something for, to or by himself. Often the 
mere pronoun is sufficient translation. Hach word and its context 
must determine the result. Thus in Heb. 9:12, aiwviay Nitpwow 
eipauevos, Jesus is represented as having found eternal redemption 
by himself. He found the way. In Mt. 16:22, rpocdaBduevos 
avrov, ‘Peter takes Jesus to himself.’ In Mk. 9:8, rep:Brehbauevor, 
‘the disciples themselves suddenly looking round.’ In Lu. 8 : 27, 
ovK évedvaaTo tuarvov, ‘did not put a garment on himself.’ In 8 : 52, 
exorrovto avtnv, the word has really changed meaning, ‘they beat 
themselves for grief as to her’ (‘bewailed her’), actually a direct 
middle. ‘‘We have, in fact, to vary the exact relation of the re- 
flexive perpetually if we are to represent the middle in the form ap- 
propriate to the particular example.’’* That is precisely the case. 
So mpockxadecauevos (Mt. 10: 1) represents Jesus as calling the dis- 
ciples to himself. Cf. eicxadodua (Ac. 10 : 23). So mpocrauBavecbe 
(Ro. 15:7; cf. also rpocedaBero) is ‘take to yourselves.’ Kaicapa 
émcxadooduat (Ac. 25 : 11) is ‘I call upon Cesar in my behalf.’ Alpjao- 

1 Thompson, Synt., p. 162. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 360, 362. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 157. 


810 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


yor (Ph. 1: 22) is ‘I take for myself’ (‘choose’), while krnonobe (Mt. 
10 : 9), though only in the middle, means ‘provide for yourselves’ 
(‘procure’). In oracdpevos tHv uaxarpav (Mk. 14:47), the possessive 
is probably sufficient, ‘drawing his own sword’ (cf. aréoracey — 
avvod in Mt. 26:51). ’Exrivaéapevos ra tuatia (Ac. 18 : 6) is rather 
‘shaking out his clothes from himself,’ while azevivaro rds xetpas 
(Mt. 27 : 24) is probably ‘he himself washed his hands.’ In 
arwhetabe adtov (Ac. 13 : 46; cf. Ro. 11:1) the idea is ‘ye push it 
away from yourselves’ (‘reject’). ’Azédocbe (Ac. 5: 8) is ‘ye gave 
away for your own interest’ (‘sold’). ’Evocdicaro (Ac. 5 : 2) means 
‘kept back for himself.’ In émtdeckvipevar xit&vas (Ac. 9 : 39) the 
women were ‘showing garments belonging to themselves.’ Note 
the fulness of meaning in zepterounoaro (Ac. 20:28). Cf. rapa- 
tnpetobe (Gal. 4:10), arevraunv (2 Cor. 4:2), exrpérouae (1 Tim. 
6:20). In dvefwoaro (Jo. 21:7) we have ‘he girded round himself.’ 
Tlapartnonobe (Heb. 12 : 25) is ‘beg off from yourselves’ (‘reject’). 
In Col. 4: 5, tov Karpov éEayopafouevor, we have ‘buying the oppor- 
tunity for yourselves out of the open market.’ ’Azoféuevo. (Heb. 
12:1) is ‘laying aside from yourselves every weight.’ In é£e\ééaro 
(Lu. 10: 42) we have ‘she selected for herself’? (‘chose’). ’Eve- 
d.dvoxero (Lu. 16:19) is ‘he put clothes on himself,’ though this 
may be direct middle with accusative of thing added. Karozrpi- 
fouevoc (2 Cor. 3:18) is probably ‘beholding for ourselves in a 
mirror.’ In Ro. 3:25, dv rpoééfero 6 Oeds, note that it was God’s 
own Son whom he set forth. This free indirect reflexive use came 
to be the typical middle in the flourishing period of the Greek 
language. No fixed rule can be laid down for the translation of 
this or any other use of the middle. Even ‘‘deponents”’ like 
xpaouac may be indirect middles. This word from xp7 (‘neces- 
sity’) means ‘I make for myself what is necessary with something’ 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 158). An interesting group of middles occurs 
in Ac. 24: 22-25, aveBarero, diayvwcouat, duatatdpevos, Tapayevouevos, 
meTreTTeuWaTo, duadeyouevov, Topevov, weraxadecouat. These are not all 
“indirect”’ middles, as is obvious. Cf. also ékBaddduevor (Ac. 27 : 38) 
and mpocedaBero (Ro. 14:3). It is interesting to note the difference 
between zapetxe in Ac. 16:16 (the damsel who furnished gain for 
her masters) and zapeixero in Ac. 19: 24 (Demetrius who furnished 
gain for his craftsmen and himself). So zeiéw is ‘to exercise 
suasion,’ and zeifoua ‘to admit suasion to one’s self’ (Moulton, 
Prol., p. 158). 

(1) RecrprocaL Mippie. Since éavrév was used in the recip- 
rocal sense, it was natural for the middle to fall in with this idiom. 


VOICE (AIAGEZIZ) 811 


Thus ovveBovdreboavtro (Mt. 26:4), ‘they counselled with one an- 
other,’ does not differ radically from é£e\eyovro (Lu. 14 : 7), ‘they 
selected the first seats for themselves.’! So also éBovdrebcavro 
(Jo. 12:10), cvvereBewro (9:22), cuvavamiyrvvcba (1 Cor. 5:9), xpi- 
veoOar (6:1), euaxovro (Jo. 6:52), duadeyouevos (Ac. 19:8. In Mk. 
9 : 34, pds adANAous dvedkexOnoav, we have passive deponent with 
reciprocal pronoun).? The reciprocal middle survives in modern 
Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 114). For classic examples see Gil- 
dersleeve, Syntax, p. 66. 

(j) RepuNDANT MippitEe. Here the pronoun and the middle 
both occur. This idiom is found as early as Homer and indicates 
a dimness in the force of the middle on the part of the speaker. 
“The effect is artificial”? according to Thompson.? Gildersleeve 
(Syntax, p. 68) sees in this idiom the effort to bring out more 
clearly the reflexive force of the middle. Moulton (Prol., p. 162) 
cites from the papyri éavrov airiacera, Th.P. 35 (ii/B.c.). This 
redundance probably began very naturally. Thus in Ac. 7: 58, 
aneevto Ta tuatia av’t&v, the personal pronoun is added, not the 
reflexive. So in trodnoar ta cavdddia cov and repiBadod To tuarov 
cov (12:8) and adewWai cov ryv cepadrnv (Mt. 6:17). Cf. virrovrat 
tas xetpas (Mt. 15:2) without the pronoun. So in Lu. 14:1, xai 
avrol joav mapatnpovmevor, the aitol wavers between mere personal 
and intensive. Cf. the active in Eph. 5 : 27, rapaornon airos éauTd. 
But in Jo. 19 : 24 the LXX quotation is given as dteuepicayto — 
éauvtois, While in Mt. 27:35 it is merely deuepicavto. Note also 
ceauTov tapexouevos (Tit. 2:7) and roduar — éuavtd (Ac. 20 : 24). 
See also dveOpéWaro aitov éautA eis viov (Ac. 7:21) and 1 Tim. 3: 13 
éauvtots mepiroodvrac. Most of the examples, however, in the N. T. 
occur with verbs which are not found in the active. Cf: Lu. 9: 
23 apvncdcbw éavrov, Ac. 24:10 ra rept euavrod amodoyodua, 26:2 
Hynuar éuavtov, Ph. 3:12 euavrov obrw Aoyifouac. 

(k) Dynamic (DEPONENT) Mippie. ‘I would fain call the 
drip-pan middle, the ravéexrns middle, the middle that is put at 
the bottom to catch the drippings of the other uses.’”’* And this 
is the most difficult use of the middle to explain. Some writers » 
distinguish between the dynamic and the deponent. Others, like 
Thompson,® make the dynamic include the deponent. The name 
‘“‘deponent”’ is very unsatisfactory. It is used to mean the laying 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 157. 

2 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 361. 3 Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 166. 
4 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 277, 

5 Synt., p. 161. 


812 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


aside of the active form in the case of verbs that have no active 
voice. But these verbs in most cases never had an active voice. 
Moulton! is clearly right in his contention that the term in reality 
applies as well to active verbs that have no middle as to middle 
verbs that have no active. The term is usually applied to both 
middles and passives that have no active (Clyde, Gk. Syntaz, p. 
61). Others? use the term for middle verbs that have no longer 
a reflexive idea. But ‘‘deponent”’ is a very poor definition. Nor 
is the word “dynamic”? much better. Winer’s remark? is not 
very lucid: ‘From Middle verbs are to be carefully distinguished 
Deponents.”” They are indeed either transitive or intransitive, 
but some are in the middle voice, others passive. But the point 
about all the ‘‘dynamic”’ middles is that it is hard to see the dis- 
tinctive force of the voice. The question is raised whether these 
verbs have lost the middle idea or never had it. ‘Like the rest 
of us, Stahl has to go into bankruptcy,’’ Gildersleeve+ remarks on 
Stahl’s attempt to explain this use of the middle. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 158) thinks that in these verbs ‘‘it is useless to exercise our in- 
genuity on interpreting the middle, for the development never 
progressed beyond the rudimentary stage.’’ But these verbs per- 
sist in the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 118). It is possible 
that the Greeks were more sensitive to the exact force of this 
middle than we are, just as they used the intensive particles so 
freely. Where guessing is all that we can do, is it not clear that 
these ‘““dynamic”’ middles represent the original verb before the 
distinction was drawn between active and middle? The French 
says je m’apercois, ‘I perceive.’ The intensive force of this middle 
is partially seen in verbs of mental action which are so common in 
Greek, like aicOavouae (Lu. 9 : 45), apvéowar (Lu. 12 : 9), mpoartrdouar 
(Ro. 3:9), domafoua (Ac. 25:18), daBeBarcotuac (Tit. 3:8), xata- 
NapBavouar (Ac. 4:18, but note catradauGarw in the same sense in 
Ph. 3:12), évre\douae (Heb. 11:22), ércAavOdavoua. (Mt. 16: 5), 
eVxouar (Ro. 9 : 3), ayéeowar (Ph. 3 : 8), Aoyifoua (Ph. 4:8), patvoua 
(Ac. 26 : 25), uéudouar (Ro. 9:19), deidouae (Ro. 8 : 32). I imagine 
that the personal interest of the subject is not so difficult to recog- 
nise in such verbs, especially since in a word like katadauBavouar 
it is not “deponent,” but occurs also in the active. The papyri 
vary,° as does the N. T. in the use of zovoduar and zo1® with nouns. 
Thus we have ovpBobA\uov mounoavtes (Mk. 15:1), but pvelay zrovov- 
LProliip..Lbs3: 4 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 278. - 


2 Thompson, Synt., p. 161. ® Moulton, Prol., p. 159, 
* W.-Th., p. 258, 








VOICE (AIAQEZI2) 813 


pevos (Eph. 1:16). There is the utmost freedom in the matter in 
the N. T. Not all the “‘deponents”’ of mental action are middles 
in the aorist. Cf. BovAopar, evOvuéouar, Ertpwedeouat, evAaBEouar. These 
are commonly called passive deponents in the present as well as 
in the aorist and future, but the matter is not clear by any means. 
At any rate there are middle verbs which are very hard to explain, 
like yivouar (Mt. 8 : 26), aANopar (Jo. 4 : 14), adixveowar (Ro. 16 : 19), 
dtauaptipouar (Ac. 2:40), eoxouar (Jo. 1:39), epyagfoua (Mt. 25: 
16), xabefouar (Mt. 26 : 55), xabnuac (Mt. 13:1), cvvéroua (Ac. 20: 
4; cf. sequor). Ketyar is probably passive. It is not hard to see 
the reflexive idea in déxouac (Mt. 10: 14). TlepiBderouar is always 
middle in the N. T. (ef. Mk. 3 : 5), accenting the movement of the 
eyes or concern expressed in the look. There are also passive 
deponents that correspond to this list that really do not seem to 
be passive in idea, like BotAouar, Stvapyat, PoBéouac. Some of these 
verbs have both middle and passive forms, like yivouar (éyévero, 
évyevnOnv), déxouar (€6€Eato, &5€xOnv). Not all of these middle “de- 
ponents” have middle forms in all tenses. Cf. yéyova, 7\Oor, 
é\jAvOa, EXafov. Then, again, some verbs have the deponent or 
dynamic middle only in the future, like dyoua, though Homer is 
fond of the middle forms of this verb.1. But the aorist and future 
middle call for special treatment. 

(1) MippLE FuTuRE, THOUGH ACTIVE PRESENT. Some verbs, 
active in the other tenses, have the future only in the middle. 
No real explanation of this phenomenon is known. For a list see 
chapter VIII, v1, (d). Some of them are really separate verb- 
roots, as dpaw, dPoua; éobiw, dayoua. Others represent a special 
variation of the future form, like avofavotuar, recoduat, rioua, but 
both kouicouar and xouwodua. Others are regular enough, like 
akovoouat, —Bnoouar, yywoouat, Ecouat, Oavuacouar, TéE~ouar, PevEouar. 
In other instances the old classic middle has vanished in the 
N. T. before the active future, as in duaprnow, amavTnow, apace, 
yed\acw, Kratow, Kpaéw, rai~w, pelow, etc. Some verbs, like axovw, 
taw, use either voice in the future. Some of these middle futures 
create no difficulty. Thompson? calls them all ‘strict middles,”’ 
but most of them are as ‘‘deponent”’ as the verbs in the previous 
section. Clyde? quotes Curtius’ explanation that an act in the 
future lies mainly in the mind of the speaker. But on the whole 
the matter remains unexplained, though the number has greatly 
decreased in the N.T. as in the xow7y generally. See also Dieterich, 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 7. So the other poets. Thompson, Synt., p. 165. 
2 Synt., p. 165. § Gk. Synt., p. 60. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 154. 


§14 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Untersuch., p. 205; Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 120. Moulton! 
justly takes “the existence of this large class of futures as addi- 
tional evidence of a close connection between the middle flexion and 
the stressing of the agent’s interest in the action of the verb.” 
The use of the middle future (and occasionally aorist) as passive 
comes under the passive voice, for it is really passive. See under Iv. 

(m) THe MippLe RETREATING IN THE N. T. This is happen- 
ing because of the active (cf. duapthow above) as well as the passive. 
This is. true of the xowy in general.2 There was a considerable 
amount of variation and even of confusion among writers in the 
later period.’ Different words had different histories in the mat- 
ter. But we have just seen from the list of ‘dynamic-deponent”’ 
middles plenty of evidence that from the day of Homer on the 
function of the middle voice was indistinct in many verbs.* “‘ The 
accuracy with which the middle was used would naturally vary 
with the writer’s Greek culture.”’> And, it may be added, with 
‘the author’s feelings at the moment. The judgment of Simcox® 
is right, that the middle ‘is one of the refinements in Greek idiom 
which is perhaps beginning to be blurred in some of the N. T. 
writers, but is preserved to a greater or less extent in most.” 
But it is no more “blurred’’.than in other writers of the xow7. 
It is simply that all the distinctions of earlier times did not sur- 
vive with all the verbs. On the whole, in the N. T., air& is 
used colloquially and airoduac for the more elevated style, but 
usage varies with different writers as in the LXX. Cf. Abbott, 
Johannine Gr., p. 389. So torepew in Heb. 4:1, but torepoduac in 
Ro. 3:23. But the change in the N. T. is mainly in the disuse 
of the middle, not in a new use of it. From Homer to modern 
Greek plenty of middles are hard to define, and the N. T. is no 
more erratic than the rest of Greek, not to say of the xow7 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 159). But the delicate distinctions between 
the active and the dynamic middle are lost in modern Greek 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 112), if indeed they ever really existed. 

IV. The Passive Voice (6td8eots tadnTLKn). 

(a) ORIGIN OF THE PasstvE. See chapter VIII, vi, (e), for a 
discussion of the rise of the passive voice.” In Sanskrit the middle 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 155. Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 42. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 363 f- 

8 Hatz., Einl., pp. 194 ff. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 127. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 158 f. 

5 Ib., p. 159. 

6 Lang. of the N. T., p. 95. ‘Cf K-G) Bd2 loop. 12h 





VOICE (AIAQESIS) 815 


was liable to be used in the passive sense.!. As is well known 
in Homer, the future passive forms do not occur except two, 
pyjoecOar and danoeat (Stahl, Syntax, p. 66), and the distinction 
between aorist middle and aorist passive is indistinct. Indeed, 
strictly speaking, there was no passive voice as to form in 
Greek, as there was none in the original Indo-Germanic speech.? 
The passive sense was developed in various languages in different 
ways. This sense may be due to verbs of state, but Greek fell 
upon various devices like the active of some verbs (kaxés exw, 
mtacxw), the mere use of the middle, the development of two special 
tenses by the use of active endings (aorist) and middle (future) 
with a special suffix. In Homer?*® é6d\junv, exraunv, éoxduny occur 
as passives just like BadXoua, Exoua. ‘Even in Attic éoxounv 
appears as a passive, éoxéOnv being late.”* In Homer also the 
distinctive aorist passive form sometimes has practically the active 
or middle signification.’ This much of repetition is necessary to 
get the position of the passive clearly before us. It is really no 
voice at all in form as compared with the active and middle. Cf. 
French je me trouve and the use of reflexive pronouns in English. 

(b) SIGNIFICANCE OF THE Passive. The subject is represented 
as the recipient of the action. He is acted upon. The name 
“passive” comes from patior (cf. racyw trod in Mt. 17:12). 
’AroxravOjvac (Mk. 9 : 31) occurs as well as darobvnocxev. The use 
of repixeyuae as the transitive passive (Ac. 28 : 20) of qepitifnu is 
somewhat different. The idea of having an experience is very 
vague and allows wide liberty. The point to note is that at first 
this idea had no distinctive form for its expression. Only the 
context and the force of the verb itself could make it clear.. The 
future passive, being built upon the earlier aorist passive, reflects 
the Aktionsart of the aorist.® 

(c) WitH INTRANSITIVE OR TRANSITIVE VERBS. “ Theoret- 
ically the passive ought: to be formed from transitive verbs only 
with an accusative object.”’7 But Greek follows no such narrow 
rule. That is an artificial rule of the Latin which Greek knows 
nothing about.’ Cf. xarnyopetrar bro raév ‘lovéaiwy (Ac. 22 : 30). 
Other N. T. examples are dcaxovnbjvac (Mk. 10: 45), éyxadetobac (Ac. 


1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 201, 275. 

Thompson, Synt., p. 162. 3 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 464. 
Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 278. 

Sterrett, The Dial. of Hom., N. 27. 6 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 464. 
Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 279. 

Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr:,,p: 359. 


ow an & Wf 


816 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


19:40), evapecretcbar (Heb. 13:16), xateyvwopevos (Gal. 2:11), 
uaptupecoba (Ac. 6:3), xpnuativecbac (Mt. 2:12). Blass (Gr. of 
N. T. Gk., p. 185) notes that “only in Lu. 2:26 do we have jp 
aiT@ Kexpnuaticuevov.”” The passive is used with both active and 
middle verbs. Thus we have from doyifoua. both édoy:oaunv and 
édoyicOnv. Cf. éyevouny and éyernbny from yivoyac. 

(d) THe PasstvE UsuALLy INTRANSITIVE. But it is not neces- 
sarily so. Addoxw, for instance, is transitive in the passive, ds 
é5.daxOnre (2 Th. 2:15), and note xarnxnuevos tiv dddv (Ac. 18: 25). 
See also 1 Cor. 9:17; Lu. 7:25; 9:25; Gal. 2:7. Transitive 
passives are usually verbs that in the active have two accusatives 
or an accusative of the thing with the person in the dative or ab- 
lative. This accusative of the thing is retained in the passive. 
Cf. éricrelOnoav Ta Oya TOD Oeod (Ro. 3:2), repiBeBAnuevous aTodas 
Nevxas (Rev. 7:9). For full list see “‘ Accusative” in chapter XI, 
Cases. Cf. also tiv advow tabrnv repixeruat (Ac. 28:20). The 
transitive passive ‘‘deponents,” like ui doBnOire abrots (Mt. 10: 
26), call for special discussion a little later. Certainly there is 
no ‘‘passive” sense in wopevOjvar. The vernacular! in later times 
preferred the active to passive. Cf. aitotow (Lu. 12:20) as a 
N. T. illustration. In ayvicOn7e (Ac. 21:24) the passive appar- 
ently has the force of ‘let’ or ‘get’ (cf. the causative middle). 
Cf. also repitéuvnobe (Gal. 5: 2).2 It is possible so to regard dé.xetabe 
and darootepetobe (1 Cor. 6:6f.). Sometimes, indeed, it is difficult 
to tell whether a verb is middle or passive. Cf. rrwxol evbayye- 
Aifovrac (Mt. 11:5), mpoexoucba (Ro. 3:9), évdvvauotdcbe (Eph. 6: 
10). Indeed, as already said, in all the Greek tenses save the 
aorist and the future it is always an open question whether we 
have middle or passive. ‘The dividing-line is a fine one at best”’ 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 162). Only the context and the verb-idea can 
decide. So with éyeipouac (Mt. 27:63), wepreaoraro (Lu. 10:40) 
and OopuyBagn (10:41), Bidferae (Mt. 11:12). Cf. perfects in Ac. 
13972792512" RO44 2) ae eee Oe Oneeoe 

(e) Aorist Passtve. This tense calls for special comment. 
As already stated, in Homer the aorist middle form, like the other 
middle forms, was sometimes used as passive.’ In itself there is 
no reason why this should not be so. The distinctive passive 
aorist (second and first) grew up side by side with this use of the 
aorist middle. ’Ed¢avyy and é8yv are really the same form at 

1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 359. 


2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 185. 
’ Seymour, The Hom. Dial., p. 74. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 464. 


VOICE (ATAGESIZ) Eres i 


bottom.! Out of this intransitive aorist active (cf. d7é\wda) grew 
the so-called second aorist passive forms (—nv) with active endings. 
We have éxpi8nv (Jo. 8: 59) from the transitive xptarw (cf. éoradnv 
from oréd\d\w, etc.) and éxapnv (Jo. 14:28) from the intransitive 
xaipw. It is probable that 7yépA) sometimes (as in Mk. 16 : 6) is 
merely intransitive, not passive, in idea. Moulton (Prol., p. 163) 
says “often.” In 1 Cor. 15:15 f., etc., the true passive “empha- 
sizes the action of God.”’ But bzeraynoav (Ro. 10 : 3) is more likely 
passive in sense, like éxo.unOnv (1 Th. 4:14), ‘was put to sleep’ 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 162). Moulton quotes from the papyri ‘a 
purely middle use of ko.unOfvar, ‘fell asleep’,” jvixa jweddov KorunOjvar 
éypawa, Ch.P. 3 (iii/B.c.). He finds a “clear passive” in wa ra 
mpoBata éxet korunOjr, F.P. 110 (i/A.p.), but ékoddAHOn (Lu. 15 : 15) can 
be explained as passive or middle in sense. In a few verbs (éornp, 
éoTanv) a distinction was developed.2 W. F. Moulton thinks 
(Winer-M., p. 315, n. 5) that “‘a faint passive force’? may be ob- 
served in oraffva in the N. T., but hardly in Mk. 3 : 24. Cf. also 
intransitive ora$joouac in Mt. 12:25, 26. ’Eoraénxa in modern 
Greek is aorist passive for oréxw, ‘stand,’ and éornOnxa for ornve, 
‘place’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 145). The correct text (W. H.) in 
Ac. 21:3 is dvadavartes tHv Kirpov (active), not davadavertes (pas- 
sive). But still soe MSS. do have this transitive second aorist 
passive participle. If one keeps in mind the origin of this aorist 
passive form (from the active), he may be the less surprised to 
find it also transitive like the active. Already in Homer this was 
true. 

The so-called passive ‘‘deponents,”’ verbs which had no active, 
formed the aorist with the passive form. But they were not always 
intransitive. Some of them were so, like zopetbouac (Mt. 8 : 9), 
metapedrouar (Mt. 27:3), dtvauar (Mt. 17:16), but most of them 
are really transitive. They probably represent a survival of the 
old active origin of the aorist passive forms.’ As examples of 
the transitive passive deponents note €Govdrnbn (Mt. 1:19), edenOn 
(Lu. 5:12), &Ouunbevros (Mt. 1:20), émeuednOn (Lu. 10: 34), ebo8y6n 
(Mt. 14:5). These passive aorists have precisely the construc- 
tion that the middle or active would have so far as case is 
concerned. The distinctive passive sense is absent. Some of the 
“deponents” have both a middle and a passive aorist with a dis- 
tinct passive sense. Thus note the middle and passive voices side 


1 Giles, Comp. Philol., p. 410; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 465. 
2*Blass: Gr OleN Loukas prisl. 
8 See ch. VIII, v1, (e), for list of these N. T. passive aorists. 


818 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


by side in dpyncdpevos and arapynOjcerar (Lu. 12:9). It so happens 
that this context is full of passive forms. Some of them in the 
strict passive sense, like érucvvaxberoGv (12 : 1), cvyKexaduppevov éorly 
5 otk droxadudOjoerar (12 : 2), yrwoOnoerar (12 : 2), axovobjcerar and 
knpuxOncerar (12:8), mwAodvrar and ovk Ear émideAnopevov (12 : 6), 
HplOunvrae (12:7), adeOjoerac (12:10). But note also the passive 
deponents goSnOjre (12:4 f.), poBnOnre (12:5), HoBetoe (12:7). 
Cf. also aodéEacbar (Ac. 18 : 27) and rapedéxOnoav (15 : 4), where the 
voices are distinguished, Oeacacbar robs avaxeuévous (Mt. 22:11) and 
mpos TO Oeabjvar aitots (Mt. 6:1), Noyroduevos (Heb. 11:19) and 
édoyicbn (Lu. 22:37), idcaro (Lu. 9:42) and idéy (Mt. 8:18), 
éptoaro (Col. 1:18) and éptoOnv (2 Tim. 4:17), éxapiocaro (Lu. 
7:21) and xapioOqva (Ac. 3:14). One may note also zapyrjcavto 
(Heb. 12 : 19) and Exe we rapytnpevov (Lu. 14 : 19, perfect passive) ; 
éfedeEaro (Mk. 13 : 20), but 6 exXedeypevos (Lu. 9 : 35); Kopecbevtes 
tpopys (Ac. 27:38) and 7éy Kexopecpeéevor éore (1 Cor. 4:8). It is 
possible to see a difference also between éyévero (Jo. 1:14) and 
yernOnrw (Mt. 6:10). ’AzexpiOny (Mt. 25:9) steadily drove out 
amexpivato (Ac. 3:12), though both are used transitively with no 
difference in sense. The papyri more frequently! have azexpwapunpr, 
though both forms continue in the xow7. Cf. also arodoynOAvar (Lu. 
21:14), dveAexOnoav (Mk. 9:34), Cavuacby (Rev. 13: 3), though 
with passive sense in 2 Th.1:10. As a result of this inroad of 
the comparatively new passive forms the aorist middle forms 
vanished. It modern Greek the passive aorist form is almost 
invariably used for both the middle and the passive ideas. This 
tendency seen in the N. T. (and the rest of the xow7) has triumphed 
over the aorist middle.2 In Ro. 10:3, rH dtxacocbvyn Tod Ae0d ovx 
breraynoar, the Rev. V. translates ‘they did not subject themselves 
to the righteousness of God.’ 

(f) Fururr Passtvr. As has been mentioned several times 
already, Homer has only two future passive forms (second futures). 
The passive voice indeed occurs but rarely in the Boeeotian dialect.’ 
The future in —@ycouar is comparatively late. At first, certainly, 
the distinction between passive and middle (and active also, —n, 
—Onv) was ‘a distinction of function, not of form.’’4 It is not 
surprising to find the middle future form in Homer used with the 
passive sense (cf. all the other tenses save aorist), where the forms 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 161. 

2 Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 362; Hatz., Einl., pp. 196 ff.; Jebb in V. 
and \DiatHandb.p. 15, § Claflin, Synt. of the Baeot. Dial., p. 67. 

4 Gildersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gk., p. 61. 





VOICE (AIAOESI>) | 819 


for the two voices are identical. In later prose the future middle 
form continued to be used in the passive sense even in the great 
prose writers (Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, De- 
mosthenes).1. In the LX X Conybeare and Stock (Selections, p. 
75 f.) find the same idiom. Cf. Ex. 12:10, ot« drodeiWerar ar’ 
avTod ews mpwl, Kal dcrody ob cuvTpiWerat an’ a’rod. It is quite within 
bounds, therefore, to speak of ‘‘medio-passives”’ in the future as 
in the aorist.2, The idiom appears in the papyri.’? So narrow is the 
dividing-line between middle and passive. Is zepiBadetrar (Rev. 
3:5) middle or passive in sense? The same ambiguity exists as 
to amoxopovra (Gal. 5:12). Considering the rather large list of 
verbs‘ that once used the middle future as passive in sense the 
idiom is rare in the N. T. In general, therefore, the future passive 
form has made its place secure by the time of the xowy. Even verbs 
that have no active form have the future passive as well as the 
future middle. Thus damrapyncouae (Mk. 14:31), but drapynOjcomae 
(Lu. 12:9); idcowa (Ac. 28 : 27), but ta?ncerac (Mt. 8: 8); and in 
Ro. 2 : 26 NoyicOncerai is passive in sense. But the future passive 
form was destined, like the other futures, to disappear as a dis- 
tinct form. Only the compound tense occurs in the modern Greek.® 
But, meanwhile, the future passive form took over the uses of the 
vanishing future middle forms.® It is possible to find a passive 
sense in éravaranoerar (Lu. 10: 6), pwerauednOnoerar (Heb. 7: 21), 
avaknOnoovrac (Mt. 8:11), KounOnooueda (1 Cor. 15:51), Koddn94- 
cerat (Mt. 19:5). Cf. also davyacbjnoovrar (Rev. 17 : 8), recOjoovrat 
(Lu. 16 : 31), davnoerar (Mt. 24 : 80), broraynoerat (1 Cor. 15 : 28).7 
In 1 Cor. 15 : 28 note also troray7, which reinforces the argument 
for the true passive. But the future passive may also be devoid 
of the passive idea and even transitive just like the aorist passive. 
Cf. amoxpiOjnoou (Mt. 25 : 37), évtparnoovrat tov viov (Mt. 21: 37), 
poBnOncowa: (Heb. 18:6). The passive ddarpeOycerar (Lu. 10 : 42) 
has the usual sense, but one wonders if in ay tre dhOjoouat oor (Ac. 
26 : 16) the passive voice is transitive and even causative (cf. 
Is. 1:12). Cf. the examples of reflexive passives in the LXX 
(Conybeare and Stock, Sel., p. 76), like 6¢0n7.= ‘show thyself’ (1 


1 Gildersleeve, ib., p. 73 f. Cf. Hartel, Abri8 der Gr. d. hom. und herod. 
Dial., 1888, p. 40. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 463 f. 8’ Moulton, Prol., p. 162. 

4 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 61; Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 171. 

5’ Cf. Thumb, Handb., pp. 115, 125. 

6, Jann., Hist. Gk: Grip. 563. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 163. Cf., for the LX X, Helbing, Gr., p. 98. 


820 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ki. 18:1). It is possible, of course, for dv to be attracted to the 
case of robrwy from ots (‘in which,’ ‘wherein’). Then 6¢6jcopat 
cot would be ‘I will appear to thee.’ Note the new present émra- 
vouot (Ac. 1:3). But the future middle persisted in yevjcouat, 
duvnoomar, érimeNnoouat, Topevoomar. 

(g) THe AGENT WITH THE Passive Vorice. As already noted, 
the Greek has no difficulty in using a verb in the passive which 
was not used with the accusative in the active. Thus note éyxaXe?- 
cba (Ac. 19:40), xarnyopetrar bd r&v ’lovéaiwy (Ac. 22:30), memi- 
orevpat 70 evayyéuov (Gal. 2:7).! A few verbs idiomatically use the 
dative with the passive. Thus éyvwo6n 7S Datdw (Ac. 9: 24), ebpePnv 
(Ro. 10: 20), édavn (Mt. 1: 20), &6n (1 Cor. 15:7 f.), Oeabjvar (Mt. 
6:1).2 The direct agent is most commonly expressed by b7é (Mt. 
4:1), the intermediate by 64 (Mt. 1: 22). The agent (see chapter 
on Prepositions) is also expressed by amé (2 Cor. 3: 18), ex (Gal. 4: 
4), rapa (Jo. 17:7). See also discussion under Instrumental Case 
(chapter XI, Cases) for discussion of atr@ with éorly rerpayyevov 
(Lu. 23 : 15), whether dative or instrumental. In the N. T., as 
in ancient Greek (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 72), the instrument 
is sometimes personified and treated as an agent. Cf. xadXapov bro 
dveuou cadevouevov; (Mt. 11 : 7). 

(h) IMPERSONAL CONSTRUCTION. This is the usual idiom in 
the Coptic in lieu of the absence of the passive. But it is often 
rather rhetorical than syntactical as Moulton shows.? He com, 
pares also the French on, the German man, the English one. 
Wellhausent shows how in the Aramaic this impersonal plural 
was common. One notes airotow (Lu. 12:20), where a passive 
would be possible. Cf. cuvdyovow kal Baddovow kal kalerar (Jo. 15: 
6) where the passive occurs in kalerat. Note in particular é&npav6n 
Kal cuvvayovow atta (Jo. 15:6). Cf. also trpébwow aithy (Rev. 12 : 6). 
The use of the impersonal passive like micreverar and duodoyetrac 
(Ro. 10:10) is another matter and calls for no comment. It is 
rare in Greek as compared with Latin (Gildersleeve, Syntaz, p. 
77). Cf. the plural in 10:14 f. See also the personal construction 
in 1 Cor. 15:12 ei 6€ Xprords Knpbooerar Ort. 


1 Cf. Gildersleeve, Synt., etc., p. 77. #°Rroleep. pone 
2° Cf, Blass; Gr-of Ni 2eGkeeps iso: 4 EKinl., p. 25f. 





CHAPTER XVIII 
' TENSE (XPONOS) 


I. Complexity of the Subject. 

Probably nothing connected with syntax is so imperfectly un- 
derstood by the average student as tense. This is due to various 
causes. 

1. THe DirricuLTY OF COMPARING GREEK TENSES WITH GER- 
MANIC TENSES. “The translators of our English version have 
failed more frequently from their partial knowledge of the force 
of the tenses than from any other cause.”’! Ignorance, one may 
add, both of English and Greek still stands in the way of proper 
rendering of the Greek. The English, like the other Germanic 
tongues,” has only two simple verb-forms. We have a great 
wealth of tenses in English by means of auxiliary verbs, but they 
do not correspond with any of the Greek tenses.? It is the com- 
monest grammatical vice for one to make a conjectural translation 
into English and then to discuss the syntactical propriety of the 
Greek tense on the basis of this translation.’ Burton® indeed justi- 
fies this method for the benefit of the English student of Greek. 
But I submit that the practice brings more confusion than help. 
“The Aorist for the English Perfect, and the Aorist for the English 
Pluperfect’”’ Burton urges as ‘“‘a pertinent illustration.”’ But that 
method keeps the student at the English standpoint, just the thing 
to be avoided. The Greek point of view affords the only sure. 
basis of operation. Winer® laments that “N. T. grammarians 
and expositors have been guilty of the greatest mistakes” here, 
though it cannot be said that Winer himself always lives up to 
his just ideal. Translation into English or German is the least 
point to note in judging a tense. 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 123. 2 K.-G., Bd. I, p. 129. 
3 Weymouth, On Rendering into Eng. of the Gk. Aorist and Perf., 1894, 
Dp. 11; 
4 Cf. Broadus, Comm. on Matthew, p. 54 note. 
5 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 4 f. 6 W.-Th., p. 264. 
821 


822 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


_ 2. Bap INFLUENCE oF THE LATIN ON GREEK GRAMMARIANS. 

Most of the older Greek grammars were made by men who knew 
Latin better than Greek. Even to-day! the study of the Greek 
tenses is hampered by the standpoint of Latin idioms which de- 
veloped under very different conditions. This is true of school 
grammars? in particular, whereas Latin has had no influence on 
the Greek tenses themselves by the time of the xow7y. The perfect 
and the aorist blend in Latin, while that is not true in Greek till 
a very late date (1000 a.p.).2 The separate Greek development 
(cf. the Sanskrit) was due to the genius and spirit of the Greek 
people and has continued throughout the history of the language,‘ 
though in modern times the Greek tenses have suffered serious 
modification. The Latin tenses must be left to one side. The 
time element is more prominent in the Latin. 

3. ABSENCE OF HmrBREW INFLUENCE. There is no time ele- 
ment at all in the Hebrew tenses. Hence it is not strange that the 
LXX translators had much trouble in rendering the two Hebrew 
tenses (perfect and imperfect) into the Greek with its richness 
of tense. A similar difficulty exists for the English translators. 
Curious devices (possibly slips) sometimes occur, like éyw elu 
kaficoua. (B in Ju. 6:18), écouar dddvac (BA in Tob. 5:15). But 
such translation Greek left no lasting impress on the Greek of 
the N. T. save in mpocéOero réufar (Lu. 20:12; cf. Ex. 25:21). 
-The problems of the Greek tenses are not to be solved by an ap- 
peal to the Semitic influence. 

4. GRADUAL GROWTH OF THE GREEK TENSES. There is no 
~ future optative in Homer and no future passive. The aorist pas- 
sive is also rare.6 The past perfect is rare in Homer,’ and it does 
not occur with the idea of relative time. “In the examination of 
tense usages, we must be careful to observe that tenses, in the 
sense in which the word is now used, are of comparatively late 
development.’”’® In the beginning the verb-root was used with 
personal suffixes. At first this was enough. Some verbs developed 
_ some tenses, others other tenses, some few all the tenses. 


1 Mutzbauer, Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1893, p. i. 
2 K. Roth, Die erzihlenden Zeitformen bei Dion. von Hal., p. 5. 
3 Ernault, Du Parfait en Grec et en Lat., 1886, p. 164. Cf. Jann., Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 440. 
Mutzb., Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1893, p. vif. 
Cf. Swete, Intr. to O. T. in Gk., p. 308. 
Sterrett, Dial. of Hom., N. 42. 
Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 44. 
Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 482. 


aon 28 oO 





TENSE (XPONOS) 823 


5. “AKTIONSART” OF THE VERB-STEM. Aktionsart (“kind of ac- 
tion’’) must be clearly understood. Theverb-root plays a large part 
in the history of the verb. This essential meaning of the word 
itself antedates the tense development and continues afterwards. 
There is thus a double development to keep in mind. There were 
originally two verb-types, the one denoting durative or linear 


action, the other momentary or punctiliar action.!- Hence some. 


verbs have two roots, one linear (durative), like ¢épw (fero), the 
other punctiliar (momentary), like jveyxov (tuli). So dpaw, edor; 
To\uaw, érAnv. With other verbs the distinction was not drawn 
sharply, the root could be used either way (cf. ¢y-ui, &dn-v; 
hey-w, é-Aey-o-v). All this was before there was any idea of the 
later tense. So €éday-ov is punctiliar, while éc@iw is linear or 
durative. Moulton? rightly observes that this is the explanation 
of “defective” verbs. Moulton notes éyw as a word that can be 
used either for durative, as in Ro. 5:1, or punctiliar, like aorist 
éaxov (cf. écxes and eves in Jo. 4:18). The regular idiom for a 
papyrus receipt is écyov rapa ood. This matter of the kind-of 
action in the verb-root (Aktionsart) applies to all verbs.? It has 
long been clear that the ‘‘tense” has been overworked and ‘made 
to mean much that it did not mean. The verb itself is the’ begin- 
ning of all. But scholars are not agreed in the terminology'to be 
used. Instead of “punctiliar’’ (punktuelle Aktion, Brugmann), 
others use “perfective” (Giles, Manual, p. 478). But this brings 
inevitable confusion with the perfect tense. All verbs may be 
described as ‘‘punctiliar” (punktuell) and ‘“non-punctiliar” (nicht- 
punktuell). But the ‘‘non-punctiliar” divides into the indefinite 
linear (durative) and the definite linear (completed or perfect). 


The notion of perfect action as distinct from point action came. 


later. The three essential? kinds of action are thus momentary 
or punctiliar when the action is regarded as a whole and may be 
represented by a dot (.), linear or durative action which may be 
represented by a continuous line ——, the continuance of per- 
fected or completed action which may be represented by this 
graph e——. The distinction between punctiliar and perfected 


action is not clearly drawn in the verb-root itself. That is a_ 


later refinement of tense. Brugmann® credits this “perfected” 
idea to the perfect stem. ‘Iterative’ action belongs to certain 


1 Giles, Man., etc., p. 477 f. 

Prove paLLot: $ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 469. 

4 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 131; Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt. d. griech. Verbums, p. 86 f. 
5 Griech. Gr., p. 472. 


824 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


stems (reduplicated, like yiyvoua), but it is not a fundamental 
kind of action. 

6. THe THREE Kinps or AcTION EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF 
"'TrnsE. These ideas (punctiliar, durative, perfected state) lie be- 
hind the three tenses (aorist, present, perfect) that run through 
all the moods. ‘The forms of these tenses are meant to accentu- 
ate these ideas.1 The aorist stem presents action in its simplest 
form (a-opioros, ‘undefined’). This action is simply presented as 
a point by this tense. This action is timeless. The present is also 
timeless in itself as is the perfect.? It is confusing to apply the 
expression “relations of time” to this fundamental aspect of tense, 
as is done by some grammars.’ Radermacher (NV. 7. Gr., p. 121) 
uses Zeitart and Zeitstufe, but why Zeitart instead of Aktionsart? 
- It is better to keep ‘‘time”’ for its natural use of past, present and 
future, and to speak of “kind of action” rather than “kind of 
time.’ These three tenses (aorist, present, perfect) were first 
developed irrespective of time. Dionysius Thrax erred in explain- 
ing the Greek tenses from the notion of time, and he has been 
followed by a host of imitators. The study of Homer ought to 
have prevented this error. The poets generally do not bring the 
time relations to the fore. Even Paul (Principles of the History 
of Language, p. 300) falls into this error. It is doubtless easier® 
to trace the history of the verb than of the noun, but as many 
mistakes le along the way. 

7. TIME ELEMENT IN TENSE. But for the indicative the Greek 
tenses would have had a simple history. There are no past 
tenses in the subjunctive. The future subjunctive is an anomaly 
of very late Greek. The future optative occurs only in indirect 
discourse and is not found in the N. T. The time element in the 


infinitive is confined to indirect discourse and pé\\w. Time in the 


participle is only relative to the principal verb. It is thus kind of 
action, not the time of the action, that is expressed in these forms.’ 
But in the indicative the three grades of time had tenses of their 
own. The Greeks evidently felt that there was no need for time 
in the other modes except in a relative sense. As a matter of fact, 
the real time of subjunctive, optative, and imperative is future 


LK-G.ii bday pelou: 2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 469. 
8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 483; Gildersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gk., p. 79. 
4 Cf. Benard, Formes Verb. en Grec, 1890, p. 279. 

5 Mutzb., Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1890. 

§ Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., vol. II, 1880, p. 149. 

7 Cf. Spyridis, Lang. grec. actuelle ou mod., 1894, p. 287. 


\ 


~ 


TENSE (XPONOS) 825 


in relation to speaker or writer.!. It was evidently with difficulty 
(cf. absence of time in Hebrew) that time was expressed in a posi- 
tive (non-relative) sense even in the indicative. It is only by the 
augment (probably an adverb) that past time is clearly expressed.? 
“Homer and later Greek writers often use the present with an 
adverb of time instead of a past tense, a construction which has 
an exact parallel in Sanskrit and which is therefore supposed to 
be Indo-Germaniec.”’? There is no really distinctive form for the 
present indicative. The future was a later development out of both 
the present and aorist. See chapter VIII, Conjugation of Verb. 
The augment was not always used. Homer used it only when it 
suited him. But past time was objective and the three kinds of 
action (punctiliar, durative, perfected) were regularly expressed 
with the tenses (aorist, imperfect, past perfect). There is Aktions- 
art also in the present and future time, but the tense development 
did not go on to the full extent here. There are only two tense- 
forms in the present and practically only one in the future. But 
both punctiliar and linear action are expressed, but not differen- 
tiated, in the present time by the same tense, asis true also of 
the future. The kinds of action exist, but separate tense-forms 
unfortunately do not occur.4 There might thus have been nine 
tenses in the indicative: three punctiliar (past, present, future), 
three linear (past, present, future), three perfect (past, present, 
future). Because of this difference between the indicative and 
the other moods in the matter of time some grammars® give a 
separate treatment to the indicative tenses. It is not an easy 
matter to handle, but to separate the indicative perhaps accents 
the element of time unduly. Even in the indicative the time 
element is subordinate to the kind of action expressed. A double 
idea thus runs through tense in the indicative (kind of action, 
time of the action). 

8. FauLTY NOMENCLATURE OF THE TENSES. ‘There is no con- 
sistency in the names given the tenses, as has already been ex- 
plained. Cf. chapter VIII, vu, (6). The terms aorist, imperfect 
and perfect (past, present, future) are properly named from the 
point of view of the state of the action, but present and future 
are named from the standpoint of the time element. There is 


1 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, 1890, pp. 23, 27. 

2 Cf. Seymour, Trans. of the Am. Philol. Asso., 1881, p. 89. 

8 Giles, Man., etc., p. 487. At Ku-Gy Boke ne ied: 
Cis larrarGkeovniep: 120.1: 

5 Cf. Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, pp. 8, 22. 


826 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


no time element in the present subjunctive, for instance. But the 
names cannot now be changed, though very unsatisfactory. 

9. Tue ANALYTIC TENDENCY (Periphrasis). This is the com- 
mon way of expressing tense in the Germanic tongues. It 
was not unknown to the older Greek and was very frequent in 
the LX X under the Hebrew influence. See an extended list in 
Conybeare and Stock, Selections from the LXX, pp. 68-71. The 
tendency is strong in the N. T. See the summary already given 
(pp. 374-376). In the modern Greek the periphrastic form has 
displaced the usual inflected forms in all thé tenses but the 
present, imperfect and aorist. These are “simple.” The rest 
are “compound” (Thumb, Handb., p. 115).1. This analytic ten- 
dency affected the durative and perfect kinds of action. It did 
not suit the purely punctiliar idea. 

10. THe Errect oF PREPOSITIONS ON THE VERB. This is 
another aspect of Aktionsart. This subject has already been 
briefly discussed from the standpoint of the prepositions.2 Del- 
briick® has worked the matter out with thoroughness and he is 
followed by Brugmann.* Moulton® has applied the principle to 
N. T. verbs. The point is that often where the simple verb is 
durative it is rendered “perfective” by the preposition in composi- 
tion. This peculiarity is common to all the Indo-Germanic tongues 
and reaches its highest development in the Germanic (cf. English 
and German) and the Balto-Slavic languages. Thus we in Eng- 
lish say bring and bring up, burn and burn up, carry and carry off, 
come and come on, drive and drive away (home, tn, off, out), drink 
and drink up, eat and eat up, follow and follow wp, go and go away, 
grow and grow up, knock and knock down, make and make over, 
pluck and pluck out, run and run away, speak and speak out, stand 
and stand up, take and take up, wake and wake up, work and work 
out.’ The “imperfective”’ simplex becomes “perfective” in the 
compound. Prof. A. Thumb® has a paper “ Zur Aktionsart der 
mit Préapositionen zusammengesetzten Verba im Griechischen,” in 
which he compares some tables of Schlachter for Thucydides with 
some by Prof. 8. Dickey for the N. T. Thucydides shows for the 
present tense 260 simplicia verbs to 83 compound, for the aorist 
158 to 199. Dickey has investigated about thirty N. T. verbs 


1 Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., pp. 323, 326. 


2 Creche x TL aes 6 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 482. 
3 Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, pp. 146-170. 7 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 112. 
4 Griech. Gr., pp. 482 ff. 8 Indoger. Forsch., XX VII. 


5 -Prol., pp. 111-115: 


TENSE (XPONOS) 827 


like daéxw, etc. He reports for the present tense a proportion of 
1160 simplicia to 83 compound, for the aorist 885 to 226. It is un- 
fortunate that the term “perfective” is used for this idea, since it 
inevitably suggests the perfect tense. Some writers! use ‘perfec- 
tive” also for the aorist or punctiliar action, a means of still fur- 
ther confusion. Brugmann? uses “Perfektive Aktion” for the 
effect of the preposition in composition and ‘“‘ Perfektische Aktion”’ 
for the perfect tense, a distinction hard to draw in English. Latin 
and Greek both show abundant illustrations of this use of prep- 
ositions. Cf. sequor and consequor, facio and efficio, teneo and 
sustineo. Moulton*® thinks that the freedom in the position of 
the preposition in Homer helped the adverb to retain its force 
longer than in later Greek and Latin. The point of the preposi- 
tion here is best seen in the prepositions @o—, dia-, Kata—, ovv—.* 
But even in these the actual majority of examples preserve the 
original local meaning and so are not perfective. But in Lu. 8 : 29, 
Todos xpovois cuvnpTaker adtov, the perfective sense of civ combines 
with the past perfect tense and the locative (or instrumental) 
Toots xpovors to denote “not the temporary paroxysm, but the 
establishment of a permanent hold’’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 1138). So 
y.vwoxw is durative (‘gaining knowledge,’ as in Mk. 138 : 28), éyrwr 
is effective (‘grasping the point,’ as in Lu. 16:4, é€yvwv ri roujow), 

érvywaokw is perfective (‘knowing my lesson,’ as in 1 Cor. 13 : 12), 
and émvyv&var also (‘recognising,’ as in Mt. 14:35). Moulton (ib., 
p- 114) calls particular attention to of aoddbyevor (1 Cor. 1:18), ‘the 
perishing,’ where the destiny is accented by azo, and the process is 
depicted by the tense. In Heb.6:18, of karagvyovres, the perfective 
sense of xara coincides with the effective aorist. So even when 
the tense is durative, the notion of completion is expressed in the 
preposition as contemplated or certain. In réOvnxev (Lu. 8 : 49) 
the perfect tense of the simplex is sufficient, but not so in amébavev 
(Lu. 8:53). Ovyoxw as simplex became obsolete outside of the 
perfect, so that aréOvnoxev (Lu. 8 : 42; ef. 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 11: 21) 
occurs for the notion of ‘dying.’ ‘‘The linear perfective expressed 
its meaning sufficiently, denoting as it does the whole process 
leading up to an attained goal.’”’®> Moulton notes also the itera- 
tive use of dzoAvynoxw in 1 Cor. 15:81, and the frequentative in 
1 Cor. 15:22. See also the “perfective” use of dzoxreivw, the 
active of arobvncxw. In daoddvpe and doddvmar (a7dAwWAa) the sim- 

1 So Giles, Man., p. 478; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 187. 


2 Griech. Gr., p. 472. 4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 482. 
ss Proline as 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 114. 


828 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


plex is obsolete. Even in the present tense the force of azo- is 
obvious. Cf. rots a&roddvpévors (1 Cor. 1:18), ad\Avpae (Lu. 15:17), 
amo\Abueda (Mt. 8 : 25), where Moulton! explains aro— as suggest- 
ing ‘the sense of an inevitable doom.” Cf. also ¢ebyw (Mt. 2 : 13), 
‘to flee,’ with duadetbyw (Ac. 27:42), and éxdevyw (Heb. 2:3), ‘to 
escape,’ xatagelyw (Heb. 6:18), ‘to find refuge’; rnpew (Ac. 24: 23), 
‘to watch,’ with dcarnpew, ‘to keep continually’ (Lu. 2:51), and 
ovvrnpew (Lu. 2: 19), ‘to keep together (safely)’; omaw (Mk. 14: 47), 
‘to draw,’ with dvacrdw (Mk. 5:4), ‘to draw in two’; xaiw (Jo.15: 6), 
‘to burn,’ with xataxaiw (Ac. 19:19), ‘to burn up’; kpivw (Jo. 5: 30), 
‘to judge,’ with xaraxpiww (Mt. 12:41), ‘to condemn’; Abw (Lu. 
3:16), ‘to loosen,’ with xatadiw (Mt. 24:2), ‘to destroy’; éxw 
(Ac. 18 : 5; Rev. 10 : 2), ‘to have’ or ‘hold,’ with érexw (Ac. 3 : 5), 
‘to hold on to,’ and ovvéxw (Lu. 8 : 45), ‘to hold together’ or ‘press,’ 
and dméxw (Mt. 6:5), ‘to have in full,’ etc. As to azéxw for 
‘receipt in full,’ see Deissmann, Light, p.110f. The papyri and 
ostraca give numerous illustrations. It is not necessary to make 
an exhaustive list to prove the point. Cf. ver kal rapapevd (Ph. 
1 : 25), xaipw kal cvvxaipw (2:17), where the point lies in the prep- 
osition, though not ‘“‘perfective” here. So ywwokouern kal avaywo- 
cxouern (2 Cor. 3: 2), avaywwoxere 7 Kal érvywwoxere (1:18), peTpetre 
avrier pnOnoerar (Lu. 6:38), éxovres — xatexovtes (2 Cor. 6:10). Cf. 
exBare (Mt. 22:13). In some verbs? the preposition has so far 
lost its original force that the ‘perfective’ idea is the only one 
that survives. Dr. Eleanor Purdie (Indog. Forsch., 1X, pp. 63-153, 
1898) argues that the usage of Polybius as compared with Homer 
shows that the aorist simplex was increasingly confined to the 
constative sense, while the ingressive and effective simplex gave 
way to the “perfective”? compounds. Moulton* is inclined to 
agree in the main with her contention as supported by the papyri 
(and Thumb thinks that modern Greek supports the same view). 
At any rate there is a decided increase in the number of compound 
verbs. The ingressive and effective uses of the aorist would natu- 
rally blend with the “perfective” compounds. But it remains 
true that the Aktionsart of the verb-root is often modified by the 
preposition in composition. 

11. “AKTIONSART” WITH EACH TENSE. It is not merely true 
that three separate kinds of action are developed (punctiliar, dura- 
tive, perfected), that are represented broadly by three tenses in 
all the modes, though imperfectly in the present and future tenses 
of the indicative. The individual verb-root modifies greatly the 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 114. dd bsyeee as 3 Ib., pp. 115-118. 


ae” Ae 


st rn 


TENSE (XPONOS) 829 


resultant idea in each tense. This matter can only be hinted at 
here, but must be worked out more carefully in the discussion of 
each tense. The aorist, for instance, though always in itself merely 
point-action, ‘‘punctiliar,” yet may be used with verbs that accent 
the beginning of the action or the end of the action. Thus three 
distinctions arise: the unmodified point-action called “‘constative,”’ 
the point-action with the accent on the beginning (inceptive) called 
“ingressive,” the point-action with the accent on the conclusion 
called “effective.” The names are not particularly happy, but 
they will answer. ‘‘Constative”’ is especially awkward.! In real- 
ity it is just the normal aorist without any specific modification 
by the verb-meaning. Hirt? does not use the term, but divides the 
aorist into “ingressive” and ‘effective’? when there is this special 
Aktionsart. But the use of these demands another term for the 
normal aorist.2 As an example of the ‘‘constative”’ aorist for the 
whole action take éoxjvwoev (Jo. 1: 14), for the earthly life of Jesus. 
So also €Enynoato (1:18), while éyévero (1:14) is “‘ingressive,” and 
accents the entrance of the Logos upon his life on earth (Incar- 
nation). ’Edeacauea (1:14) is probably “effective” as is é\aBouev 
(1:16), accenting the result (‘‘resultative,’’ Brugmann, Griech. 
Gr., p. 475). So likewise in the so-called ‘‘present”’ tense various 
ideas exist as set forth by the various ‘‘classes”’ of verbs or ‘‘con- 
jugations.”” The perfect and the future likewise have many varia- 
tions in resultant idea, growing out of the varying verb-idea in 
connection with the tense-idea. These must be borne in mind 
and will be indicated in the proper place in discussing each tense. 

12. INTERCHANGE OF TENSES. The point here is not whether 
the Greeks used an aorist where we in English would use a per- 
fect, but whether the Greeks themselves drew no distinction be- 
tween an aorist and a perfect, a present and a future. It is not 
possible to give a categorical answer to this question when one 
recalls the slow development of the Greek tenses and the long 
history of the language. There was a time long after the N. T. 
period‘ when the line between the aorist and the perfect became 
very indistinct, as it had been largely obliterated in Latin. It is 
a question for discussion whether that was true in the N. T. or not. 
The subject will receive discussion under those tenses. The future 
grew out of the present and the aorist. The present continued to 
be used sometimes as vivid future, as is true of all languages. But 
it is a very crude way of speaking to say that one tense is used 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 109. 3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 475. 
2 Handb. d. Griech etc., p. 392. 4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440. 


830 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“for”? another in Greek. That would only be true of ignorant 
men. In general one may say that in normal Greek when a cer- 
tain tense occurs, that tense was used rather than some other be- 
cause it best expressed the idea of the speaker or writer. Each 
tense, therefore, has its specific idea. That idea is normal and 
can be readily understood. Various modifications arise, due to 
the verb itself, the context, the imagination of the user of the 
tense. The result is a complex one, for which the tense is not wholly 
responsible. The tenses, therefore, are not loosely interchange- 
able. Each tense has a separate history and presents a distinct 
idea. That is the starting-point. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 264) 
is entirely correct in saying: ‘No one of these tenses strictly and 
properly taken can stand for another.” Writers vary greatly in 
the way that the tenses are used. A vivid writer like Mark, for 
instance, shows his lively imagination by swift changes in the 
tenses. The reader must change with him. It is mere common- 
place to smooth the tenses into a dead level in translation and 
miss the writer’s point of view. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 
124) is doubtful whether in the N. T. we are justified in making 
“sharp distinctions between the imperfect, aorist or perfect; a 
subjunctive, imperative, or infinitive of the aorist or present.” 
But for my part I see no more real ground in the papyri and in- 
scriptions for such hesitation than we find in the ancient Attic 
Greek. Thumb (Handb., p. 116) notes that modern Greek, in 
spite of heavy losses, has preserved the distinction between linear 
and punctiliar action even in the imperative and subjunctive. I 
shall discuss the tenses according to the three ideas designed by 
them rather than by the names accidentally given. 

II. Punctiliar Action. 

This is the kind of action to begin with. It is probably not 
possible always to tell which is the older stem, the punctiliar 
or the linear. They come into view side by side, though the 
punctiliar action is logically first. The aorist tense, though at first 
confined to verbs of punctiliar sense, was gradually made on verbs 
of durative sense. So also verbs of durative action came to have 
the tenses of punctiliar action.! Thus the tenses came to be used 
for the expression of the ideas that once belonged only to the 
root. The Stoic grammarians, who gave us much of our termi- 
nology, did not fully appreciate the aorist tense. They grouped 
the tenses around the present stem, while as a matter of fact in 
many verbs that is impossible, the root appearing in the aorist, 

1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, pp. 241, 316. 


“i. ~ o ren 


ee ee a ee ee ee ee eee ee ae ee. re) 


TENSE (XPONOS) 831 


not in the present. Cf. éory-v (i-orn-p), €-AaB-o-v (AapBav-w), ete. 
This error vitiated the entire theory of the Stoic grammarians.! 
Grammatical forms cannot express the exact concord between 
the logical and the grammatical categories,? but the aorist tense 
came very near doing it. By Homer’s time (and Pindar’s) the 
distinction between the aorist and imperfect tenses is fairly well 
drawn, though some verbs like @¢n-v remain in doubt.’ So we 
start with the aorist tense. In modern Greek the ancient aorist 
is the base-form on which a number of new presents are formed 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 148). J. C. Lawson (Journ. of Th. St., Oct., 
1912, p. 142) says that Thumb would have smoothed the path of 
the student if he had ‘dealt with the aorist before proceeding to 
the present.” : . 

1. Tur Aorist (adpiotos). The aorist, as will be shown, is not 
the only way of expressing indefinite (undefined) action, but it is 
the normal method of doing so. The Greek in truth is ‘‘an aorist- 
loving language” (Broadus).* In the xow7 the aorist is even more 
frequent than in the classic Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 120), 
especially is this true of the N. T. 

Gildersleeve® does not like the name and prefers ‘‘apobatic,”’ 
but that term suits only the ‘‘effective” aorist. The same thing 
is true of ‘‘culminative.”’ The name aorist does very well on the 
whole. I doubt if the aorist is a sort of “residuary legatee,”’ taking 
what is left of the other tenses. The rather, as I see it, the aorist 
preserved the simple action and the other tenses grew up around 
it. It is true that in the expression of past time in the indicative 
and with all the other moods, the aorist is the tense used as a 
matter of course, unless there was special reason for using some 
other tense. It gives the action ‘“‘an und fiir sich.” The common 
use of the “imperfect” with verbs of speaking (én, €\eye) may 
be aorist in fact. | 

(a) Aktionsart in the Aorist. 

(a) Constative Aorist. There is still a good deal of confusion 
in the use of terms. Gildersleeve (Syntax of Attic Gr., p. 105) 
prefers “complexive” to “constative.”” Moulton® comments on 
Miss Purdie’s use of ‘“‘perfective” in the sense of ‘“ punctiliar.’’ 


1 Steinthal, Gesch. d. Sprach., p. 306 f. 

2 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 300. 

3 Cf. Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1883, p. 161; Monro, Hom. Gr., 
pp. 32, 45. 

4 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 137. 

5 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 397 f. eelerOlet te LLU; 


832 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


So Giles! uses ‘‘ perfective or momentary” for the aoristic action, 
but he also (p. 478 note) uses constative. But Moulton? also 
makes a distinction between ‘“constative’? and ‘“punctiliar,”’ 
using ‘‘punctiliar” for real point-action and “constative” for 
what is merely treated as point-action. That is a true distinction 
for the verb-root, but the growing number of constative aorists 
was in harmony with the simple idea of the tense. Brugmann? 
rests constative, ingressive and effective aorists, all three on the 
punktuell idea and draws no sharp distinction between “punctil- 
iar’ and ‘‘constative.”’ Delbriick* divides the pwnktuell or aorist 
into Anfangspunkt or Ingressive, Mittelpunkt or Constative and 
Schlulpunkt or Effective. The constative accents the “‘middle 
point.”” The idea of Delbriick and Brugmann is that punktuell 
action is ‘faction focused in a point.’’> ‘The aorist describes an 
event as a single whole, without the time taken in its accomplish- 
ment.’’® It seems best, therefore, to regard “constative”’ as 
merely the normal aorist which is not ‘‘ingressive” nor “ effec- 
tive.” The root-difference between the aorist and the imperfect 
is just this, that the aorist is ‘“‘constative” while the imperfect 
“describes.”’7 The ‘‘constative” aorist just treats the act as a 
single whole entirely irrespective of the parts or time involved.® 
If the act is a point in itself, well and good. But the aorist can 
be used also of an act which is not a point. This is the advance 
that the tense makes on the verb-root. All aorists are punctiliar 
in statement (cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 109). The “constative” aorist 
treats an act as punctiliar which is not in itself point-action. 
That is the only difference. The distinction is not enough to 
. make a separate class like ingressive and effective over against 
the purely punctiliar action. Thumb (Handb., p. 122) passes by 
“‘constative’’ as merely the regular aorist ‘‘to portray simply an 
action or occurrence of the past,’ whether in reality punctiliar 
or not. He finds both ingressive and effective aorists in modern 
Greek. But Thumb uses “terminative” for both ‘‘ends”’ (initial 
and final), a somewhat confusing word in this connection. The 
papyri show the same Aktionsart of the aorist. So note constative 


1/Man., p. 481 f. § Griech. Gr., pp. 475-477. 

2 Prol., p. 116, but not on p. 109. 4 Vergi. Synt., Bd. II, p. 230. 

5’ Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 184. But Cf. K.-Gi, Bd. I; p. 157, 
“momentan, effektiv, ingressiv.” 

6 Moulton, Intr. to the Stu. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 190. 

7 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 302. 

8 Moulton, Prol., p. 109, prefers “summary” to “constative.” 


TENSE (XPONOS) 833 


Ore pe ératdevoas kadds, B.G.U. 423 (ii/a.p.). Thus in Jo. 2:20, 
Teocepaxovta kal €& éreowv oikodounOn 6 vads ovTos, We have a good 
example of the constative aorist. The whole period of forty-six 
years is treated as a point. In Mt. 5:17, 7\ov, we have a very 
simple constative aorist, just punctiliar and nothing more, describ- 
ing the purpose of Christ’s mission. It is true that the constative 
aorist in this sense is far more frequent than the ingressive and 
the effective uses of the tense. This has always been so from the 
nature of the case. The increasing number of “perfective”? com- 
pounds, as already shown, increased the proportion of constative 
aorists... When the action is in itself momentary or instantaneous 
no difficulty is involved. These examples are very numerous on 
almost any page of the N. T. Cf. in Ac. 10:22 f., evpnuariobn, 
metaTreuWacbar, axodoa, ékevicev, ouvndOov. See the aorists in Ac. 
10:41f. Cf. Mt. 8:3; Ac.5:5. This is the normal aorist in all 
the moods. But verbs that are naturally durative may have the 
aorist. In éxapréopnoe (Heb. 11:27) we have a verb naturally 
“durative” in idea, but with the “constative” aorist. Cf. also 
éxpvBn Tpiunvov (Heb. 11:23), where a period of time is summed 
up by the constative aorist. Cf. eBaciievoey 6 Oavatos amd ’ Addu 
expe M. (Ro. 5:14). A good example is éyoav kal éBacidevoay 
peta TOD Xprotod xidua Eryn (Rev. 20:4). Here éyoav is probably 
ingressive, though ¢jowuey is constative in 1 Th. 5:10, but éGaci- 
Aevoay is clearly constative. The period of a thousand years is 
merely regarded as a point. Cf. also Jo. 7:9 euewer év 7H Tadcdala, 
10:40 éuewev éxe?t. See also Ac. 11: 26 eyévero aitots ériavrov ddov 
ouvaxOnvar év TH ExkAnoia, 14:3 ikavov xpdvoy derpivay, 18: 11 exabroev 
éviauTov Kal pnvas €&, 28:30 eveuevev dreriay OAnv. Cf. Eph. 2:4. 
See del—duerédeca in B.G.U. 287 (a.d. 250). Gildersleeve (Syntax, 
p. 105) calls this “aorist of long duration” (constative). 

For a striking example of the constative (summary) use of the 
aorist, note éf’ @ mavres juaptov (Rom. 5:12). Note in particular 
the summary statements in Heb. 11, as areBavov otto. ravtes (13), 
ovToL TavTes — OvK éxouicavto (39). Gildersleeve’s ‘‘aorist of total 
negation” (Syntax, p. 106) is nothing more than this. Repeated 
or separate? actions are thus grouped together, as in Mt. 22 : 28, 
Tavtes Exxov aiTnv. So tpls épaBdicOny, tpls evavaynoa (2 Cor. 11: 25). 
In Mk. 12 : 44, révres — &Bador, airy 6é— eBarevr, the two actions 
are contrasted sharply by the aorist. There is no difficulty in efs 
imép ravtwv ameOavev’ apa of mavtes amebavov (2 Cor. 5:14). The 
same verb may sometimes be used either as constative (like é8aci- 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 115, 2 Blass, Gr. of N..T.'Gk., p. 193. 


834 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Nevoav, ‘reigned,’ Rev. 20:4 above) or ingressive (kal éBaciXevcas, 
‘assumed rule,’ Rev. 11:17, though true here of God only in a 
dramatic sense). Thus éciynoe (Ac. 15:12) is ‘kept silence’ 
(constative), but ovyfoa: (verse 13) is ingressive as is éolynoay 
(Lu. 9:36). Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 21. In 
Gal. 5:16, ob uy red\eonre, we have the constative aorist, while 
TAnpaoat is effective in Mt. 5:17. In line with what has already 
been said, Badetv may mean ‘throw’ (constative), ‘let fly’ Gngres- 
sive) or ‘hit’ (effective). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 130. Lllustra- 
tions occur in the N. T. in éBadev airov eis dudaxny (Mt. 18 : 30, 
constative, ‘cast’ or ‘threw’), Bare ceaurov éevretOev katw (Lu. 4:9, 
ingressive, ‘hurl.’ Note evredéev, as well as “perfective” force of 
karw. Cf. Mt. 5:29), Bare xar’ aris (effective, ‘beat,’ Ac. 27: 
14). 

(8) Ingressive Aorist. This is the inceptive or inchoative 
aorist. It is not, however, like the ‘“constative” idea, a tense- 
notion at all. It is purely a matter with the individual verb.! 
Thus érrwxevoev, 2 Cor. 8:9, is ‘became poor’; é&ncev, Ro. 
14:9, is ‘became alive’ (cf. aréOavey just before).2 Perhaps in 
Jo. 16:3, otk éyywoav, the meaning is ‘did not recognise.’* But 
this could be constative. But it is clear in Jo. 1:10. So in dca 
ékaBov avtov (Jo. 1 : 12) the ingressive idea occurs, as in ot zapéda- 
Bov in verse 11. Cf. éxXavoev (Lu. 19 : 41) = ‘burst into tears’ and 
éyvws (vs. 42)=‘camest to know.’ So édaxpvcey (Jo. 11:35). In 
Mt. 22:7 dpyicbn = ‘became angry.’ Cf. also pu) dofnre (Mt. 
3:9), adirvwoev (Lu. 8: 23), Ouuwbn (Mt. 2:16). In Lu. 15:32 
é(noev iS ingressive, as is éxowwnby (Ac. 7: 60), ioxboapev pores 
(Ac. 27:16), weonowow (Lu. 6 : 22), nyamrnoev (Mk. 10 : 21), edur7- 
Onre (2 Cor. 7:9), wAournonte (2 Cor. 8:9). The notion is com- 
mon with verbs expressing state or condition (Goodwin, Moods 
and Tenses, p. 16). Moulton quotes Bacwdeboas avaranoerat, ‘having 
come to his throne he shall rest,’ Agraphon, O.P. 654. See also 
EdaBa Bratixov mapa Kaicapos, B.G.U. 423 (ii/a.p.).. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 248) cites Jo. 4:52, kouporepov ecxev, ‘got better,’ and com- 
pares it with éay xouWas ox, Tb.P. 414 (ii/a.p.). Another in- 
stance is Ryy.ocav Mt. 21:1.4 Cf. éxrnoaro (Ac. 1:18). 

(y) Effective Aorist. The name is not particularly good and 
‘resultant aorist’”’ is suggested by some scholars. Gildersleeve?® 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 193. See Gildersl., Synt., p. 105. 

2 Ib. ’ Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 328. 

4 These ingressive aorists are often denominative verbs. Cf. Gildersl., Synt. 
of Att. Gk., p. 104. 5 Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 104. 





TENSE (XPONOS) 835 


suggests “upshot aorist.”” Giles! calls it aorist of the “culminat- 
ing point,” following Monro.? But the idea is that emphasis is 
laid on the end of the action as opposed to the beginning (ingres- 
sive). This is done (if done) by the verb itself (Aktionsart). The 
following examples will make the matter clear: roujoate kaprév 
(Mt. 3:8), Kreloas (6 : 6), éveXecev (7: 28), wpowwOy (13 : 24), everpn- 
cev (22:7), éxépdnoa (25: 20), érercay (27: 20), EXvOy (Mk. 7: 35), 
éotaOnoav (Lu. 24:17), expiBn (19:42), nyayer (Jo. 1:42), ame- 
atnoe (Ac. 5:37), tAnpwoartes (12 : 25), erecey (20:9), exatcavro 
(21:32), ékwdrvce (27:48), euadov (Ph. 4:11), ewiknow (Rev. 
5:5). A good example of the effective aorist in the papyri is 
éowoe, B.G.U. 423 (ii/a.p.). So then in the case of each aorist 
the point to note is whether it is merely punctiliar (constative) or — 
whether the verb-idea has deflected it to the one side or the other 
(ingressive or effective). It needs to be repeated that there is at 
bottom only one kind of aorist (punctiliar in fact or statement). 
The tense of itself always means point-action. The tense, like 
the mode, has nothing to do with the fact of the action, but only 
with the way it is stated. Sometimes it will not be clear 
from the context what the Aktionsart is. The “perfective” force 
of prepositions applies to all the tenses. It must be said also that 
the Aktionsart in the aorist (ingressive, effective) applies to all 
the modes. Indeed, because of the time-element in the indica- 
tive (expressed by the augment and secondary endings) the real 
character of the aorist tense is best seen in the other modes where 
we do not have notes of time.’ It is merely a matter of con- 
venience, therefore, to note the aorist in the different modes, not 
because of any essential difference (outside of the indicative). 
One is in constant danger of overrefinement here. Gildersleeve? 
criticises Stahl® for “characteristic prolixity”’ in his treatment of 
the tenses. A few striking examples are sufficient here. 

_(b) Aorist Indicative. The caution must be once more re- 
peated that in these subdivisions of the aorist indicative we have 
only one tense and one root-idea (punctiliar action). The varia- 
tions noted are incidental and do not change at all this funda- 
mental idea. 

(a) The Narrative or Historical Tense.’ It is the tense in which 


1 Man., p. 498. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 129. 

2 Hom. Gr., p. 48. 4 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 400. 

5 Krit.-hist. Synt., pp. 148-220. 

6 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 19. It is the characteristic idiom in 
the indicative. Cf. Bernhardy, Wiss. Synt., 1829, p. 380. 


836 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


a verb in ordinary narrative is put unless there is reason for 
using some other tense. Hence it is enormously frequent in the 
Greek historians. Writers vary greatly, of course, in the use of 
the tenses as of words, but in the large view the point holds. 
The aorist holds its place in the papyri and in the modern Greek 
as the usual tense in narrative (Thumb, Handb., p. 122). Almost 
any page in the Gospels and Acts will show an abundance of 
aorist indicatives that illustrate this point. Cf., for instance, 
the eight aorists in Ac. 13:13 f. (no other tense), the eight 
aorists in 21:1f. (no other tense), the three aorists in 25:1 f. 
(no other tense). In these instances the tenses are not all in 
indicative mood, though predominantly so. See again the fifteen 
aorists in Ac. 28: 11-15 (one perfect). The aorist was used in 
narrative as a matter of course. Note the many aorists in 
Heb. 11. 

The redundant use of the verb as in \aBwv éorerpery (Mt. 13 : 31) 
=‘took and sowed’ is not a peculiarity of the aorist tense. Cf. 
amjrdev kat etrev (Jo. 5:15)=‘went and told.’ Nor is it a peculi- 
arity of Greek. It belongs to the vernacular of most languages. 
But we no longer find the iterative use of av with the aorist ac- 
cording to the classic idiom (Moulton, Prol., p. 167). 

(8) The Gnomic Aorist. Jannaris! calls this also ‘‘ empiric 
aorist,’’ while Gildersleeve? uses “‘empirical’’ for the aorist with 
a negative or temporal adverb, a rather needless distinction. The 
real ‘‘gnomic”’ aorist is a universal or timeless aorist and prob- 
ably represents the original timelessness of the aorist indicative.* 
This aorist is common in Homer‘ in comparisons and general 
sayings. The difference between the gnomic aorist and the 
present is that the present may be durative.> But general truths 
may be expressed by the aoristic present. Gildersleeve (Syntaz, 
p. 109) compares this use of the aorist to the generic article. 
Winer® denies that this idiom occurs in the N. T., but on insuf- 
ficient grounds. Abbott’ rather needlessly appeals to the “ Hebrew 
influence on Johannine tense-construction”’ to explain é8\76y xal 
éEnpavOn (Jo. 15:6) after eav un tis pevn ev Euoi. It is a general 
construction here and is followed by three presents (aoristic). 
This is a mixed condition certainly, the protasis being future 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 486. 2 OVOte Deas 

8 J. Schmid, Uber den gnomischen Aorist der Griech., 1894, p. 15. Cf. 
Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 278. 

4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48 f. SeWo-Chs peee: 

® Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 54. Joh. Or Hoge 


en 


TENSE (XPONOS) 837 


(third class, undetermined with some likelihood of determination). 
But é50£406n (Jo. 15°: 8) is possibly also gnomic. Cf. ravres Huap- 
tov kal voTepodvra (Ro. 3:23). But in Jo. 15:6, 8, we may have 
merely the ‘‘timeless’’ aorist, like drav Oé\ns, €&fAOes, In Epic- 
tetus, IV, 10, 27. Radermacher (N. T’. Gr., p. 124) so thinks and 
adds, what I do not admit: “The genuine gnomic aorist appears 
to be foreign to the Hellenistic vernacular.”’ It survives in mod- 
ern Greek, according to Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 486. Moulton 
(Prol., pp. 135, 139) admits it in N. T., but (p. 184) considers Jo. 
15 : 6 the “timeless” aorist, like adrwddouny ef we NetWers in Eur., Alc., 
386. There are other examples, like expupey (Mt. 13 : 44) which is 
followed by presents traye, mwr€t, nyopacey (13 : 46), cvvéede~ay — 
€Barov (13:48), wpowwOn (18 : 28), exaOicay (23:2), evddxnoa (Lu. 
3:22), edixarwOn (7:35), edidatey (Jo. 8:28), dveredey and the 
other aorists in Jas. 1:11, éxakeoe—éd0Eace (Ro. 8 : 80), €€npavbn— 
étérecev (1 Pet. 1:24; LXX, Is. 40:7). It is true that the time- 
less Hebrew perfect is much like this gnomic aorist, but it 
is a common enough Greek idiom also. Cf. further Lu. 1 :51- 
53. It is not ‘certain that ebddxnoa (Mt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 1:11; 
Lu. 3:22) belongs here. It may be merely an example of the 
timeless aorist used in the present, but not gnomic. See under 
(ec). Burton (WV. 7. Moods and Tenses, p. 29) finds it difficult and 
thinks it originally “inceptive” (ingressive). 

(y) Relation to the Imperfect. The aorist is not used “instead 
of” the imperfect.!. But the aorist is often used in the midst of 
imperfects. The Old Bulgarian does not distinguish between 
the aorist and the imperfect. In modern Greek, aorists and 
imperfects have the same endings (Thumb, Handb., p. 119), 
but the two tenses are distinct in meaning. Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 122) thinks that in the xowyn he finds the im- 
perfect used as aorist, as in é« rdv idlwy ember (Eroier) Tov Bupov 
(Inser. de la Syrie 2413"), and decades for dtecadnoas (P. Lond., 
XLII, Kenyon 30). But I venture to be sceptical. In both pas- 
sages the imperfects make perfectly good sense. Radermacher 
urges the common use of éreded7a, but that may be merely de- 
scriptive imperfect. I grant that it is “willkirlich” in Herodotus 
(in 1214) to say drefOdpn cal redevTG, as in Strabo (C 828) to have 
éredebTa — diadédexrar. It is “rein stilistisch,”’ but each writer 
exercises his own whim. Winer? properly remarks that it “often 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 46; Leo Meyer, Griech. Aoriste, p. 97; Gildersl., Am. 


Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 243; Moulton, Prol., p. 128. "Hy may be either aorist 
or imperfect. 2 W.-Th., p. 276. 


/ 
838 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


depends on the writer’? which tense he will use. Why “often’’? 
Why not ‘‘always”? The presence of aorist, imperfect and past 
perfect side by side show how keen the distinction was felt to be.' 
Blass? seeks to distinguish sharply between €\eyov and efzov, but 
with little success. The trouble, as already stated, is probably 
that €\eyov may be either aorist (like €\crov) or imperfect. He 
admits that Thucydides introduces his speeches either with eye 
or é\eée. Gildersleeve,’ like Stahl, denies “‘an actual interchange 
of tenses.” In any given incident the speaker or writer may have 
the choice of representing it in narrative by the aorist (punctiliar) 
or the imperfect (durative). An interesting example is found in 
Mk. 12 :41-44.4— The general scene is presented by the descrip- 
tive durative imperfect @ewper and the durative present Barre. 
It is visualized by ro\d\oi—éGaddrov. But the figure of the widow 
woman is singled out by the aorist ¢8ar\ev. The closing reference 
by Jesus to the rest is by the constative aorist wavres €BaXdov. 
Note also the precise distinction between efyev and éBadev at the 
.end. Where the aorist and the imperfect occur side by side, it is to 
be assumed that the change is made on purpose and ‘the difference 
in idea to be sought. In juxtaposition the aorist lifts the cur- 
tain and the imperfect continues the play. Cf. évicragéay (ingres- 
sive, ‘fell to nodding’) and éxafevdov (‘went on sleeping’) in Mt. 
25:5. So Tis wou tWato; kal mepreBereTo (Mk. 5 : 32), ‘He began 
to look around because of the touch.’ See also érvdn 6 decpuos Tis 
yrAwoons altod, kal éhade opbds (7:35). A similar distinction ap- 
pears in ayyedou tpoajdOov Kal dunxovovy aitd (Mt. 4:11); érecev Kal 
édtdou (13 : 8); katéBn AatAap — Kal cuverdAnpodyTo (Lu. 8 : 23); Ape tov 
Kp&Barrov avrod kal meprerare (JO. 5:9); aveBn — xal edidackev (7: 14); 
éénOov kal éexpavyafov (12:18). In Lu. 8:53 note xareyéXwy and 
anrébaver. Once again note eidayev — kal éxwdvouev in 9:49 and 
katevoovy kal eidov (Ac. 11:6). Cf. further Ac. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3 :6; 
Mt. 21:83) Mk. 11:18; SJ. 2033 fiaeine Core10 4 notes enor, 
—érwov; in 11:23, wapédwxa, rapedidero. The same sort of event 
will be recorded now with the aorist, as tov rAjO0s AKodolOncev 
(Mk. 3:7), now with the imperfect, as 7xKodotOe Sxdos orbs (5: 
24). Cf. Lu. 2:18 and 4: 22.5 But the changing mood of the 
writer does not mean that the tenses are equivalent to each 
other. A word further is necessary concerning the relative fre- 
quency of aorists and imperfects. Statistical syntax is interesting, 
1 Gildersl., Synt., p. 114. 2 Grz0ohiINe LeGkape 1e2: 


3 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 398. ; 
4 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 30. 5 Ib. 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 839 


laborious and not always conclusive. Schlachter! has applied 
statistics to Homer. In both Iliad and Odyssey the aorists in 
the indicative are more numerous than the imperfects. Gilder- 
sleeve? found a similar result in Pindar. Jacobsthal (Der Ge- 
brauch der Tempora und Modi in den kretischen Dialektinschriften) 
finds the aorist surpassing the imperfect. But Hultsch? found 
the imperfect very abundant in Polybius, and Prof. Miller 
has added statistics for other writers. ‘The imperfect divides 
the crown with the aorist in different proportions at different 
times and in different spheres.”®> A further extended quotation 
from Gildersleeve® is pertinent: “‘ Not the least interesting is the 
table in which Schlachter has combined his results with Pro- 
fessor Miller’s and from which it appears that the use of the aorist 
indicative gradually diminishes until it finds its low-water-mark 
in Xenophon. Then the aorist thrusts itself more and more to 
the front until it culminates in the N. T. The pseudo-naiveté of 
Xenophon suggests an answer to one problem. The Hellenica 
has the lowest percentage of imperfects, but it mounts up in the 
novelistic Kyropaideia. The other problem, the very low per- 
centage of the imperfect in the N. T.—e.g. Matthew 13 per 
cent., Apocalypse 7—Schlachter approaches gingerly, and well 
he may. It stands in marked contrast to Josephus whose 46 per 
cent. of imperfects shows the artificiality of his style, somewhat 
as does his use of the participles (A. J. P., IX 154), which, accord- 
ing to Schlachter, he uses more than thrice as often as St. John’s 
Gospel (41:12). This predominance of the aorist indicative can 
hardly be dissociated from the predominance of the aorist im- 
perative in the N. T. (Justin Martyr, A pol. I, 16. 6), although the 
predominance of the aorist imperative has a psychological basis 
which cannot be made out so readily for the aorist indicative. 
Besides, we have to take into consideration the growth of the 
perfect and the familiar use of the historical present, which is 
kept down in St. Luke alone (A. J. P., XX 109, XX VII 328).” 
The personal equation, style, character of the beok, vernacular 
or literary form, all come into play. It largely depends on what 


1 Stat. Unters. iiber den Gebr. der Temp. und Modi bei einzelnen griech. 
Schriftst., 1908. 

2 Am. Jour. of. Philol., 1876, pp. 158-165. 

§ Der Gebr. der erzihlenden Zeitf. bei Polyb. (1898). 

4 Am. Jour. of Philol., XVI, pp. 139 ff. Cf. also L. Lange, Andeut. itiber 
Ziel und Meth. der synt. Forsch., 1853. : 

6 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 242. 6 Ib., p. 244. 


840 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the writer is after. If he is aiming to describe a scene with vivid- 
ness, the imperfect predominates. Otherwise he uses the aorist, 
on the whole the narrative tense par excellence. ‘‘Hence the 
aorist is the truly narrative tense, the imperfect the truly descrip- 
tive one; and both may be used of the same transaction.’’? 

(6) Relation to the Past Perfect. It is rather shocking, after 
Winer’s protest that the tenses are not interchanged, to find him 
saying bluntly: ‘In narration the aorist is used for the pluper- 
fect.”’> Burton‘ helps the matter by inserting the word ‘ Eng- 
lish’? before ‘‘pluperfect.”” Winer meant “German pluperfect.” 
Gildersleeve> does much better by using ‘‘translated.” ‘‘We 
often translate the aorist by a pluperfect for the sake of clear- 
ness.”” Goodwin® adds more exactly that the aorist indicative 
merely refers the action to the past ‘‘without the more exact 
specification”? which the past perfect would give. That is the 
case. The speaker or writer did not always care to make this 
more precise specification. He was content with the mere narra- 
tive of the events without the precision that we moderns like. 
We are therefore in constant peril of reading back into the Greek 
aorist our English or German translation. All that one is entitled 
to say is that the aorist sometimes occurs where the context ‘‘im- 
plies completion before the main action,’’’ where in English we 
prefer the past perfect. This use of the aorist is particularly com- 
mon in subordinate clauses (relative and temporal and indirect 
discourse). It must be emphasized that in this construction the 
antecedence of the action is not stressed in the Greek. ‘‘The 
Greeks neglected to mark the priority of one event to another, 
leaving that to be gathered from the context.’’? Strictly therefore 
the aorist is not used for the past perfect. The Greeks cared 
not for relative time. In Mt. 14:3 it is plain that éncev and 
amélero are antecedent in time to jKovcer, verse 1, and ee .in 
verse 2, but the story of the previous imprisonment and death 
of John is introduced by yap in a reminiscential manner. In 
Mt. 2:9 dy efdov points back to verse 2. Cf. also é7u édiuwoev 
(Mt. 22:34); dre everaréay atte, ek€dvcav airov (27:31). So in 28:2 


1 Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 158. 

2 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 77. 4 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 22. 
3 W.-M., p. 343. 5 Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 109. 

6 Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., p. 109. 

7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 47. 

8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. 

® Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 76. Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 169. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 841 


éyevero 18 antecedent to 7\dev in verse 1. In 27:18 note in par- 
ticular 76e 674 wapédwxay and compare with éyivwoKev 67 Tapade- 
dwoxecay in Mk. 15:10 (cf. otrwes aerounxecoay in verse 7). Here 
Mark did draw the distinction which Matthew did not care to 
make. In Lu. 19:15 we have ois dedwxe, but Ti dverpayuarevoarTo. 
Other examples where the antecedence is not expressed, though 
true, and the aorist is used, are éreAafovro (Mk. 8 : 14), érevdnrep 
érexeipnoay (Lu. 1:1), ws érédXecay (2 : 39), ered) ErANpwoev (7: 1), 
évedvoato (8 : 27), & jroiuacay (Lu. 24:1), ws éyeboaro (Jo. 2:9), 
dre xovoavy (4:1), dv eirev (4:50), e€eveucev (5:18), ws evyevero 
(6:16), dre aveBdeWev (9:18), dre EEEBadov (9 : 35), Sov brHvTyoEV 
(11:30 and note é\ndver), dre Guper (13 : 12), as areBnoay (21: 9), 
ods é£ehe~ato (Ac. 1: 2), ots mpoeyyw (Ro. 8:29. Cf. 30 also). In 
Jo. 18 : 24, améoredev ovv, the presence of oty makes the matter 
less certain. If oty is transitional, there would be no antecedence. 
But if oty is inferential, that may be true, though Abbott con- 
siders it ‘‘impossible.’’! Clyde? calls the aorist ‘‘an aggressive 
tense, particularly in the active voice, where it encroached on the 
domain of the perfect, and all but supplanted the pluperfect.”’ 
That is true, and yet it must not be forgotten that the aorist 
was one of the original tenses, much older than the perfects or 
the future. In wishes about the past (unattainable wishes) the 
N. T. uses d¢edov (Shortened form of &dedov) with the aorist indi- 
cative (1 Cor. 4:8) ddedov ye €Bacireboare. A similar remark ap- 
plies to use of the aorist indicative in conditions of the second 
class (past time), without av in apodosis (Gal. 4:15) or with ay 
(Jo. 11:21). In both cases in English we translate this aorist by 
a past perfect. 

(e) Relation to the Present. The so-called Dramatic Aorist is 
possibly the oldest use of the tense. In Sanskrit this is the com- 
mon use of the tense to express what has just taken place.* One 
wonders if the gnomic or timeless aorist indicative is not still 
older. The absence of a specific tense for punctiliar action in the 
present made this idiom more natural. This primitive use of 
the aorist survives also in the Slavonic.’ Giles suggests that ‘“‘the 
Latin perfect meaning, like the Sanskrit, may have developed 
directly from this usage.’ The idiom appears in Homer® and is 


1 Joh. Gr., p. 336. Cf, Burton, N, T. Moods and Tenses, p. 23, 

2 Gk. Synt., p. 76. 

3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 329. 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 129. 

5 Giles, Man., etc., p. 498. “The aorist is used not uncommonly of present 
time.”’ Ib., p. 497, 6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48. 


842 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


found chiefly in the dramatic poets where a sudden change comes,! 
or in colloquial speech or passionate questions.2 It is a regular 
idiom in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 123) as zeivaca, ‘I 
grew hungry,’ ‘am hungry still.’ This aorist is used of actions 
which have just happened. The effect reaches into the present. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 247) quotes a traveller in Cos who ‘had a 
pleasant shock, on calling for a cup of coffee, to have the waiter 
cry "Ed@aca.”’ The Greek can still use a past tense in passion- 
ate questions affecting the present. Moulton’ speaks of ‘cases 
where an aorist indicative denotes present time,’ though he 
adds: ‘‘None of these examples are really in present time, for 
they only seem to be so through a difference in idiom between 
Greek and English.” This latter statement is the truth. The 
aorist in Greek, particularly in dialogue, may be used for what 
has just happened. It seems awkward in English to refer this 
to past time, but it is perfectly natural in Greek. So we trans- 
late it by the present indicative. From the Greek point of view 
the peculiarity les in the English, not in the Greek. The examples 
in the N. T. are numerous enough in spite of Winer® to be worth 
noting. Moulton® has made a special study of Matthew con- 
cerning the translation of the aorist. ‘‘ Under the head of ‘things 
just happened’ come 9:18 évedevrncevy (with apri), 5:28 euoil- 
xevoev, and 14:15 rapqdOev and 17:12 Ade (with Sn); 6:12 
adnkayev, 12:28 edfacev, 14: 2, etc., nyépfn, 16:17 arexarvye, 
18:15 é&épdnoas, 20:12 Eroinoay —as, 26:10 pyacaro, 26: 13 
éroinoe, 26:65 éBdacdnuncer, nxovoate, 26:25, 64 efras, 27:19 
érabov, 27:46 éyxarédures, 28:7 efrov, 28:18 €666n (unless 11: 
27 forbids) and perhaps éyer7@y.”’ Certainly this is a respectable 
list for Matthew. Add éuepicOn (Mt. 12:26). These all can be 
translated by the English ‘have.’ Evéddéxcnoa (Mt. 3:17 and par- 
- allels) is a possible example also. Cf. dv evddxnoev  Yuxn pou 
(12:18, LXX). It is a “timeless” aorist’? and may be gnomic, 
as already pointed out. Cf. 2 Pet. 1:17; Mk. 10:20, édvda- 
Eaunv ex THs vedrnTos; Ekeorn IN Mk. 3 : 213 aéxer, WAOev — wapadidorar 
(14:41). Other examples of the aorist for what has just happened 
are 7yeép0n, otk éotw dde (Mk. 16: 6); ayépbn — éxeokéYaro (Lu. 
7:16); nyopaca, éynua (14 : 18-20); efnoev, edpéOn (15 : 32); Eyvav 
(16 : 4); éxptBn (19:42); dvTws jyepOn (24 : 34); rpocewivncay (Jo. 


1 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18. SWi-Thepa2ias 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. 6 Prol., p. 140. 

3 Gildersl., Synt., p. 113. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 134 f. 
4 Prol., p. 134. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 843 


4:20); jKxovoas (11 : 41); amfdOey (12 119); ArOov eis THY Spay tabryy 
(12 : 27); 7\Oev (13:1); viv eéokdoOn (13:31), but eddéaca (17: 4) 
points backward, ‘I did glorify thee,’ while édofac6y in 15:8 is 
possibly gnomic; émidcare viv (21:10); eotAwoa, Evyevounv (1 Cor. 
9:19, 20, 22. Cf. row in verse 23); érecev, érecev (Rev. 14:8; 
18 :2).! With this use of the aorist adverbs of time are common 
to make clear the present relation of time. Cf. rodro #6y rpirov 
épavepwhn (Jo. 21:14) where rod7ro has the effect of bringing the 
action forward. For a sharp contrast between the aorist and 
present see éoxes, kal vdv dv exes (Jo. 4:18). So voa cal aé[A], 
B.G.U. 287 (a.p. 250). Cf. also Lu. 10:24. See in. particular 
éyrw, éyveov and éyvwoay in Jo. 17:25. The timeless aorist is well 
illustrated in the participle in Lu. 10:18, @ewpovr tov Laravay 
TEegOVTQ. ; 

(¢) Relation to Present Perfect. The problem just here is not 
whether the present perfect is ever used as an aorist. That will 
be discussed under the present perfect. If the distinction be- 
tween the two tenses was finally? obliterated, as early happened 
in Latin,*? there would be some necessary confusion. But that 
has not happened in the N. T. period. Jannaris‘ notes it regu- 
larly about 1000 a.p. It is undeniable that the early Sanskrit 
used the aorist chiefly for “something past which is viewed with 
reference to the present’’ and it disappeared before the growth 
of the other more exact tenses.° The perfect may be said to be a 
development from the aorist, a more exact expression of com- 
pleted action than mere “punctiliar’’ (aorist), viz. state of com- 
pletion. But in the Greek the aorist not only held its own with 
the other tenses, but “‘has extended its province at the expense 
of the perfect,’ particularly in the N. T. period, though different 
writers vary greatly here. But was the aorist used ‘‘for” the 
perfect? Clyde’ says: “The aorist was largely used for the per- 
fect.”” Winer® replies: “There is no passage in which it can be 
certainly proved that the aorist stands for the perfect.” Gilder- 
sleeve? more correctly says: ‘‘The aorist is very often used where 
we should expect the perfect,” i.e. in English. But the trans- 


1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 135. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440. 

3 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 78. Still, in Lat. the aorist must be noted for sequence 
of tenses. Cf. Meillet, L’Aoriste en Lat., Revue de Phil., 1897, p. 81 f. 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. Cf. Hatz., Einl., p. 204 f. 

5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 298, 329. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 199. 8 W.-M., p. 344. 

7 Gk. Synt., p. 78. 9 Synt., p. 107, 


844 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


lation of the aorist into English will call for special discussion a 
little later. What is true is that the action in such cases ‘is re- 
garded as subordinate to present time,’’! in other words, the 
precise specification of relative time which we draw in our English 
perfect is not drawn in the Greek. The Greek states the simple 
undefined punctiliar action in a connection that suggests present 
time and so we render it in English by our “‘have.’”? But Farrar? 
is right in insisting that we do not explain the Greek tense by the 
English rendering. In truth, the examples given under the head 
of ‘‘Relation to the Present’’ (e€) may often be rendered by the 
English “have” with tolerable accuracy.4 Sometimes the use 
of an adverb or particle helps the English. The examples are 
rather numerous in the N. T., as in the papyri,°® where the aorist 
and the present perfect occur side by side. Thus xywpls dv amreypa- 
Waunv Kat merpaxa, O.P. 482 (ii1/A.D.); Tis yevouevns Kal aroTereuperns 
yuvaikos, N.P. 19 (ii/a.p.). Moulton adds: “The distinction is 
very clearly seen in papyri for some centuries.” In most in- 
stances in the N. T. the distinction is very sharply drawn in the 
context, as in dre éradn, Kal ore €ynyeptac (1 Cor. 15:4). So éxricbn, 
exriotac (Col. 1:16). Cf. Ac. 21:28. In most instances where 
we have trouble from the English standpoint it is the perfect, 
not the aorist that occasions it, as in wérpakey kal jyopacey (Mt. 
13:46). We shall come back to this point under the present 
perfect. Asa rule all that is needed is a little imagination on the 
part of the English reader to sympathize with the mental alertness 
expressed in the changing tenses, a sort of ‘‘moving picture” 
arrangement. Cf. xkatevonoey yap éavrov Kal aredndvbey Kal evOews 
éredabero drotos nv (Jas. 1:24). The single point to note con- 
cerning the aorist in those examples where we use “have” is that 
the Greeks did not care to use the perfect. Cf. otk @pAvba Ka- 
Néoar dixaiovs (Lu. 5: 32) with od yap AAOov Kad€oat dixaiovs (Mt. 
9:13), just two ways of regarding the same act. That is the 
whole story and it is a different thing from saying that the 
aorist is used ‘‘for’ the present perfect. Here are some of 
the most interesting examples in the N. T. where ‘we’ in 
English prefer ‘‘have’’: jxobcate (Mt. 5: 21); ebpov (8 : 10); avéyrwre 
(12 : 3); érayivOn Kal qKovoay Kal éxaupvoay (13 : 15, LXX, Is. 6: 10. 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48. 

: Goodin Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18; P. Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in 
the Nal pads 

3 Gk. sont p. 125. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 140, ° Ib; pel42a. 





TENSE (XPONOS) R45 


Likely enough the timelessness of the Hebrew perfect may have 
caused this translation into the aorist so common in the LXX), 
nxupwoate (Mt. 15: 6); cuverevéev (19 : 6); aveyvwre drt Katnpricw (21: 
16); adnxate (23 : 23); xatéeornoev (24 : 45); exoinoev (27: 23)!; ayepOn 
(28 : 6); é&eorn (Mk. 3 : 21); aveaver (5 : 35; cf. ri Ere oxidrdes; 5: 
35. Cf. adda xabevder); eldauev (Lu. 5 : 26); rapedo0n (10 : 22); Auaprov 
(15 : 21); éyrwoar (Jo. 7 : 26); adixev (8 : 29); EXaBov (10 : 18); Eeréa 
(10 : 82); éd0faca (12:28. Cf. dofaow); Ea (13:14); ekeAeEauny 
(13 : 18); nyarnoa (13 : 34); eyrmpica (15 : 15); obk Eyrwoar (16 : 3)§ 
npav — eOnxav (20 : 2); émidoare (21:10).2 Cf. Mk. 14:8. Abbott 
remarks, that the Greek perfect does not lay the same stress on 
what is recently completed as does the English “have.” Cf. also ov 
éyrw (1 Jo. 4:8. Cf. 1 Cor. 8:3); ébavepwty (1 Jo.4:9. Contrast 
améota\key in verse 9 and yyarnkayev, nyatjoawey IN Margin, in 
verse 10 with nyarnoey and améorerbev in verse 10); €daBov (Ph. 
3:12); Euafov (4:11); exadicey (Heb. 1:3); e€€ornuev (2 Cor. 5: 13). 
The same event in Mk. 15:44 is first mentioned by 76n reOvnkev 
and is then referred to by #6n (or radar) areBavevr. ‘The distinction 
is not here very great, but each tense is pertinent. However, 
Téynxey Means practically ‘to be dead,’ while amréavey =‘ died,’ 
‘has died.’ Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 108. 

(n) Epistolary Aorist. This idiom is merely a matter of stand- 
point. The writer looks at his letter as the recipient will. It is 
probably due to delicate courtesy and is common in Latin as 
well as in the older Greek, though less so in the later Greek.’ 
The most frequent word so used was éypaya, though éreu~a was 
also common. The aorist has its normal meaning. One has 
merely to change his point of view and look back at the writer. 
In 1 Jo. 2: 12-14 we have the rhetorical repetition of ypada, 
éypava (note the perfects after 67.). But in 1 Jo. 2:21 &ypafa 
may be the epistolary use, though Winer‘ protests against it. 
Here as in 2: 26, ratra éypaya, the reference may be not to the 
whole epistle, but to the portion in hand, though even so the 
standpoint is that of the reader. Cf. also 5:13. In 1 Cor. 9: 
15 also the reference is to the verses in hand. In Eph. 3 : 3, xa6as 
mpoeypava év odiyw, the allusion may be to what Paul has just 
written or to the whole epistle, as is true of érecreAa (Heb. 13: 
22). Certainly ypadw is the usual construction in the N. T. (1 
Cor. 4:14; 14:37; 2 Cor. 18:10, etc.). “Eypaya usually refers 


1 Most of these exx. from Mt. come from Moulton, Prol., p. 140. 
2 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 324. 
§ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. 4 W.-Th., p. 278. 


‘846 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


to an epistle just finished (Phil. 19; 1 Pet. 5:12; 1 Jo. 5: 18), 
but even so the standpoint veers naturally to that of the reader. 
This is particularly so in Gal. 6: 11 which probably refers to the 
concluding verses 11-18 and, if so, a true epistolary aorist. In 
Ro. 15:15 the reference may be! to another portion of the 
same epistle or to the epistle as a whole. In 1 Cor. 5:9, 11, 
éypava refers to a previous letter, as seems to be true also in 2 
Cor. 2:3, 4,9; 7:12; 3 Jo. 9. But éreua is found in undoubted 
instances as in Ac. 23:30; Eph. 6:22; Ph. 2:28;-Col. 4:8. 
So dvéreufa in Phil. 12 and 7BovdAnbyy in Text. Rec. 2 Jo. 12. 
Curiously enough Gildersleeve? says: ‘The aorist in the N. T. 
[Ep. aor.] is clearly due to Roman influence, and is not to be 
cited.” The epistolary aorist is more common in Latin (ef. 
Cicero’s Letters), probably because of our having more epistolary 
material. The idiom occurs often enough in the papyri. Cf. 
éreuWa, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.), éypava brép airod un iddTos ypauparta, 
P.Oxy. 275 (a.p. 66). There is therefore no adequate reason for 
denying its presence in the N. T. examples above. | 

(0) Relation to the Future. The future was probably (cf. Brug- 
mann, Griech. Gr., p. 480) a late development in the language, 
and other devices were at first used, like the present indicative, 
the perfect indicative, the aorist subjunctive. The aorist indica- 
tive was also one of the expedients that never quite disappeared. 
It is not exactly, like the epistolary aorist, a change of stand- 
point. It is a vivid transference of the action to the future (like 
the present épxouat, Jo. 14:3) by the timeless aorist. The aug- 
mented form is still used, but the time is hardly felt to be past. 
This idiom survives in the Slavonic also. It is a vivid idiom 
and is still found in modern Greek.4’ Thumb (Handb., p. 123) cites 
Kt av pe gouBAtloere, vas T'paxds éxa6n, ‘even if you impale me only 
one Greek perishes.’ Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 124) cites from 
Epictetus, d7av Oédns, €&fOes. Gildersleeve® calls it ‘a vision of 
the future.’ Burton® considers it ‘rather a rhetorical figure than 
a grammatical idiom,” but the idiom is not so strange after all. 
Cf. Eur., Alc., 386, aawddunv ef we ANetWers=‘I perish if you leave 


, 


me.’ The examples are not numerous in the N. T. and some ~ 


of them may be gnomic. Cf. édv cov dxoben, exépdnoas Tov adedpdv 

cov (Mt. 18:15. Cf. wapad\aBe as the next apodosis in verse 16 

and éorw in verse 17); éav xal yaunons, obx ijuapres (1 Cor. 7: 
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 194. 4 Jann., Hist..Gk. Gr., p. 437. 


2 Synt., p. 128. 5 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 114. 
3 Giles, Manual, p. 499. 6 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 23. 


a in Rl oe da ee re 


oe ee, 


TENSE (XPONOS) st 847 


28); drav wédAdAn cadmifev, Kal éredecOn (Rev. 10: 7), probably also 
éay un Tis pevn ev euol, EBANOn — xal éénpavbn (Jo. 15: 6), though 
this may be merely gnomic, as already stated. Cf. the use of 
éuepicbn and épOacey in Mt. 12: 26, 28 in a condition of the 
present time. In Jo. 18:31 éd0f4c6y (twice) is explained (verse 
32) by dokdce: xai etOds doface. Cf. p. 1020 (standpoint). 

(1) Aorist in Wishes. The special use of the aorist indicative 
in wishes about the past and conditions determined as unfulfilled 
will be discussed in chapter XIX, Modes. 

(x) Variations in the Use of Tenses. Where so much variety is 
possible, great freedom is to be expected. In modern English we 
make a point of uniformity of tense in narrative. The Greeks 
almost made a point of the opposite. It is jejune, to say no 
more, to plane down into a dead level the Greek spontaneous 
variety. Cf. juaprov kal borepodyra (Ro. 3:23). In Matt. 4:11, 
for instance, we have adinow (historical pres.), apoo#dGor (aor.), 
dunxovovy (imperfect). In Mt. 13 :45f. note éoriv, fnrodvri, ebpwr, 
amehOwv, wempaxev, etxev, nyopacev. “‘ When they wished to narrate 
a fact, or to convey a meaning, there is good ground for holding 
that they employed the tense appropriate for the purpose, and 
that they employed it just because of such appropriateness.”’! 
That is well said. The explanation is chiefly psychological, not 
mere analogy, which is true of only a few tenses, especially in 
late Greek (Middleton, Analogy in Syntax, 1892, p. 6). Jan- 
naris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437, lays probably too much stress on 
“the terminal homophony of the two tenses” (aor. and perf.). 

(A) Translation of the Aorist into English. The Greek aorist 
ind., as can be readily seen, is not the exact equivalent of any 
tense in any other language. It has nuances all its own, many 
of them difficult or well-nigh impossible to reproduce in English. 
Here, as everywhere, one needs to keep a sharp line between the 
Greek idiom and its translation into English. We merely do the 
best that we can in English to translate in one way or another 
the total result of word (Aktionsart), context and tense.? Cer- 
tainly one cannot say that the English translations have been 
successful with the Greek aorist.2 Weymouth in his New Testa- 
ment rn Modern Speech has attempted to carry out a consistent 
principle with some success. Moulton‘ has thought the matter 


1 P. Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 17. . 

2 Weymouth, On the Rendering into Eng. of the Gk. Aorist and Perfect, 
1894, p. 15. 8 Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 23. 

4 Prol., pp. 135-140. | 


848 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


important enough for an extended discussion. He makes clear 
that the Greek aorist is true to itself, however it is rendered into 
English. Take zuvés éxouunOnoavy (1 Cor. 15:6), for instance, ‘fell 
asleep (at various times),’ Moulton explains, ‘and so have fallen 
asleep.”’ In Mt. 3 : 7 trédecEev may be translated by ‘has warned,’ 
but ‘warned’ will answer. The English past will translate the 
Greek aorist in many cases where we prefer “have.’’ Burton! 
puts it clearly thus: ‘The Greek employs the aorist, leaving the 
context to suggest the order; the English usually suggests the 
order by the use of the pluperfect.”’ The Greek aorist takes no 
note of any interval between itself and the moment of speaking, 
while the English past takes note of the interval. The Greek 
aorist and the English past do not exactly correspond, nor do the 
Greek perfect and the English perfect.2, The Greek aorist covers 
much more ground than the English past. Cf. 616 ékAnOn 6 aypos 
éxetvos ’Aypos Aiwatos éws THs onuepov (Mt. 27:8), where the Greek 
aorist is connected with the present in a way that only the 
English perfect can render. See also éws adpre otk nrnoate (Jo. 
16:24). From the Greek point of view the aorist is true to its 
own genius. The aorist in Greek is so rich in meaning that the 
English labours and groans to express it. As a matter of fact 
the Greek aorist is translatable into almost every English tense 
except the imperfect, but that fact indicates no confusion in the 
Greek. 

(c) The Aorist Subjunctive and Optative. The aorist of these 
two ‘‘side-moods”* may very well be discussed together. The 
two moods are not radically different as we shall see. 

(a) No Time Element in the Subjunctive and Optative.6 There 
is only relative time (future), and that is not due to the tense at 
all.6 The subjunctive is future in relation to the speaker, as is 
often true of the optative, though the optative standpoint is then 
more remote, a sort of future from the standpoint of the past. 

(8) Frequency of Aorist Subjunctive. As between the aorist and 
present in subjunctive and optative, the aorist is far more common. 
For practical purposes the perfect may be almost left out of view; 
it isso rare. Asa rule in these moods the action is either punctil- 
iar (aorist) or durative (present). The contrast between point and 
linear action comes out simply and clearly here. It is just that 


1 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 27. 

2 Ib., p. 24f. ’ Thompson, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. xix. 
4 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 401. 

BK Gi DOL. peeks 6 Stahl, Hist.-krit. Synt., p. 171. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 849 


seen between the aorist and the imperfect indicative.! In the 
classical Sanskrit the subjunctive exists only in a remnant of the 
first person, which is treated as an imperative, but it 1s common 
enough in the early language.? In Homer (both Jlvad and Odyssey) 
the aorist is in great preponderance over the present (65 to 35 
for the average between subjunctive and optative, about the same 
for each).? Gildersleeve* considers the difference due to the nature 
of the constructions, not to mere lack of differentiation in the 
early stage of the language. The subj. is more common in Homer 
than in the later Greek and the aorist subj. is correspondingly 
abundant. There is no doubt that the aorist is gaining in the 
kon over the present in the subj., opt., imper. (Radermacher, 
N.T. Gr., p. 123). The distinction is understood. Cf. ywéxpis av 
HAvos dUn (aim) and axpis ay erixatpov doxp (duration), I. G., XII, 
5, 647. Radermacher cites also é7ws AauBavwow and drws aBwow, 
drws Vrapxyn and iva 60097 from a Pergamum inscr., N.13 (8.c. 300). 
He fears that this proves confusion between the tenses, and 
appeals also to the papyrus example iva ypadw kat dAvapjow (Deiss- 
mann, Light, p. 204). But there is no necessary confusion here. 
The modern Greek preserves clearly the distinction between 
punctiliar and linear action in the subj. and uses the aorist and 
present side by side to show it (Thumb, Handb., p. 124). The 
situation in the N. T. is even more striking. Mr. H. Scott, 
Birkenhead, England, writes me that he finds only five present 
subjs. in Acts and one (13:41) is a quotation. In the Pauline 
Epistles (13) he notes 258 dependent aorist subjs. and 161 de- 
pendent pres. subjs. Gildersleeve® complains of Stahl’s weari- 
someness in proving what ‘‘no one will dispute.”” The point is 
that the aorist subj. or opt. is used as a matter of course unless 
durative (linear) action is to be emphasized or (as rarely) the com- 
pleted state is to be stressed (perfect). But variations occur even 
here. Thus Abbott® notes only two instances of the pres. subj. 


1 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 82; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 194. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 298. 

3 Schlachter, Statist. Unters., pp. 236-238. 

4 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 245. 5 Tb., p. 400. 

6 Joh. Gr., p. 370 f. But there is little point in these exceptions. Abbott 
rightly notes the variations in the major uncials between -iop and -i¢n in 
Mk. 9: 43-47. Mr. H. Scott finds éav with pres. subj. also (W. H.) in Mk. 
1:40; 9:47 (4 mall). In Lu. he adds 5:12 (=Mk. 1: 40); 10:6, 8, 10 
(av to be supplied); 13:3; 20:28 (8 in all). In Mt. he notes 5:23; 6:22, 
23; 8:2 (= Mk. 1:40); 10713 bis; 15:14; 17: 20; 21: 21; 24:49 bis; 26335 
(12 in all). But he makes 78 aor. subjs. with éay in the Synoptics. 


850 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with éiv in Mk. (9:45; 14:31) and two in Lu. (6:33; 91:31), 
apart from uw and except clauses with éw and Oédkw. The aorist 
subjunctive with éay occurs in Synoptics 24 times, present 79. 
But in John there is more diversity between the two tenses. 
““Most Greek writers observe the distinction between the aorist 
and present subjunctive, as Englishmen observe that between 
‘shall’ and ‘will,’ unconsciously and without any appearance of 
deliberately emphasizing the difference. But we have seen above 
(2511) that John employs the two forms with great deliberate- 
ness, even in the same sentence, to distinguish between the begin- 
ning of ‘knowing’ and the development of it.’?! Cf. va yvare Kal 
ywaokntre (10:38) and ei radra oldate, uaxdpiol éore ay TornTe adTa 
(13 : 17), where the pres. is again used purposely. Note also John’s 
Tt To@puev (6 : 28) and Luke’s ri rounowpev (3 : 10). We need not fol- 
low all the details of Abbott,? but he has made it perfectly clear 
that John makes the sharp distinction between the aor. and pres. 
subj. that is common between the aor. and imperf. ind. Cf. éay 71s 
tnpnon (Jo. 8:51) and éav rnp&yev (1 Jo. 2:3); dre av airnonrte (Jo. 
14:13) and 6 dp airéue (1 Jo. 3:22). But Paul also knows the 
punctiliar force of the aor. subj. Cf. auaptnowpev (Ro. 6 : 15) with 
éripevwpev (6:1), where the point lies chiefly in the difference of 
tense. See also 2 Tim. 2:5, édy 6€ cal dOAR Tis, ob oTehavodrar eay 
Hn vouluws dOAnon. Cf. roufre in Gal. 5:17. In deliberative ques- 
tions the aorist subj. is particularly common, as in dauer 7 ww) bGper 
(Mk. 12:14). In elpjynv Evwuev (Ro. 5:1) the durative present 
occurs designedly =‘keep on enjoying peace with God,’ the 
peace already made (étxarwhevres). Moulton (Prol., p. 186) thinks 
that the aorist subj. in relative clauses like és av dovebon (Mt. 
5:21), or érov édv xatadaBn (Mk. 9: 18), or conditional sentences 
like éay domaonobe (Mt. 5 : 47) ‘gets a future-perfect sense.” But 
one doubts if after all this is not reading English or Latin 
into the Greek. Cf. Mt. 5:31. The special construction of the 
aorist sub]. with od uy (Jo. 6:35; 18:11) comes up for discussion 
elsewhere (pp. 929 f., 1174 f.). 

(y) Aktionsart. The three kinds of point-action ‘occur, of 
course, in the aorist subj. Thus in iva papruphon (Jo. 1:7) the 
aorist is merely constative, as is édv welvnre év tuol (Jo. 15:7). CE. 
éay pn Tis wevn ev Euot (15:6). In Jo. 6 : 30, iva tiwuer kal ricrebow- 
uév oo, the ingressive use is evident in mucrebowyev =‘ come to be- 
lieve’ (cf. va morebnre in verse 29). Cf. also iva mucrebowper Kol 
ayarayev (1 Jo. 3: 23); repurarpowuey (Ro. 6:4; 13:13). The 

1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 381. 2 Ib., pp. 369-388. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 851 


effective aorist is seen in 7&s mAnpwhdow (Mt. 26:54). Cf. d7ap 
katapynon (1 Cor. 15 : 24) for the “perfective” use of the prepo- 
sition also. In the modern Greek the aorist subj. preserves 
Aktionsart (Thumb, Handb., p. 124). 

(5) Aorist Subjunctive in Prohibitions. It seems clear! that orig- 
inally both in Sanskrit and Greek prohibition was expressed only 
by the subj. Hence the growth of the imperative never finally 
displaced it. In particular the aorist sub]. held its place in pro- 
hibitions as against the aorist imper. (a late form anyhow). This 
distinction has held in the main right on through. In the N. T. 
examples of the aor. imper. in prohibitions do occur in the third 
person, but the aor. subj. survives. In the second person the 
rule is still absolute. Moulton? has given a very interesting dis- 
cussion of the development of the discovery of the distinction 
between the two constructions. The aorist subj. is of course 
punctiliar, and the present imper. linear. Inasmuch as the pro- 
hibition is future, the aorist subj. would naturally be ingressive. 
Gottfried Hermann long ago made the distinction, but a few 
years ago Dr. Henry Jackson tells how one day he got the idea 
from a friend (quoted by Moulton?): ‘‘Davidson told me that, 
when he was learning modern Greek, he had been puzzled about 
the distinction, until he’ heard a Greek friend use the present 
imperative to a dog which was barking. This gave him the 
clue. He turned to Plato’s Apology, and immediately stumbled 
upon the excellent instance, 20 E, wu) dopuBnonre, ‘before clamour 
begins,’ and 21 A, uw OopuBeire, ‘when it has begun.’ ’”’ This dis- 
tinction is clearly in harmony with the punctiliar aorist sub]. and 
the durative present imper. It is maintained in ancient Greek 
and in modern Greek, and Moulton® shows how the papyri abun- 
dantly illustrate it. Unfortunately the present imperative is rare 
in the papyri from the nature of the subject-matter, but the few 
examples agree to the distinction drawn. The aorist subjunctive 
is abundant enough. Moulton (Prol., p. 1238) finds in O.P. (all 
ii/A.D.) six aorist subjs. with wy. Thus pi) auedjons refers to a re- 
quest in a letter. Cf. also ui) dd\dws rornons, dpa undevt — mpockpovons. 
But rodro pu Neve, ‘stop saying this,’ is in a letter in reference to 
what had already been said. So py aywvia, ‘don’t go on worrying.’ 
Another good example is in Hb.P. 56 (iii/B.c.), od otv pu evdxyre 
airév. Moulton clinches it by the modern Greek py} ypadns (to 
one already writing) and yu) ypdayys (to one who has not begun). 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 240. 
2 Prol., p. 122. sib pe lect: 


852 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The distinction is not admitted by all modern scholars.! But the 
difficulty lies mainly in the use of the present imperative, not in 
the aorist subj. Examples like yu) Oavyaons (Jo. 3:7) do occur, 
where the thing prohibited has begun. Here it is the constative 
aorist rather than the ingressive which is more usual in this 
construction. Moulton? quotes Dr. Henry Jackson again: “M7 
dpaons always, I believe, means, ‘I warn you against doing this,’ 
‘I beseech you will not’; though this is sometimes used when 
the thing is being done; notably in certain cases which may be 
called colloquial or idiomatic, with an effect of impatience, p17 
dpovtions, ‘Oh, never mind!’ yu) deions, ‘Never fear!’ yu) Oavycons, 
‘You mustn’t be surprised!’ ”’ Add also pu) doBnOfs (Mt. 1: 20). 
But, as a rule, it is the ingressive aorist sub]. used in prohibitions 
to forbid a thing not yet done or the durative present imper. to 
forbid the continuance of an act. The N. T. is very rich in ex- 
amples of both of these idioms because of the hortatory nature of 
the books. Moulton‘ finds 134 examples of uy with the pres. 
imper. and 84 of wu with the aorist subj. In Matthew there are 
12 examples of uy with the pres. imper. and 29 of un with the 
aorist subj. But these figures are completely reversed in the 
Gospel of Luke (27 to.19), in James (7 to 2), in Paul’s Epistles 
(47 to 8) and John’s writings (19 to 1). The case in Jo. 3:7 has 
already been noticed. It may be said at once that the excess 
of examples of pres. imper. over aorist imper. is the old situation 
in Homer.® In the Attic orators, Miller (A. J. P., xiii, 423) finds 
the proportion of wu) wrote type to un rounons type 56 to 44, about 
the same as that in the N. T., 134 to 84. Inthe N. T. this pre- 
dominance holds except in Matthew, 1 Peter and Rev. (Moul- 
ton, Prol., p.124). The aorist imper. was an after-growth, and yet 
is very common in the N. T. (and LX X) as compared with the 
older Greek.’ In the Lord’s Prayer, for instance, every tense is 
aorist (Mt. 6: 9-13). Gildersleeve remarks that the aorist suits 
“Instant prayer.” But cf. Lu. 11: 2-4. However, the point is 


1 Cf. R. C. Seaton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1906, p. 488. 27 Prolkepalzo: 

3 Ib., p. 123. Mr. H. Scott properly observes that ‘‘the correctness of these 
figures will depend upon how a repeated uf or undé without a verb is to be 
counted. E.g. is Mt. 10:9 f. to be counted as one or as seven? The same 
question arises with a verb without a repeated éav or iva, etc. It seems to 
me that these are merely abbreviated or condensed sentences and should be 
counted as if printed in eaxlenso—as separate sentences. In that case Mt. 
10:9f. would count seven instances of uw with subj. aor.” 

s5ib: ® Gilders!l., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 244. 

6 Gildersl., Justin Martyr, p. 137, 


TENSE (XPONOS) 853 


here that in the N. T., as a rule, the idiom gives little difficulty. 
Cf. ur vouionre (Mt. 5:17); uh eioeveyans quads (Mt. 6:13; Lu. 11:4); 
Lh oTnons avtots tavtnv (Ac. 7:60). Cf. un cadrions (Mt. 6: 2), 
‘don’t begin to sound,’ and wu) Onoavpifere (6:19), ‘they were 
already doing it.’ Note again wu dare pndé Badnre (Mt. 7:6) 
and py xpivere (7:1). With Mt. 3:9 pw doén7e Neyerv compare 
Lu. 3:8 uy apénobe Neyer. But in Lu. 3:14, undeva duaceionre 
unde ovxohaytnonte, we have the constative aorist rather than the 
pres. imper. (the soldiers were present, if John spoke in Greek 
to them, more restrained at any rate). In Lu. 11:7, uA por xézrovus 
mapexe= ‘quit troubling me,’ while in Rev. 10 : 4, ui) aira ypawns= 
‘do not begin to write.’ (Cf. jweddov ypadev in same verse.) It is 
not necessary to labour the point. Butin Mt. 6:25 we have pu) 
Meptuvare, mplying that they were anxious; in 6: 34, 7) otv pepi- 
vnonre, & general warning in conclusion. Once more, in Mt. 
10 : 26, note wu oby doBnOAre ai’rots, the warning against fearing 
evil men; in 10:31, 7 oty doBetobe= ‘quit being afraid.’ In Jo. 
5:45, wy doxetre, it is implied that ‘they had been thinking that’; 
in 2 Cor. 11:16, un Tis pe 66&, ‘no one did, of course.’! In Jo. 
6:43 uy yoyyifere is interpreted by éyoyyufov in verse 41. Cf. 
py KAalere (Lu. 8 : 52), ‘they were weeping.’ In yu) d0& (2 Cor. 
11:16) and py efovPevnoy (1 Cor. 16:11) the normal use of uh 
with the aorist subj. occurs with the third person. A good 
double example occurs in Lu. 10:4, wy Baoratere Badddyriov 
(‘don’t keep carrying’), and in pndéva aordonode (‘don’t stop to 
salute’). In Col. 2:21 uy ayy is a warning to the Colossian 
Christians not to be led astray by the gnostic asceticism. In 
2 Cor. 6:17, axabaprov uy arrecbe, the prophet (Is. 52 : 11) assumes 
that the people were guilty, if NAQ be followed as by Paul, but 
B has aynobe. In Jo. 20:17, un pov arrov, Jesus indicates that 
Mary must cease clinging to him. Cf. unre duoons (Mt. 5: 36) 
and pu) ouviere (Jas. 5:12). As to the present imperative fur- 
ther discussion belongs elsewhere, but a word is necessary here. 
Moulton? thinks that ‘‘rather strong external pressure is needed 
to force the rule upon Paul.”’ John has only one case of un with 
the aorist subj., and yet Moulton holds that all his uses of the 
present imper. fit the canon completely. Gildersleeve (Syntaz, 
p. 164) says: ‘‘un with the present imperative has to do with a 
course of action and means sometimes ‘keep from’ (resist), some- 
times ‘cease to’ (desist).”” So ‘continue not doing,’ or ‘do not 
continue doing.’ One of the imper. presents is merely exclama- 
1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 196, a3 Prokspy 120. 


854 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tory (cf. aye, Jas. 5:1). Another, like dpa with pndevi elas (Mt. 
8:4), is almost like a ‘‘sort of particle adding emphasis.”’! If “a 
negative course of action” (Gildersleeve) is enjoined, it 1s not 
necessarily implied that one is doing the thing. Moulton’s diffi- - 
culty about Paul is thus obviated. Hence the answer? to uy 
rote, Which usually=‘Stop doing,’ may be in a given case=‘ Do 
not from time to time,’ ‘Do not as you are in danger of doing,’ 
‘Do not attempt to do’ or simply ‘Continue not doing.’ In Eph. 
5:18 ph) ucvoxecbe may mean that some of them were getting 
drunk (cf. even at the Lord’s Table, 1 Cor. 11:21), or a course of 
action (the habit) may be prohibited. In yu ayuapravere (Eph. 
4:26) the imminent peril of sin may be implied (cf. dpyifecde). 
So in pu) Webdecbe (Col. 3:9) we may have the course of action, 
though the usual linear notion is pertinent. But cf. mw) aedre 
(1 Tim. 4:14), undevi éxcrifer and unde Kowwver (5:22),? and wy yive- 
abe ws ot Wroxpitat (Mt. 6:16), as illustrations of the point in dis- 
pute. In the modern Greek “as a prohibitive the aorist subj. is 
on the whole less commonly used than the pres. subj.’’ (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 127). My with the present imper. survives in a few 
instances, but the subj. in modern Greek does practically all the 
work of prohibiting. 

(e) Aorist Subjunctive with od un. It is merely the tense that calls 
for comment here, not the mode nor the negative. The present 
sub]. was sometimes used with od wy in the ancient Greek, but no 
examples occur in the N. T. The aorist is very natural as the 
action is distinctly punctiliar. Of the 100 examples of od uw in 
the W. H. text, 86 are with the aorist subj., 14 are future inds.4 
Cf. od pi eloédOnre (Mt. 5:20); odxere ob wy iw (Mk. 14: 25). 
The other aspects of the subject will be discussed elsewhere 
(chapters on Modes and Particles). 3 

(¢) Aorist Optative. It is more frequent than the present in 
the N. T. This is partly due to the relative frequency of mu} 
yvevoito (cf. Gal. 6: 14) and the rarity of the optative itself. The 
distinction of tense is preserved. Cf. undels dayor (ingressive, Mk. 
11:14); wdnOuvOein (effective, 1 Pet. 1:2); karevOivar — mreovdcat 
Kal repitceboa (constative, 1 Th. 3:11 f.). Cf. don (2 Tim. 1: 16, 
18). Cf. 2 Tim. 4:16. These are wishes. The-aorist occurs 
also with the potential opt. as in ri av rornoaey (Lu. 6:11). Cf. 
Ac. 26:29. In the N. T. certainly the optative usually refers to 
the future (relatively), though Gildersleeve® is willing to admit 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 124. 2a1bs) pe leo 5. *Ibe 
4 Ib., p. 190. 5 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 403. 


TENSE (XPONOS) . 855 


that Homer uses the potential opt. with av a few times of the 
past. The opt. in indirect questions has to be noted. 

(d) The Aorist Imperative. In Homer the aorist imperative, 
as already stated, is not so common as the present, while in the 
N. T. it is remarkably frequent.1. This frequency of the imper. 
is characteristic of the xown generally,? though in the end the 
sub]. came to be used in positive commands like the Latin.’ 
There is no complication in the positive command, like the ban 
put upon pu} roincov from the beginning of our knowledge of the 
Greek language.*’ Hence in the positive imperative we are free 
to consider the significance of the aorist (and present) tense 
in the essential meaning. Here the distinction between the punc- 
tiliar (aorist) and the durative (present) is quite marked.’ In- 
deed Moulton (Prol., p. 129) holds that to get at “the essential 
character of aorist action, therefore, we must start with the other 
moods” than ind. It is easier, for the time element is absent. 
Cf. repiBarod ro tuatiov cov Kat akodover wor (Ac. 12:8). It is ex- 
actly the distinction between the aorist and imperf. ind. (ef, 
é€eMOav Ajxodovber in verse 9). The constative aorist, mepiBadod, is 
like the preceding, (Gcau kal trddnoar Ta cavdadia cov. In Jo. 5:8 
note dpov rov KpaBatrov cov Kal mepirare (the ingressive aorist and 
the durative, ‘walking,’ ‘went on walking’), and the same tense- 
distinction is preserved in verse 9, jpe — kal meprerare (cf. further 
5:11). In isaye viva (Jo. 9 : 7) the present izaye is exclamatory 
' (cf. éyerpe dpov in 5:8). Cf. Mk. 2:9, 11. In the midst of the 
aorists in Jo. 2 : 5-8 (the effective moujoare, yeuioate, avTA\noate voy) 
the present dépere stands out. It is probably a polite conative 
offer to the master of the feast. In the Lord’s Prayer in Mt. (6 : 9- 
11) note ay.acbqtw, yevnOynTw, dos, ades and elcedMe — rpdcevEa in 
6:6. In opposition to 66s ojwepov in Matthew we have didov 76 
xa’ *uépay in Lu. 11:3, a fine contrast between the punctiliar 
and the linear action. So 7@ airodyre dos (Mt. 5:42) and zapzt 
airobvre didov (Lu. 6:30); xapnre & éxeivn TH jueoa (Lu. 6 : 23) and 
xalipere (Mt. 5:12); dpare tadra evredOev, uw roetre (Jo. 2:16, a 
very fine illustration). In Ro. 6:13 a pointed distinction in 
the tenses is drawn, undé rapioravere Ta edn bu@v Stra adtKias TH 
duaptia, aANa rapacricate éavrovs (one the habit of sin forbidden, 
the other the instant surrender to God enjoined). Cf. also vodp 


Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 244 f.; Apr., 1909, p. 235. 

Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 451. 

Ib., p. 449. 5 Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 29. 
Moulton, Prol., p. 173. ® Moulton, Prol., p. 129. 


1 
2 
3 
4 


856 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mapacrnoare in verse 19. In Lu. 7:8, opebOn7t — ropeberar, rrotn- 
cov—ro.et, the presents are also aoristic. As with the ind. the 
aorist (constative) may be used with a durative word. So ypeivare 
év tH ayarn TH Eu (Jo. 15:9). The action, durative in itself, is 
treated as punctiliar. Cf. Mt. 26:38, pweivare de Kal ypnyopeire 
per’ éuod (Mk. 14:34). So with paxpobuunoate ews ris mapovatas 
Tod Kupiov (Jas. 5:7); trav mapabyxny dtd\afov (1 Tim. 6:20. Cf. 
2 Tim. 1:14; 1 Jo. 5:21); radra rapafov (2 Tim. 2: 2); cuvkaxo- 
mradncov (2:3); crovdacov (2:15). Cf. the aorists in Jas. 4:9. 
Most of them call for little comment. Cf. Jo. 4:16, 35. Ab- 
bott! notes the avoidance of the aorist imper. of ricretw, possibly 
because mere belief (aorist) had come to be misunderstood. The 
pres. imper. presses the continuance of faith (cf. Jo. 14:11). 
The real force of the effective aorist is seen in \bcate Tov vay ToD- 
tov (Jo. 2:19). In Mk. 15:32, xaraBarw viv, the “perfective” 
force of the preposition is added. Moulton? notes that 1 Peter 
shows a marked liking for the aorist (20 aorists to 5 presents in 
commands, H. Scott), while Paul’s habit, as already noted, is just 
the opposite. Moulton® has an interesting comment on the fact 
that “in seven instances only do the two_evangelists [Mt. 5-7 
and Luke’s corresponding passage] use different tenses, and in all 
of them the accompanying variation of phraseology accounts for 
the differences in a way which shows how delicately the distine- 
tion of tenses was observed.’? There may be variations in the 
translation of the Aramaic original (if the Sermon on the Mount 
was spoken in Aramaic?), ‘but we see no trace of indifference to 
the force of the tenses.’’ In the imperative also different writers 
will prefer a different tense. One writer is more fond of the aorist, 
another of the present. Note the impressive aorists, adpare tov 
AiWWov, AdcaTe adrov Kal ddere airov brayew (Jo. 11:39, 44). Abbott4 
rightly calls the aorist here more authoritative and solemn than 
the present would have been. The aorist here accords with the 
consciousness of Jesus (11:41, jxovcas). The aorist imper. oc- ° 
curs in prohibitions of the third person, like uw yrorw (Mt. 6 : 3); 
un KataBarw (24:17); wy émcorpefarw (24:18). This construction 
occurs in ancient Greek, as unde oe Kunoatrw tis, Soph. Ai. 1180. 
But uy and the aorist subj. was preferred. In the N. T. this is 
rarely found (1s Cors16 ise 2e0h 23 22: Cormiiiso}, 

(e) The Aorist Infinitive. In Homer the durative (present) idea 
is more common than the punctiliar (aorist) with the infini- 


AOD ate Do Lote ~ hse 
2 Prol., p. 174. 4 Joh. Gr., p. 318 f. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 857 


tive, as with the imperative.!. There is, of course, no time in the 
inf. except relative time in indirect discourse. The history of the 
inf. belongs elsewhere, but here we have only to do with the excel- 
lent illustration of punctiliar action afforded by the aorist inf. 
Radermacher, p. 123, finds the aorist and the pres. inf. together in 
the Carthaginian inser. (Audollent, 238, 29, ili/a.D.), wndé tpeé- 
xew pndeé mepimarety pnoe vixnoar pnoe e€edMetv. So in the papyri 
B.G.U., I, 183, 25. The features of the tenses in the inf., once 
they are fully established, correspond closely to the use in the 
moods.2. As a matter of fact originally the inf., because of its 
substantival origin, was devoid of real tense-idea (Moulton, Prol., 
p. 204), and it was only by analogy that tense-ideas were asso- 
ciated with the inf. But still the aorist inf. deserves a passing 
word. Take Ac. 15:37 f., for instance,? BapvaBas 6€ éBovXeTO ovr- 
mapadaBeiv kal Tov ’I. tov Kad. Mapxov. Here the constative aorist is 
perfectly natural for the proposed journey. But see the outcome, 
Ilatddos 6€ HElov — uw cvvTtapadayBavey rodrov. Paul was keenly 
conscious of the discomfort of Mark’s previous desertion. He 
was not going to subject himself again to that continual peril 
(durative). Cf. also Mt.14:22, jvayxace rods pabyras éuBivar (con- 
stative aorist), kal mpoayew atrov (durative, ‘go on ahead of him’). 
An interesting example occurs in Jo. 13:36 f., ob dbvacai pou viv 
akodrovdjoar (constative aorist most likely); 6ca ri od divayat cor 
axodovbety a&pte (durative, ‘keep on following,’ is Peter’s idea). 
The aorist inf. is the predominant construction with divayat, dv- 
vatos, Oédw, kededw, 6tc.> The distinction in tenses is well observed. 
For dtvaya see further AauBave (Jo. 3:27) and daBety (14 : 17); 
Baoravew (16:12) and Baoraca (Rev. 2:2); micretoa (Jo. 5:44) 
and mortevew (12:39).6 Abbott notes also that zo.jcar occurs in 
John with dtvaya only in Jo. 11:37, whereas idety, eicedOetv, yevvy- 
Ojvac are natural (3: 3ff.). So with é\w note dAaBety (Jo. 6 : 21); 
muacat (7:44), but épwrav (16:19). In Mt. 5:17 f. xaradtoar and 
mAnpaoa are effective, but ovyfoa (Ac. 15:13) is ingressive, while 
airnoa (Mt. 6:8) is constative. Cf. Lu. 7:24f. The aorist inf. 
is rare with péddAw (aroxadvdbjva, Ro. 8:18; Gal. 3:23, though 
aroxadirrecbar in 1 Pet. 5:1). So eweddov arofavety (Rev. 3 : 2). 
Cf. Rev. 3:16; 12:4. <A good example of the constative aorist 


1 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., p. 244. In Sans. the inf. has no tenses at all. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 204. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., p. 133 f.; Goodwin, Moods 
and Tenses, p. 30. Plato, Theat., 155 C, avev rod yiyvecOar yevéoOar &dbvarovr. 

$ Moulton, ib., p. 130. 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 196 f. 

4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 361. 6 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 360 f. 


858 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


inf. occurs in Ro. 14: 21.1. The aorist inf. is used with an aorist 
as the ind., otk #Nov Kkataddoa (Mt. 5: 17), the sub]., eirwpev rip 
karaBava (Lu. 9:54), the imper., ades Payor (Mt. 8:22). But 
the aorist inf. is common also with durative tenses like é¢jrouv 
kparjoa. (Mk. 12:12); otk HOehev — éerapu (Lu. 18:13). There 
is apparently no instance in the N. T. of an aorist inf. used to 
represent an aorist ind. in indirect discourse. In Lu. 24 : 46, 
bre orws yeyparrar mabey Kal dvaorhvar &k vexpav, we have the 
usual timeless aorist, the subject of yeyparrar. So pr idety (2 : 26). 
In Ac. 3:18 zabety is the object of rpoxarnyyere. The aorist 
and pres. inf. with prepositions vary a good deal. The aorist 
occurs with wera (Mt. 26:32; Lu. 12: 5, etc.), with rpo (Lu. 2: 21; 
Jo. 1:48); mpds (Mt. 6:1); efs (Ph. 1:23); and even with é 
sometimes (Lu. 2 : 27), but only once with 6:4 (Mt. 24:12). Cf. 
Burton, N. 7. Moods and Tenses, p.49f. The following are Mr. 
H. Scott’s figures for the Synoptics: 


ARTICULAR INFINITIVE 


TO rod | dua 7d] els 76 | & TH |ueTa 7h|7pd TOD |rpds 7d} Total 








Po} A PAS JPtAg BUA Po AS Pa Ag @DatAGls Pi Asi Daas Eons 


2°). 45/9 422) 02) 1 1 OM SL Sal Ole Sale Ze nos) Os eu 


——————_*—————— ———— a, 


6 ol 13 7 o9 7 116 



































There are more articular presents than aorists in N. T. 

(f) The Aorist Participle. The tenses got started with the parti- 
ciple sooner than with the inf. (cf. Sanskrit), but in neither 
is there time except indirectly. The Sanskrit had tenses in the 
participles. The aorist part. is not so frequent in Homer as is 
the present. But “the fondness of the Greeks for aorist parti- 
ciples in narrative is very remarkable.’’4 

(a) Aktionsart. That is present here also. Thus we find the 
ingressive aorist, yerauednBeis (Mt. 27:3); doBnbetoa (Mk. 5: 33); 
ayvonoavres (Ac. 13 : 27); ayarnoas (2 Tim. 4:10). The effective 


1. Blass i Grvomn 7 DaeGky ipo197. 

2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 53. 

3 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 244. 
4 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gr., p. 213. 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 3 «ye 3) BBY 


aorist appears in zAnpwcavtes (Ac. 12 : 25), the constative in cur- 
mrapadaBovres (2b.). Further examples of the effective aorist are 
meioavTes TOs SxXAous Kal AOaoavTes TOv Haddov (Ac. 14:19); dcxacw- 
devres (Ro. 5:1). The constative is seen again in zapadots (Mt. 
27:4); muoreboayres (Jo. 7:39). »The aorist participle in itself is, 
of course, merely punctiliar action. ; 

(8B) ‘O and the Aorist Participle. The punctiliar force of the 
aorist part. is well illustrated in this idiom. It differs from the 
relative (és-+ verb) in being a more general expression. In Mt: 
23: 20f., 6 dudcas duvter, we have identical action, not ante- 
cedent. The aorist is, strictly speaking, timeless (Burton, Moods 
and Tenses, p. 69). ‘O ouocas=‘the swearer,’ 6 \aBav=‘the re- 
ceiver,’ etc. Cf. Seymour, ‘‘On the Use of the Aorist Part. in 
Greek,” Transactions of the Am. Philol. Ass., 1881, p. 89. In John 
the examples, however, are usually definite. Contrast 6 aBwr 
(Jo. 3 : 33) probably=‘the Baptist’ with was 6 axotcas — pabwy (6: 
45) and of dkovoartes, of ronoavres (5: 25, 29). ‘O-+aorist part. 
may be used with any tense of the ind. Thus 6 AaGwy in Jo. 3: 
33 occurs with éodpayicev, ras 6 axovoas (6:45) with Epxerar, 
of moujoavtes (5:29) with exropetoovra. Cf. Mt. 26:52, sdvres 
of AaBovTes pudxatpay év paxalpn arododvtra. In simple truth the 
aorist in each instance is timeless. It is not necessary to take it 
_as=future perf.? in an example like 6 dzopeivas eis rédos ovdTos 
owlyoerau (Mk. 18:13). So Mt. 10:39. Note the resumptive 
ovros. Cf. 6 yvols — Kal pw éroiudaoas 7 Tornoas dapnoerar (Lu. 12: 
47). Cf. Jo. 7:39; 16:2; 20:29, in all of which examples the 
simple punctiliar action is alone presented in a timeless manner. 
But in Jo. 3:18, ovdels avaBeBnxev eis Tov ovpavoy et pi) 6 &K TOD ov- 
pavod xaraBas, the content suggests antecedent action. Cf. also 
6:41, éym eiue 6 Aptos 6 KataBas*; Tov dmooreitNavTa in Mt. 10: 
40; Jo. 5:15, 6 mwowoas; Heb. 10:29. ‘O and the aorist part. 
is sometimes used of an act past with reference to the time 
of writing, though future with reference to the action of the 
principal verb.4| This classic idiom occurs in the N. T. also. Cf. 
"Tovéas 6 ’Ioxapiwrys 6 Kal rapadov’s aitoy (Mt. 10:4; cf. also 27:3); 
usually the phrase is 6 mapadidols (26:25; Jo. 18:2, 5). So in 
Ac. 1:16 both yevouévov and ovAdaGotc.w are future to mpoeire. 
In Col. 1:8 6 kat dn\woas is future to éudbere. So Jo. 11: 2 (cf. 
12:3) fv 6€ Mapidy } ddelWaca tov Kbpiov wbpw Kal éexudtaca Tovs 

1 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 363. 

2 As Abbott does, Joh. Gr., p. 362. 8 Ib., p. 364 f. 

4 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 52 f.; Humphreys, Cl. Rev., Feb., 91. 


860 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


modas atrod. Cf. Ac. 7:35 rod odbevros, 9:21 6 ropOyoas. This 
development, though apparently complex, is due to the very 
indefiniteness (and timelessness). of the aorist participle and the 
adjectival force of the attributive participle. 

(y) Antecedent Action. This is the usual idiom with the cir- 
cumstantial participle. This is indeed the most common use of 
the aorist participle. But it must not be forgotten that the aorist 
part. does not in itself mean antecedent action, either relative or 
absolute.! That is suggested by the context, the natural sequence 
of events. As examples of the antecedent aorist part. (ante- 
cedent from context, not per se) take vynoreboas — éreivacev (Mt. 
4:2); idwv — perapednbels Eotpepev (27:3); pivas — avexwpnoe, 
ateav amnytato (27:5). These so-called antecedent aorists do 
not have to precede the principal verb in position in the sen- 
tence. Thus jyepev aitiv Kpatnoas tis xerpos (Mk. 1:31), edya- 
piotodpev—axovoavres (Col. 1:3, 4), werrer Kpiveer—rapacywv (Ac. 
17:31), &abicev — yevouevos (Heb. 1:3). This idiom is very 
common in the N. T. as in the older Greek.?. Indeed, one par- 
ticiple may precede and one may follow the verb as in Lu. 4 : 35, 
play — €&f\Oev — BraYvav. In Heb. 6:10 the aorist is distin- 
guished from the present, évedelEacbe—diaxovnoavtes Tots aylows Kal 
diaxovodytes. In Ro. 5:16, 6% €vds auaprncavtos, there-is a refer- 
ence to Adam (verse 14). The principal verb may itself be 
future as in a&pas — ronow (1 Cor. 6:15). In Lu. 23:19 Fp 
BdAnbeis is punctiliar periphrastic (aorist passive), 7#v being aoristic 
also. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) cites jv dxotocaca from Pelagia 
(inser. 18). Cf. joav yevouevor in Thue. 4, 54, 3, and ely davels in 
Herod. 3:27. See Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 125. 

(6) But Simultaneous Action is Common also. It is so with the 
circumstantial participle as with the supplementary. Here again 
it is a matter of suggestion. It is simple enough with the supple- 
mentary participle as in é\aGov Eevicayres (Heb. 13: 2), though rare, 
the present suiting better (cf. Mt. 17: 25). The usual idiom is 
seen in ézatcato \adG@v (Lu. 5:4). Indeed this simultaneous action 
is in exact harmony with the punctiliar meaning of the aorist 
tense. It is a very common idiom (chiefly circumstantial) in the 
N. T.3 as in the older Greek.t| So wéu~as — cirey (Mt. 2:8); 


amoxpilels efrev (22:1); quaptov mapadols aiwa Sixaov (27:4); ob 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 197; Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 70; 
Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 166. 

2 W.-M, p. 433. 

§ Moulton, Prol., p. 1381. 4 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 49 f. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 861 


TE KaN@s Errolnoas wapayevouevos (Ac. 10:33); xpnodpevos éréorpeper 
(27:3). -Cf. Ac. 1:24; Ro. 4:20; Heb. 2:10. It is needless 
to press the point except to observe that the order of the part. is 
immaterial. Note Ac. 10:33 above. So in oé&cov xataBas (Mk. 
15:30); 7d\Oav omevoarres (Lu. 2:16. Cf. oreboas xataBnir, Lu. 
19:5); éuapripnoey Sods ro mvedua (Ac. 15:8); drexpiver xabapicas 
(15:9); éroincay arootetNavtes (11:30); eyxaréXecrev ayarnoas (2 
Tim. 4:10); €\aBere micrevoavres (Ac. 19:2). This construction 
of the part. after the verb is very common in the N. T. The 
coincident use of the aorist tense occurs also with the imper- 
fect, aS ovvn\d\accey — eirwyv (Ac. 7:26), ériBadrov exrarey (Mk. 
14:72); the present, as amoxpiels Neyer (Mk. 8: 29); the per- 
fect, as éxrer\npwxev — avactnoas (Ac. 13:33); and the future, 
aS Kah@s mounoers tporeupas (3 Jo. 6)... In many examples only 
exegesis can determine whether antecedent or coincident action 
is intended, as in Heb. 9 : 12, eiao7\Oev — ebpapevos (Moulton, Prol., 
p. 1382). So Moulton (2b., p. 131) notes eizotca for antecedent and 
etraca (BC*) for coincident action in Jo. 11:28. The coincident 
aorist part. is common enough in the ancient Greek (Gilder- 
sleeve, Syntax, p. 141). The papyri show it also. Cf. eb zoun- 
ces dos, F.P. 121 (i/ii A.D.), a constant formula in the papyri 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 131). Moulton (7b.) illustrates the obscure 
ériBartov in Mk. 14:72 by eémriBarov cvvexwoe Th.P. 50 (B.c.), 
‘he set to and dammed up.’ If it is coincident in Mark, it is so 
“with the first point of the linear édavev.”’ 

(e) Subsequent Action not Expressed by the Aorist Participle. 
Some writers have held this as possible, though no satisfactory 
examples have been adduced. Gildersleeve? denies that Stahl suc- 
ceeds in his implication. ‘‘ Coincidence or adverbiality will explain 
the tense.”” Burton’ likewise admits that no certain instance of 
an aorist part. used to express subsequent action has been found. 
He claims the idiom in the N. T. to be due to “ Aramaic influence.” 
But we can no longer call in the Aramaic or Hebrew, alas, unless 
the Greek itself will not square with itself. The instances cited by 
Burton are all in Acts (16:23; 22 : 24; 23 : 35; 24: 23; 25: 193). 
“‘In all these cases it is scarcely possible to doubt that the par- 
ticiple (which is without the article and follows the verb) is 
equivalent to xai with a co-ordinate verb and refers to an action 


1 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 65. Cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, 
p. 50. 

2 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 408. 

8 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 66. 


862 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


subsequent in fact and in thought to that of the verb which it 
follows.”’! This view is held by Prof. Sir W. M. Ramsay? to 
apply to Ac. 16:6, and is in fact essential to his interpretation 
of that passage. Rackham?’ adds Ac. 12:25 and regards these 
examples as ‘‘decisive.’”’ Another instance urged is Ac. 21: 14. 
But are they “decisive” after all? Gildersleeve4 is still uncon- 
vineed. Blass® bluntly says that such a notion “‘is not Greek”’ 
and even refuses to follow the uncials in Ac. 25:13 in read- 
ing doracduevo. rather than doracduevor. Moulton® refuses to 
follow Rackham in his interpretation of Ac. 12:25: “But to 
take ouvrapadaBovres in this way involves an unblushing aorist 
of subsequent action, and this I must maintain has not yet 
been paralleled in the N. T. or outside.’”’ And, once more, 
Schmiedel’? comments on Ac. 16:6: “It has to be maintained 
that the participle must contain, if not something antecedent to 
‘they went’ (6:7\ov), at least something synchronous with it, in 
no case a thing subsequent to it, if all the rules of grammar and 
all sure understanding of language are not to be given up.” The 
matter might safely be left in the hands of these three great 
grammarians. But an appeal to the examples will be interesting. 
As to Ac. 12 : 25, bréotpebay — rrAnpwoartes THY diakoviay, cvvrapa- 
AaBovres ’Iwavyv, there is no problem at all unless eis be read rather 
than é£ or aro. It is true that NBL read eis, but that reading is 
contradicted by the context. In 11:30 it is plain that Barnabas 
and Saul were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, and in 13:8, 5, 
they are in Antioch with John Mark. The great uncials are not 
always correct, but if they are right in reading eés, the text has 
been otherwise tampered with. Even granting the genuineness 
of es and the ‘‘subsequent”’ aorist, we are absolutely in the dark 
as to the sense of the passage. With eis the coincident aorist is 
good Greek, but still leaves us in the dark. With é or azo there 
is no problem at all, tAnpwcavtes being antecedent, and ovrrapa- 
AaBovres coincident. In 16:6, d:7Ad\Oov 6€ tHY Ppvyiay cat TadareKjv 


1 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 66. 

2 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 212. Cf. discussion in The Expositor in 1894 
and The Exp. Times, Aug., 1894. In The Exp. Times (1913) Ramsay has 
sought another interpretation of the passage without the notion of ‘‘subse- 
quent” action. 

3 Comm. on Acts, p. 183 f. 

4 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 408. Cf. also his Pindar Pyth., IV, 189. 

° Gr of Ne Di Gk pelos: 

6 -Prol.; p. 133: 

7 Encye. Bibl., II, p. 1599. 


TENSE (XPONOS) \ 863 


xwpav, KwAvbevres tO TOD ayiov mvebuatos NadjoaL TOV Aoyov ev. Th 
’Acia, the participle is naturally antecedent (or coincident). Paul 
was headed west for Asia, but, being forestalled by the Spirit, he 
turned farther north through ‘‘the Phrygian and Galatic region.” 
Later he tried to push on into Bithynia, but the Spirit again 
interposed and he deflected northwest to Troas (16:7 f.). One 
is not entitled to make kwAvdevres=xal ExwArVOnoav because of the 
exigencies of a theory that demands that ‘‘the Phrygian and 
Galatic region” be Lycaonia (southern part of the Roman prov- 
ince of Galatia), which had already been traversed (16:1 f.). 
Besides, the narrative in 16:6 seems to be not resumptive, but 
a new statement of progress. Whatever the fate of the much 
discussed “South Galatian” theory, the point of grammar here 
is very clear. Another so-called instance is in 16 : 23, €Badovr els 
gudakny, tapayyetvavres 7TH SecpwdtdAakr. ‘This is so obviously a 
case of coincident action that it would never have been adduced 
but for need of examples to support a theory elsewhere. Cer- 
tainly ‘‘in 17:26 dpicas is not ‘later’ than the éroincey in time” 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 133). Still worse is the instance in 21: 14, 
py meBouevou 6€ a’tov novxdacapuev eirévtes’ Tov Kupiov To OeXnua yue- 
o0w. The participle is here necessarily antecedent or coincident 
(this last remark of acquiescence). So in 22: 24, éxédevcev — eizas, 
the participle is coincident like the common dzoxpilels efrev. Cf. 
heywv in Heb. 2:11 f.; Ac. 7:35. Precisely the same thing is true 
of bn — xedXeboas In 23:35. In 24:23, dveBadero is expanded 
by three coincident aorist participles, eiéas — elras—d.aratéuevos. 
There remains 25:13, xarnvrncav eis Katoapiay doracduevor tov 
@jorov. Here Blass, as already noted, accepts the future ao7ac6- 
pevor, but the aorist is probably correct. But even so, if one 
simply notes the “‘perfective” force of the preposition in karjnytn- 
cav, ‘went down,’ he will have no difficulty at all with the coinci- 
dent action of the aorist part. Karnvrnoay is the effective aorist 
and accents the end (reinforced by xar—). ‘They came down sa- 
luting’ (‘by way of salutation’). The salutation took place, of 
- course, when they were ‘‘down” (xa7—). Findlay (in loco) con- 
nects aor. with the initial act of xarjvyrnoay. Thus vanish into air 
the examples of “subsequent” action with the aorist part. in the 
N. T., and the construction is not found elsewhere. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 132) cites from the papyri, €£ dv dwces LY.— AvTpwoacd 
pou Ta ivaria dp. éxatov O.P. 530 (ii/A.D.), a clear case of coincident 
action. ‘The redemption of the clothes is obtained by paying the 
hundred drachme. 


864 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(¢) Aorist Participle in Indirect Discourse (Complementary Par- 
ticiple). It is a rare construction on the whole,! though more 
frequent with dpaw than with dxotw.2 This aorist part. is ab- 
solutely timeless, not even relatively past. It is another in- 
stance of the coincident aorist part. So dca jnKoboayey yevoueva 
(Lu. 4:28), bewpovy Tov Laravav ws adorparny é€x Tov ovpavod recdyTa 
(10:18). In zecovra we have the constative aorist.? Contrast 
the perfect in Rev. 9:1, efdov aorépa Ex Tov obpavod memTwKdra els 
Thy yqv, and the present in Rev. 7:2, eféov Gddov dvaBaivovra 
(linear), and eiéayev tia ev TO OvdpaTtl cov éxBaddovTa daruovia (Lu. 
9:49). Cf. efdev avdpa—elcedOovra kai érilevra (Ac. 9:12. So in 
10:3; 26:18); nxovoaper — évexbetoay (2 Pet. 1:18). 

2. Punctiurar (Aoristic) PRESENT (0 éveot@s ypovos). The 
present tense is named entirely from point of time which only 
applies to the indicative. But a greater difficulty is due to the 
absence of distinction in the tense between punctiliar and linear 
action. This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the 
subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already shown, the aorist is 
always punctiliar and the so-called present practically always lin- 
ear, unless the Aktionsart of the verb itself is strongly punctiliar. 
Cf. discussion of the imper. But in the ind. present the sharp 
line drawn between the imperf. and aorist ind. (past time) does 
not exist. There is nothing left to do but to divide the so-called 
Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative Present (or Punc- 
tiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form covers 
both ideas in the ind.’ The present was only gradually developed 
as a distinct tense (cf. the confusion about €¢7-v, whether aorist 
or imperf.). The present is formed on punctiliar as well as linear 
roots. It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denoting 
‘action in progress”’ like the imperf. as Burton® does, for he has 
to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the “ Aoristic Present,” 
which he calls a “distinct departure from the prevailing use of 
the present tense to denote action in progress.’’ In sooth, it is 
no “departure”’ at all, The idiom is as old as the tense itself 
and is due to the failure in the development of separate tenses 
for punctiliar and linear action in the ind. of present time. 
“The forms eiul, efuc, dnul, ayw, yeadw, etc., in which the stem 
has the form generally found only in aorists (§ 11, § 31) may be 


1 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 408. . 

2 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p.51. * Moulton, Prol., p. 134. 

4 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 120 f.; Sayce, Intr. to the Science of L., vol.. II, 
p. 152 f. 6’ N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 6. 


TENSE (XPONO2) 865 


regarded as surviving instances of the ‘Present Aorist,’ i.e. of a 
present not conveying the notion of progress. We may com- 
pare the English use of J am, I go (now archaic in the sense of 
I am going), I say, (says she), etc.”’! Hear Monro again: ‘The 
present is not a space of time, but a point,” and, I may add, 
yields itself naturally to aoristic (punctiliar) action. Some pres- 
ents are also “perfective” in sense like jxw. The so-called “pres- 
ent”? tense may be used, therefore, to express an action simply 
(punctiliar), a process (durative or linear), a state (perfective or 
perfect).2. Some of the root-presents (like ¢y-ui) are aoristic. 
The perfect came originally out of the root-meaning also (cf. 
qkw, otda) and grew out of the present as a sort of intensive 
present.2 The notion of state in wkd, kpar&, yrrSuar is really 
that of the perfect. So the momentary action in By (é8n-v) be- 
comes linear in the iterative Bi-Ga-w, ‘patter, patter.’ Moulton4 
clearly recognises that ‘‘the punctiliar force is obvious in certain 
presents.” The original present was probably therefore aoristic, 
or at least some roots were used either as punctiliar or linear, 
and the distinctively durative notions grew up around specially 
formed stems and so were applied to the form with most verbs, 
though never with all. In the modern Greek we find “the crea- 
tion of a separate aorist present (rayw),” while zayaivw is linear. 
So zayaivw is ‘I keep going,’ while zayw is ‘I go’ (single act). 
Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 119. ‘“‘As a rule the present combines 
cursive (durative, continuous, etc.) and aorist action”’ (7b., p. 120). 
The aoristic present= undefined action in the present, as aoristic 
past (ind.) =undefined action in the past. In the case of ayw we 
see a root used occasionally for punctiliar, linear and even per- 
fected action. There are, besides the naturally aoristic roots, 
three special uses of the aoristic present (the universal present, 
the historical present, the futuristic present) .° 

(a) The Specific Present. Gildersleeve® thus describes this sim- 
plest form of the aoristic present in contrast with the universal 
present. It is not an entirely happy description, nor is “ef- 
fective present,’’ suggested by Jannaris,’ since there may be in- 
gressive and constative uses also. The common eiyi (Jo. 10: 11) 
is often aoristic. A fine example of the constative aorist pres- 
ent occurs in Lu. 7:8, ropev@nrt, kal mopebercr — Epxov, Kal Epxerar — 
moinoov, Kal moved. Cf. é€opxifw ce (Mt. 26 : 63); dp (Ac. 8 : 23); 
a Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 45. 2 Giles, Man., p. 484. *-Ib., p: 491. 


ae Prol.) p. 119 f% 5 Giles, Man., p. 485. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 120. 
6 Synt. of Cl. Gk., p. 81. etlistaGk Gls Dadoo: 


866. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dete Brérw (Jo. 9:25). The frequent éya 6é A\eyw (Mt.'5 : 22, 28, 
etc.) is example of the specific aoristic present (constative). So 
ddnOds Neyw (Lu. 12:44). Cf. col Aeyw (Mk. 5:41); gnoiv (Mt. 
14:8); od AauBavw — adddAad reyw (JO. 5:34), etc. In Mk. 2:5 
adlevrar is effective aorist present as in idra (Ac. 9:34). Cf. 
Scot ovK Exovow, olTiwes odk Eyvwoav (Rev. 2 : 24); rode A\Mov and 
mobev Epxouat (Jo. 8 : 14); Exec — HrAOev (Jo. 16:21). Moulton (Prol., 
p. 247) notes how in Mt. 6 : 2, 5, 16, améxovor, the combination of 
the aoristic pres. and the perfective use of a76 makes it very 
vivid. “The hypocrites have as it were their money down, as soon 
as their trumpet has sounded.” The “perfective” améxw (Mk. 
14 : 41) is copiously illustrated in the papyri and ostraca (Deiss- 
mann, Light, etc., p. 111). 

(b) The Gnomic Present. This is the aorist present that is time- 
less in reality, true of all time. It is really a gnomic present 
(cf. the Gnomie Aorist) and differs very little from the ‘‘Specific 
Present.” In Mt. 23:2 éxa@ucay is gnomic, and in verse 3 we 
have the aoristic presents (gnomic also), \eyovow yap Kal ot rovodow. 
Note Jo.9:8. Cf. also ws Neyouow (Rev. 2: 24). Good instances 
are found in 1 Cor. 15:42 ff., ometiperar. So womep of broxpital 
motovot (Mt. 6:2). Abbott! has great difficulty with e& ris Tadt- 
Aalas tpodyrns ovK eyeipera (JO. 7:52). It is this gnomic present. 
It is not true, to be sure, but this was not the only error of the 
Sanhedrin. Cf. Mt.7:8. 

(ce) The Historical Present. This vivid idiom is popular in all 
languages,” particularly in the vernacular. ‘‘We have only to 
overhear a servant girl’s ‘so she says to me’ if we desiderate 
proof that the usage is at home among us.’’? Cf. Uncle Remus. 
Curiously the historic present is absent in Homer.* But Gilder- 
sleeve® applauds Stahl for agreeing with his position “that it 
was tabooed as vulgar by the epos and the higher lyric” (A.J.P.., 
xxl, 245). It is absent from Pindar and the Nibelungenlied. 
Gildersleeve® also observes that it is much more frequent in Greek 
than in English and is a survival of “the original stock of our 
languages.” “It antedates the differentiation into imperfect 
and .aorist.”’ The “ Annalistic or Note-Book Present” (like yiy- 
vovtat matdes dvo) iS practically the same use of the aorist present. 
Moulton? excludes yervara: in Mt. 2:4, for that is more like the 


1 Joh. Gr., p. 358. 5 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 393. 
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434. § Syntax of Cl. Gk., p. 86. 
3 Moulton, Prol., p. 120 f. TSProlvapaleo. 


4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p, 47. 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 867 


futuristic (prophetic) use of the present. Brugmann! divides the 
hist. pres. into ‘‘dramatic”’ and “registering” or annalistic pres- 
ents (cf. Gildersleeve). This vivid idiom is preserved in the 
modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 120). It is common enough 
in the LXX, since Thackeray (Gr., p. xx) notes 151 examples in 
1 Samuel, though it is rare in 2 Samuel and 2 Kings (‘‘absent,”’ 
Thackeray, Gr., p. 24). But Hawkins (Horae Synopticae, p. 213) 
finds it 32 times in 2 Samuel and twice in 2 Kings. Haw- 
kins (ib.) finds the hist. pres. in the LX X 337 times. Josephus 
uses it also. The N. T. examples are thus ‘‘dramatic.”’ The 
hist. pres. is not always aoristic. It may be durative like the 
imperfect.2, This point has to be watched. Blass* considers that 
the historical present ‘‘ habitually takes an aoristic meaning,” but 
room has to be left for the durative meaning also. It is common 
in the Attic orators and in the N. T., except in Luke where it is 
rare.t Luke’s Gospel has it only 9 times (possibly 11) and the 
Acts 13 times. Hawkins, from whose Horae Synopticae (2d ed., 
pp. 143 ff.) these figures are taken, finds 93 historic presents in 
Matthew (15 of them in Parables), but 162 in John and 151 in 
Mark. It is rare in the rest of the N. T. It is most frequent 
in Mark, John, Matthew and in this order. Mark indeed uses 
it as often as 1 Samuel, though a much shorter book. John’s 
Gospel is much longer than Mark’s, but when the discourses 
and dialogues are eliminated, the difference between John and 
Mark is not great. Moulton® adds that the idiom is common 
in the papyri. Cf. Par. P. 51 (ii/B.c.) adviyw — 6p& — kraya — 
éropevounv — kal ~pxouar — édreyov, etc. Moulton illustrates eye 
"Inoods in the Oxyrhynchus Logia by Katoap Neve, Syll. 376. See 
also adhpracev’ kal BovX\erar, P. Oxy. 37 (A.D. 49). Luke’s mani- 
fest reluctance to use it (changing Mark’s historical presents 
except in 8:49) is due to the fact that in Luke’s time the con- 
struction was regarded as ‘‘too familiar for his liking.’ He is 
the scientific historian, while Mark and John are the dramatists. 
Different writers would feel differently about it. ‘Josephus 
would use the tense as an imitator of the classics, Mark as a man 
of the people who heard it in daily use around him; while Luke 


1 Gk. Gr., p. 484f. The hist. present demands merely that the reader 
take his stand with the writer in the midst of the moving panorama. Del- 
briick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 261. 

2 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 11. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 188. 4 Tb. 

6 Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 143 f. §=Prolep ite 1 


868 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


would have Greek education enough to know that it was not 
common in the cultured speech of his time, but not enough to 
recall the encouragement of classical writers whom he probably 
never read and would not have imitated if he had read them.’’! 
But what about John? Jannaris? remarks that the idiom was 
common in the late Greek as in the early. The personal equation 
may have to explain the variations in the Gospels. Blass* un- 
dertakes to give a philosophy of the matter on the theory that 
the “circumstances,” “incidentals”? and “final results’? are ex- 
pressed in the past tenses of the ind., while the “principal actions” 
are found in the historical present. He cites Jo. 1: 29-42 in il- 
lustration (Gere — ever — Euaptipnoey — tornker — Eyer — FKov- 
oav — heyer — efav — Eyer — HADaY Kal elday — Hv — Hv — ebpioxer — 
heyer — ryayev — eirev). One doubts if the phenomena can be 
brought under any rule. Matthew and Luke use ido’ to enliven 
the narrative, while Mark and John avoid it.47 Mark has a habit 
of using xai before the historical present, while John often employs 
asyndeton.> But there is no doubt of the vividness of the narra- 
tive in Mark and John which is largely due to the historical 
presents. Modern literary English abhors this idiom, but it 
ought to be preserved in translating the Gospels in order to give 
the same element of vividness to the narrative. The historical 
present may begin® a paragraph (often so), occur in the midst of 
aorists and imperfects, or alternate with aorists. In Mt. 3:1 
tmapayiverat “Iwavns 18 preceded by a note of past time. In Mk. 
5:15 €pxovrar kal Oewpodow occur between aorists. In Mk. 4 : 37 
the realistic yiverac Natday is followed by the imperfect. As 
specimens of this present in parables see Mt. 13 :44. Sometimes 
the MSS. vary as between ¢aiverar and édavn (Mt. 2:13). The 
variation in parables may be partly due to obscuration of the 
gnomic nature of the narrative. In such a wealth of material for 
illustration it is hard to select, but note John 20. In verse 1 f. 
note épxerar — Brérer — Tpéxer — Epxerat, all indicating the excite- 
ment of Mary. Then the narrative goes on with aorists and im- 
perfects till Peter and John draw near the tomb, when we have 
Bere — Epxerar — Oewpe? (5-7) with two parenthetic aorists inter- 
jected (otx elondOev, eiojdOev). In verse 8 the narrative is resumed 
by aorists. In verse 12 again #ewpe? shows the surprise of Mary 
at seeing the angels (Aeyouow — deyer, verse 13), as in verse 14 


A Erole peael: 4 Hawkins, Hor. Synop., p. 144. 
2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434. 5 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 350. 
> Groot NL. Gk., piss. © W.-Thei pe 267. 





Pa i re 


TENSE (XPONOS) 869 


the present is used when she sees Jesus. Historical presents run 
through the dialogue with Jesus (15-18). Then the resumptive 
Tatra eirev. That is enough to say on the subject. 

(d) The Futuristic Present. This futuristic present is gener- 
ally punctiliar or aoristic.! The construction certainly had its 
origin in the punctiliar roots,? but some of the N. T. examples 
(cf. English “I am going,” as well as ‘I go’’) are durative, as 
Moulton? shows. Thus in 1 Cor. 16:5 drépxouae (in ecntrast 
with 6ce\0w) means ‘I am going through’ (Macedonia). Tivouar 
leans to the aoristic’ and so yiverac (Mt. 26 : 2) may be punc- 
tiliar. ‘In aiprov arobvncxopey (1 Cor. 15:32) we have a verb 
in which the perfective prefix has neutralized the inceptive force 
of the suffix —icxw: it is only the obsoleteness of the simplex 
which allows it ever to borrow a durative action.”® The aoris- 
tic origin of many present-stems has already been shown (and 
some perfectives like jxw). Thus all three kinds of action are 
found in the present (punctiliar, durative, perfect). All three 
kinds of time are also found in the present ind. (historical pres- 
ent= past, futuristic present=future, the common use for present 
time). Some of these ‘momentary presents” are always future. 
So efuc in old Greek prose,® but Homer uses efuc also as a pres- 
ent.’ The N. T. uses épxouae and zopevouat in this futuristic sense 
(Jo. 14:2f.), not efu. Indeed ‘the future of Greek was origi- 
nally a present” (Jebb in Vincent and Dickson’s Handbook, p. 
323). That is too strong, for the future ind. often comes from 
the aorist subj. Inthe N. T. such so-called futures as rieoa: and 
gayeoa (Lu. 17:8) are really old aorist subjs. Cf. Mt. 24:40 f. 
The futuristic pres. occurs in the inscriptions and papyri, as in 
Petersen-Luschan, p. 160, N. 190, av 6€ ris aéduxnon, broKerrar. See 
du py mavoerat, épxerar, B. M. II, 417 (iv/A.p.), avtiypavov Kaya 
avaBaivw, O. P. 1157, 25f. (a.v./iii), yodWor por kal réutw abr 
érOnxnv, O. P. 1158, 23 f. (A.v./ili). Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., 
p. 124. In South Italian Greek the futuristic present is the only 
means of expressing the future ind. The other use of the futur- 
istic present is the dramatic or prophetic.? “This present — a 
sort of counterpart to the historic present — is very frequent in 


1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 309; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 484. 

2 Giles, Man., p. 485. 3 Prol., p.120. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189. 
4 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 393. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 120. : 6 Gildersl., Synt., p. 84. 

7 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 10. 

8 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434. 9 Giles, Man., p. 485. 


870 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the predictions of the N. T.”! It is not merely prophecy, but 
certainty of expectation that is involved. As examples note Mt. 


17:11 ’HyXelas épxerar kal adroxatactnce wavtTa, 24:43 roia dudaky. 


6 KAemTyns Epxerat, 26:2 yiverar kal — mapadidorar, 26:18 rod 76 


macxa, 27:63 eyeipoua, Lu. 38:9 exxomrerar cal Badrerar, 19:8. 
dldwue Kal amrodldwur, JO. 4:35 6 Oepiopos epxetat, 8:14 rod brayo,: 


8:21 brayw kal Snrncere, 10:15 tHv Yoxnv pov TiOnu, 12 : 26 drov 


elul éyw, 20:17 dvaBaivw, 21: 23 otk amoPvncxe, 1 Cor. 15: 26. 


katapyetrat. In Jo. 10:15 ff. 7iOnuc really covers the whole of 
’ Christ’s life viewed as a unit (constative aorist).2 In Mk. 9: 
31 we have zapadidora, in Mt. 17:22 wedre rapadidocba. This 
use of wé\\w and inf. is a sort of half-way station between the 
futuristic present and the punctiliar future. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 448. The futuristic pres. startles and arrests atten- 
tion. It affirms and not merely predicts. It gives a sense of 
certainty. Cf. in Mt. 18:12, adjoe kai ropevdels Enret together, 
and deiye (Rev. 9 : 6). 

3. THE PuncTiuiar (Aoristic) FuturE (0 “éAX@v ypevos). 

(a) Punctiliar or Durative. The future is a “mixed tense” 
both in origin and meaning. The mixed origin was discussed 
in ch. VIII, vit, (g): It was a late tense, little used in the early 
Vedic Sanskrit, and as a distinct form gradually disappeared 


from the modern Greek, where the periphrastic forms like 64 \tw' 


(Avow) alone occur. But the modern Greek has developed thus two 
futures, 04 Atow punctiliar, 0a iw durative (Thumb, Handb., pp. 
116, 125). The Germanic languages (cf. English shall and will) 
have only the periphrastic future. For the history of the future 
ind. see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 552 ff. In Sanskrit the fut. 
had no modes, i.e. it was confined practically to the ind. (Whit- 
ney, Sans. Gr., p. 201). The oldest roots are derived either 
from punctiliar presents (ind.) or aorist (punctiliar) subjunctives.t 
Cf. riouwar, Byoouat. Gradually the future was formed on dura- 
tive roots also. Thus eva, ‘I shall remain.’ Some verbs formed 
two futures,> one punctiliar, like oxjow from écxov=‘I shall ob- 
tain,’ the other durative, like é&w, ‘I shall have.’ The xow7 has 
dropped cx7ow, as it has “generally got rid of alternative forms.’’® 
So also Opétouae (tpexw) was durative and dpauoduar (payor) 
punctiliar,? though both are absent in the N. T. It is probable 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189. 5 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 480. 
2 Abbott, Joh. Gr.,. p. 352. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 150. 
3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 479. 7 Thompson, Synt., p. 219. 


4 Giles, Man., p. 447. © 


: Poe a a - 
a ee a” ee 





TENSE (XPONOZ) 871 


that in the future passive we have with most verbs a purely 
punctiliar future formed on the aorist stem. The middle future 
was usually durative, the future passive punctiliar.!. Very few of 
the list of examples given by Jannaris can be illustrated in the 
N. T. owing to the disappearance of the future middle before the 
future passive. In 1 Pet. 4:18 davetra: (LXX, Prov. 11:31) is 
durative and certainly ¢avncerar (Mt. 24 : 30) is punctiliar. So in 
Lu. 16:31 wecOnoovra is punctiliar (effective), but meicouar does 
not occur in the N. T. So xracecbe ras Yuxas budv (Lu. 21 : 19) 
seems to be durative, though no fut. passive of this verb appears 
inthe N. T. So also cvvax@jcovrar (Mt. 24 : 28) is punctiliar (effec- 
tive). But the very disappearance of the future middle (as with 
the Attic doBjcoua) threw the burden of the durative future? on 
the future passive. So doBnOjcoua in Heb. 13 : 6 is durative. Cf. 
the durative apxecOnooucba (1 Tim.6:8). So also adda kal yap7- 
gouat (Ph. 1:18) is durative. Cf. also Jo. 16:20, 22, though 
xapnoovrat in Lu. 1:14 is ingressive punctiliar, as m\noOncerac 
(1:15) is effective punctiliar. But in Jo. 16 : 20 both Aurnbjcecbe 
and yevnoerat seem ingressive. In Heb. 9:28 od0ycera (cf. Ac. 
26 : 16) is ingressive, but dYouwar may be either durative (Mt. 5: 
8; Jo. 1:50; 19:37; Rev. 22:4) or punctiliar (Jo. 1:39; Heb. 
12:14, etc.). An excellent example of the effective future is 
found in 6 bropeivas eis TEeAOs TwONoETaAL (Mt. 10 : 22). So the same 
form in the future may be either punctiliar or durative, as 
mpoatw tuas (Mk. 14 : 28) is durative, while aée is punctiliar (ef- 
fective =‘bring’).? Ileicowev is punctiliar (effective) in Mt. 28 : 14 
and durative in 1 Jo. 3:19. So yvwoouae is punctiliar or dura- 
tive (Rev. 2:23). As punctiliar this verb may be either ingres- 
sive (1 Cor. 14:7, 9), effective (1 Cor. 4:19) or merely constative 
(Jo. 8:28, 32). From the nature of the action as future this 
Aktionsart of the verb will not be as prominent‘ in the future 
aorist as in the other punctiliar constructions. Blass® even goes 
so far as to say that the future ‘is the one tense which does 
not express action [kind of action, he means], but simply a time 
relation, so that completed and continuous action are not diffe- 
rentiated.’’ But it must be borne in mind that the future tense 
in itself makes as much distinction between punctiliar and dura- 


1 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 114 ff., 170 ff.; Giles, Man., p. 483; Jann., Hist. Gk. 
Gr., p. 441. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 150. ® -Ib.} pz 149. 

4 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 33. 

SGreotN:, L..Gk., p. 201; 


872 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tive action as the present tense does. The difference is that the 
future is usually punctiliar, while the present is more often dura- 
tive. The point need not be pressed. Other examples of the 
punctiliar aorist are xaheoes (Mt. 1: 21) ingressive; rapaxAnOnoovrat 
(Mt. 5:4) effective, and so xoprac@joovra, but éXenOjoovra is In- 
gressive while xAnOyoovrac is effective. In 1 Cor. 15 : 22, 28 note 
CworoinOyoovrac and vbroraynoerae (effective). In Jo. 8:32 note 


Eevdepwoe effective=‘set free’ (cf. édebOepor yervnoecbe, Verse 33).! 


So then both in origin and use the future is chiefly punctiliar. 

(b) The Modal Aspect of the Future. The future indicative is 
not merely a tense in the true sense of that term, expressing 
the state of the action. It is almost a mode on a par with 
the subjunctive and imperative. Gildersleeve? puts the matter 
plainly when he says: ‘‘The future was originally a mood.” 
In both Greek and Latin the forms of the future come for the 
most part from the subj. and it must be treated as a mode as 
well as a tense. Indeed Delbriick* and Giles* put it wholly under 
moods. It partakes, as a matter of fact, of the qualities of both 
mood and tense, and both need to be considered. The modal 
aspect of the fut. ind. is seen in its expression of will and feeling. 
Like the subj. the fut. ind. may be merely futuristic, volitional 
or deliberative. We have a reflection of the same thing in our 
shall and will. The fut. ind. has had a precarious history in 
Greek. Its place was always challenged by the present and 
even by the aorist ind., by the sub]. and imper. modes, by peri- 
phrastic forms. It finally gave up the fight as a distinct form in 
Greek.’ See under 8, (a). In the modern Greek the distinction 
between the periphrastic fut. and the subj. is practically lost.® 
The modal aspects of the fut. ind. appear clearly in subordinate 
clauses where the tense is common. In indirect discourse the 
future ind. merely represents the direct discourse (cf. Ro. 6: 
8). The future with the descriptive or identifying relative’ (Jo. 
6 : 51) shows no modal features. But it is found in other relative 
clauses where purpose (Lu. 7:27) or result (Lu. 7:4) is ex- 
pressed. The future has also a modal value in temporal clauses 
(Rev. 4:9; 17:17), in final clauses (Lu. 20:10; Heb. 3:12), in 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 149. 2 Synt., p. 115. 
3 Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 320 f. 

4 Man., pp. 500, 505; Thompson, Synt., p. 218. 

§ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 552. 

6 Blass, Hermeneutik und Krit., 1892, p. 199. 

7 Gildersl., Synt., p. 115. 


eon =b 


a a ee ee ee 


» se 


be 


a a —< 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 873 


conditional sentences (Lu. 19 : 40), in wish (Gal. 5:12). In Rev. 
3:9 the fut. ind. and the aorist subj. occur side by side with iva. 
But in independent sentences also the modal aspects of the future 
appear. 

(a) Merely Futuristic. This is the most common use of the future 
and in itself would not be modal. It is the prospective, what 
lies before the speaker.!. The predictive? (or prophetic) future 
has to be classed as aoristic (usually constative), though the 
question as to whether the action is durative or punctiliar may 
not have crossed the speaker’s mind. Cf. Mt. 21:37 e&7pa- 
mnoovrat, 41 amodéoa, 43 apOnoetac — doOjcerar, 24: 31 azoaredel, 
etc. Cf. Mk. 13 : 24-27. Further good examples of the predic- 
tive future are in Mt. 11:28 f.; 12:31. Unfortunately in Eng- 
lish we have no established principle for the translation of the 
predictive future. In the first person it is done by ‘‘shall,”’ and 
naturally by ‘will’ in the second and third persons. It is not 
always easy to distinguish the merely futuristic from the volitive 
future, “but we have to reckon with an archaic use of the auxil- 
laries which is traditional in Bible translations.”* The use of 
“shall” in the second and third persons is almost constant in the 
R. V. both for the volitive and the futuristic uses. If ‘ shall” 
could be confined in these persons to the volitive and “will” to 
the futuristic, even ‘‘the solemnly predictive,’’* it would be a 
gain.® Thus in Mk. 14:18 aravrjca would be ‘will meet.’ In 
Mt. 11:28f. dvaratow would be ‘shall give you rest’ (R. V. 
‘will’), ebpncere ‘will find’ (R. V. ‘shall’). But avaratow here may 
be volitive. If so, ‘will’ is correct. So in Mt. 12:31 adeOqcerat 
would be ‘will be forgiven’ (R. V. ‘shall’). Cf. also Mt. 26 : 13, 
AadAnOynoerar=‘will be preached.’ Moulton® notes that arapyjcy 
(Mt. 26:34; Mk. 14:30; Lu. 22:61) is often misunderstood 
because of the rendering ‘shalt deny me.’ ‘It could not there- 
fore be Peter’s fault if Jesus commanded him.” Here “will” is 
free from that perl. Cf. Mt. 25 : 29, 32; Lu. 19:43. With the 
negative the English “shall”? becomes volitive when the Greek is 
not. Cf. Mk. 13:31, od zapedeboovrar (cf. ob 7) rapédOy in 13 : 30). 
Sometimes (very rarely) od uj occurs with the predictive fut. (cf. 
the usual aorist subj.) as in ov pu) mapedeboovrar (Lu. 21 : 33); ob uy 
evpnoovow (Rev. 9:6); ovxére ob uw ebpnoovow (18:14; cf. arAdber, 


1 Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 309. 

2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 34 f. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 150. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 151. 
4 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 34. Sel beri 150: 


874 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


amwdero). The construction of od uy with the fut. ind. is ‘mori- 
bund” in the N. T.,! only 14 and some of these doubtful (MSS. 
vary greatly between aorist subj. and fut. ind.). Some of the 14 
are examples of the volitive future. In Mt. 15:5 od pu) rimqoes 
is probably volitive,? though some hold it predictive. 

(8) The Volitive Future. The three divisions (futuristic, voli- 
tive, deliberative) glide into one another both in the subjunctive 
and the future ind.2 The volitive future is practically an impera- 
tive in sense, for the will is exercised. The futuristic glides im- 
perceptibly into the volitive ‘‘as in the colloquial ob dfn, ‘you 
will see to that,’ Mt. 27:4.’4 Cf. duets dWeobe (Mt. 27: 24), exxd- 
Yes (Lu. 13:9). In Heb. 8:5 the imperative and the fut. ind. 
occur together, dpa rounces. The impatient od raton diactpédwy (Ac. 
13 : 10) is almost imperatival, certainly volitive. ‘The future ind. 
is exceedingly common in this sense (volitive).”’> In legal precepts 
the fut. ind. is unclassical.6 But the idiom itself is classical and ‘“‘is 
not a milder or gentler imperative. A prediction may imply re- 
sistless power or cold indifference, compulsion or concession.”? It 
is exceedingly frequent in the LXX. It is chiefly found in the N. T. 
in quotations from the O. T. Cf. kadréces (Mt. 1:21), otk evecbe 
(625); épetre (2132/3) = elaare (Mka1t.'3)) \ Cf. Jas. 2287 Ronis os 
Gal. 5:14. The volitive future really includes purpose (will) 
in the first person, as well as in the second and (rarely) in the 
third. Thus rpocebEoua, par (1 Cor. 14:15)=‘I will pray,’ ‘I 
will sing,’ not mere futurity. So in dvacrds ropebooua (Lu. 15: 
18) we seem to find ‘will,’ not mere declaration. Most of the ex- 
amples are in the second person, like otk écecbe (Mt. 6: 5), and 
are chiefly negative (4:7; Ac. 23:5; Ro. 7:7). But some ex- 
amples occur in the third person also; though Burton® is scep- 
tical. Cf. éorac in Mt. 20: 26f. (note 6é\n). So Mk. 9:35. In 
Lu. 10:6 we have éravaranoerat éx’ abtov 4 elpnvn, while in Mt. 
10:13 eMarw H elpnvn budv éx’ attnv.2 In the volitive future 
‘will’ is the English translation for the first person, ‘shall’ for 
the second and third. The rare use of uy with the fut. ind. shows 
a volitive use. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 117) is sceptical, but 
Moulton (Prol., p. 177) cites from Demosthenes pu) BovdAjoecbe 
eldevac and from B. U. 197 (i/A.D.) uh eeorar, B. U. 814 (iii/a.p.) 


1 Prol., p. 190. 2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 35. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 184. | 
4215. Dalia 7 Gildersl., Synt., p. 116. 

POTD Spl tO: 8 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 35. 

6 


Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 209. ® Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 209. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 875 


un adnows, B. M. 42 ui) —kparjces (1i/B.c.). Blass! quotes undéva 
puunoere from Clem., Hom., III, 69, and Moulton (Prol., p. 240) adds 
un Onoavpicerar, D in Mt. 6:19, and de~ers 6é undev, Eurip., Med. 
822, and observes (p. 248) that MS. evidence should be watched 
on the point. Sometimes od un occurs with the volitive future 
as in ov wy tiyunoe (Mt. 15: 5); od wh Eorar oo rodro (16 : 22). 
In Mt. 26:35 ov uw arapypcoua is also volitive (cf. Mk. 14:31). 
The volitive future seems to be found in Lu. 10:19, ode od uh 
buds dduxnoe. (W. H. text), but it is durative. But od alone is the 
usual negative in the volitive future, as in oly dpmdace tis ék Tis 
xeipos pou (Jo. 10:28. Cf. od pu) dmodwvrar). Cf. pres. imper. 
and fut. ind. side by side in Jo. 1: 39 (cf. 1:46). On ov uf see 
Modes and Particles. It is possible that od katicytcovow airijs 
(Mt. 16:18) is volitive. 

(y) Deliberative Future. Burton? has pointed out that ques- 
tions are of two kinds (questions of fact or questions of doubt). 
Questions of fact make an inquiry for information about the 
past, present or future. These questions employ the moods and 
tenses as other simple declarative sentences in both direct and 
indirect discourse. But deliberative questions ask not for the 
facts, but about the ‘possibility, desirability or necessity” of a 
proposed course of action. The subj. as the mood of doubtful 
assertion is perfectly natural here. The future is also doubtful 
from the nature of the case. So deliberative questions use either 
the subj. or the fut. ind. Deliberative questions (like questions 
of fact) may be merely interrogative or they may be rhetorical. 
The deliberative questions in the N. T. with the fut. ind. are all 
direct questions except Ph. 1: 22, ri aipnoouat ob yowpifw, where the 
punctuation is doubtful. (W. H. marg. have ri aipjcoua.)? In oxd 
ti ypayw (Ac. 25 : 26) it is not certain whether ypayw is fut. ind. or 
aorist subj. In Lu. 11:5, ris é& budv eke Pirov Kal wopeboerar — 
kal ely atta, the fut. ind. (rhetorical) and aorist subj. occur side by 
side if we can trust the reading. Cf. Mt. 7:6, with unmore; Eph. 
6 : 3, with a (O. T.). The examples of the fut. ind. in deliberative 
questions are all disputed by some MSS. which have the aorist 
subj., so that Blass* remarks that “the N.'T. in this case prac- 
tically uses only the conjunctive’; but that is an overstatement, 
since the best MSS. (see W. H. and Nestle texts) support the 
fut. ind. in some instances. As an example of merely interroga- 

1 Tb. 2 N. T. Moods and Tenses, pp. 36, 76 f, 


+ Blass, GrolyNe DaGkr p. 211: 
4 Ib., p. 210. Cf. W.-Th., p. 279. 


876 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tive deliberative questions with fut. ind. take e maratouev & pa- 
xaipn (Lu. 22:49). In Jo. 18:39, Botdeobe arrodktow, we may have 
the fut. ind. or the aorist subj., but note BotdrAecHe. The N. T. 
examples are nearly all rhetorical. So Mt. 12 : 26 was orabqcerat, 
Mk. 4:13 rés—~yvacecbe, JO. 6:68 mpds Tiva aredevoducba. Cf. fur- 
ther Ro. 3:5; 6:1 (the common 7i époduev;); 9: 14; 1 Cor. 14: 7, 
9,16; 15:29, 51; 1 Tim. 3:5. Cf. Lu. 20:15. Cf. ayopacwper kat 
dwoouev (Mk. 6: 37), 

(c) The Future in the Moods. The future differs from the 
other tenses in this respect, that in the moods where it occurs it 
has always the element of time. This is not true of any other 
Greek tense.! 

(a) The Indicative. It is far more common here than in the 
other moods. In direct discourse the fut. ind. expresses absolute 
time. Cf. tore dPovrac (Lu. 21:27). In the gnomic future the 
act is true of any time (cf. gnomic aorist and present). So porrs 
brép dikatov tis amobavetrar (Ro. 5:7); xpnuatioe (7:3), etc. In 
indirect discourse the time is relatively future to that of the 
principal verb, though it may be absolutely past. So with évo- 
pucav Ore Anupovrac (Mt. 20:10); efrev onuaivwy rolw Pavary TEBE 
tov Oeov (Jo. 21: 19).? 

(8) The Subjunctive and Optative. There never was a fut. im- 
perative. The so-called fut. subjs. in the N. T. have already 
been discussed. W. H. admit dyycbe to the text in Lu. 13 : 28, 
but claim it to be a late aorist subj. The same thing may be 
true of dwn, read by MSS. in Jo. 17:2; Rev. 8:3, but not of 
KavOnowuat in 1 Cor. 13:3. This may be a lapsus calami! for xav- 
xnowwat. Harnack (The Expositor, May, 1912, p. 401) quotes 
‘Von. Soden as saying: ‘ Kav€jowuwar — not xavOncouat — is to be rec- 
ognised as the traditional form in families of MSS. which do not 
give Kavxnowua.’ But Harnack refuses to ‘saddle’? Paul with 
this Byzantine “‘deformity.” Jannaris® thinks that these sporadic 
examples in late Greek are the fut. ind. “spelt with the thematic 
vowel.(y and w) of the subjunctive.’ One naturally thinks of 
the Latin subj. future. The fut. opt. never had a place save in 
indirect discourse, and that is lost in the N. T. 

(y) The Infinitive. The future inf. was never a common con- 
struction and was almost confined to indirect discourse.6 The six 


1 Blass, .Gr. of NvvI; GE., p. 201. 

2-14 4 Ib.; Moulton, Prol., p.'151. 
3 Appendix, p. 172. 5 Hist. Gk.’Gr.; p,-556: 

6 See the list in Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 486. : 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 877 


examples in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar save two (Ac. 11: 
28; Jo. 21:25). Meéedd\w has the fut. inf. three times, but only in 
the case of écecOar (Ac. 11:28; 24:15; 27:10). The three other 
instances of the fut. inf. in the N. T. belong to ind. discourse. 
One (xwpnoev) occurs with ofuae (Jo. 21:25), one (écec8ar) with 
unviw, or more exactly after émriBourAn (Ac. 23: 30, genitive absolute, 
Lnvleions por émiBovdjs ececOar),! one (eicedeboecOar) with duviw 
(Heb. 3:18). So that the fut. inf. “was already moribund for 
practical purposes.” In the papyri Moulton found the fut. inf. 
often a mere blunder for an aorist. In Ac. 26:7, B has the fut. 
inf. after édzifw. In the fut. inf. the time relation is only relative, 
as with all infinitives, not absolute as in the ind.2 Elsewhere with 
such verbs the aorist inf. occurs as with édrifw (1 Cor. 16 : 7); wedrw 
(Ro. 8:18); duviw (Ac. 2 : 30); duoroyew (Mt. 14:7); mpocdoxaw (Ac. 
27 : 33); mpoxatayyeddw (Ac. 3:18); or the present inf. as with wéeddw 
(Ac. 3:38); or the perfect inf. as with édzifw (2 Cor. 5:11). 

(6) The Participle. The future part. was later in its develop- 
ment‘ than the other tenses of this very ancient, even prehistoric,° 
verbal adjective. The fut. part. was never developed in the 
Beeotian Dialect. It is by no means dead in the papyri. Moul- 
ton’ notes ‘‘the string of final fut. participles in O. P. 727 (ii/A.p.); 
B. U. 98 (ili/A.p., etc.”? See also xowodroynoduevov P. Goodspeed 4 
(ii/B.c.). ra — (oc) Tabnodpevra P. Th. 33 (B.c. 112), and the list in 
O. P. 1118, 10f (i/a.p.). It seems to me to be more common in 
the papyri than in the N. T. Simcox® suggests that its rarity in 
the N. T. is due to the use of other phrases. Cf. wedAdXw in Ac. 18: 
14; 20:3, 7 and épxouevos in Rev. 1:4, etc. The time is, of course, 
only relative to that of the principal verb, as in €\n\v0e rpookuyjowy 
(Ac. 8:27). The anarthrous examples are volitive® and are the 
most frequent.!° They are used for purpose or aim. Cf. Mt. 27: 
AO Epxerar cwowv, Ac. 8:27 edyAtGe mpockvyvnowv, 22:5 eropevdunv 
aw, 24:11 aveBnv rpocxvvnowv, 24:17 rojowv mapeyevounv, Heb. 
13:17 aypurvotew as arodwcovres. Cf. also v. 1. ds ebpfowy in Mk, 
11:13. These all seem to be punctiliar. Some MSS. also read 
aomacouevo. in Ac. 25:13. This is surely a slim showing com- 

1 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 120, suggests omission of pé\\w. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 151. Cf. Hatz., Einl., pp. 190 ff. 

‘Blass Gr. OlN.) ce Gk. piece: 

4 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 71. ‘7 Prol., p. 230. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 151. 8 Lang. of the N. T.; p. 126. 

6 Claflin, Synt. of the B. Inscr., p. 73. 9 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 496. 


10 Moulton, Prol., p.151. That is, in the old Gk. Both volitive and futur- 
istic are rare in the N. T. ; js 


878 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pared with the classic idiom.1 Some MSS. read komotpevor in 2 
Pet. 2:18, rather than aécxobuevor. The future participle with 
the article is futuristic, not volitive. So with 76 écduevoy (Lu. 
22:49); 6 rapadwouv (Jo. 6 : 64); 7a cuvavtjcovta (Ac. 20 : 22); 6 
kakwowv (1 Pet. 3:13); 76 yernoouevov (1 Cor. 15 : 37); 6 Katraxpivdv 
(Ro. 8 : 34); r&v AadnOnoouevwy (Heb. 3 : 5). 

(d) The Periphrastic Substitutes for the Future. The peri- 
phrastic future is as old as the Sanskrit and has survived the in- 
flected form in Greek. Some of these forms are durative, probably 
most of them, but a few are punctiliar. Jannaris notes in Soph- 
ocles, O. C. 816, Aurnbels Eon, and O. T. 1146, ob} cwrnoas Ecen, 
but no examples of the aorist participle and écouac occur in the 
N.T. They are all present parts. (like éceo6e picobwevn, Lu. 21: 
17) and so durative. In the LXX we actually have the inf. with 
écouat (Num. 10:2; 2 Sam. 10% 11; Tob. 5:15). The uses of 
uedAw with the aorist inf. approaches the punctiliar future.? Cf. 
hue\Nev mpocayayerv (Ac. 12:6); weddovcay aroxadvdOjvar (Ro. 8: 
18. Cf. Gal. 3 : 23), with which compare the pres. inf. in 1 Pet. 
5:1. The aorist inf. occurs also in Rey. 3:2, 16; 12:4. The 
volitive future was sometimes expressed by #é\w and in the later 
Greek helped drive out the future form. It is disputed whether 
in the N. T. #é\w is ever a mere future. But in a case like édes 
eirwuev (Lu. 9: 54) we note the deliberative subj.2 Cf. Mt. 13: 
28. So Botdr\ecbe arodvow (Jo. 18 : 39). BotdAouar is less frequent in 
the N. T. than 6€\w and can hardly be resolved into a mere future. 
It is purpose. Cf. examples with the aorist inf. in Mt. 11: 27; 
Ac. 5 : 28; 17: 20. With 6édw the aorist inf. is the usual construc- 
tion, and it is nearly always easy to see the element of will as 
dominant. In a few cases #é\w seems to shade off towards the voli- 
tive fut. ind. Cf. Jo. 5:40, ot Oe\ere EXOetv rpds we, Ac. 25 : 9, Oe- 
Aes — xpOjvac; Here we have an approach to the later usage, but 
the auxiliary has not yet lost its force. Cf. also Jo. 6 : 67; 9 : 27; 
Jas. 2:20, where the formula is polite. But in Jo. 7:17 the 
R. V. rightly preserves ‘‘willeth.’”? So in Mt. 16:24. Herodotus 
shows a fondness for éé\w as a quasi-auxiliary, and the connec- 
tion between him and the modern Greek usage is doubtless through 
the vernacular. Cf. Jebb in Vince. and Dickson, p. 326. Even 


1 Cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 335. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 443. Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 253. 
“The difference between pres. and aor. furnishes the explan. of wéAdAw with aor. 
ind.”’ Giles, Man., p. 479. 

3’ Moulton, Prol., p. 185. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 3 879 


Sivayat May contain an “inceptive future.”! In Lu. 20:36 the 
MSS. vary between divayrac and péeddAovorv. But in the N. T. 
divauar retains its real force even in examples like Mk. 2:19; 
Ditet Ui DS site tuOn loo) ACLs. L9.- In Ac. 2526 note 
ypiwat obk exw (cf. cx Ti ypaypw). 

III. Durative (Linear) Action. 

The principles underlying the use of the tenses have now been 
set forth with sufficient clearness to justify brevity. 

1. INDICATIVE. 

(a) The Present (6 évectws) for Present Time. It has already 
been seen that the durative sense does not monopolize the “ pres- 
ent”? tense, though it more frequently denotes linear action.? 
The vérb and the context must decide. 

(a) The Descriptive Present. Its graph is (——). As with the 
imperfect, so with the present this is the most frequent use. Cf. 
amo\\vpea (Mt. 8:25. Contrast aorist cdcov. So Mk. 4:38; 
Lu. 8 : 24); cBevvurrar (Mt. 25:8); & & Epxouae (Jo. 5:7); datver 
(1 Jo. 2:8); cuvxivverar (Ac. 21:31); redetrar (2 Cor. 12 : 9); dav- 
patw Ste oUTws tTaxéews petatibecbe (Gal. 1:6); Emuorpedere (4:9); 
éxovow (Mk. 2:19). Cf. 1 Th. 3:8. In these examples the dura- 
tive action is very obvious and has to be translated by the 
progressive (periphrastic) form in English, ‘We are perishing,’ 
‘Our lamps are going out,’ etc. But in the case of davuatw (Gal. 
1:6) ‘I wonder’ brings out the durative idea, though ‘ye are 
changing’ is necessary for perarifecOe. Cf. exer (Jo. 3 : 36) where 
‘has’ is durative. Cf. ¢nroduer (Lu. 2 : 48), ot O€Xouev (Lu. 19 : 14). 

(8) The Progressive Present. ‘This is a poor name in lieu of a 
better one for the present of past action still in progress. Usu- 
ally an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb. 
Gildersleeve® calls it ‘‘Present of Unity of Time.” Cf. éotiv éws 
apte (1 Jo. 2:9). Often it has to be translated into English by a 
sort of ‘‘ progressive perfect” (‘have been’), though, of course, that 
is the fault of the English. ‘So in modern Greek, €£jvra ufvas 
a’ ayar®& (Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 222). The durative present in such 
cases gathers up past and present time into one phrase” (Moul- 
ton, Prol., p. 119). Cf. *Id0d rpia érn ad’ ob Epxouar (Lu. 13:7); 
tocavra etn SovAebw cor (15 : 29); wordy Hon xpdvov exer (Jo. 5: 6); 
TocovTov xpovov pel’ budv eiut (14:9); am’ apxis per’ euod éore (15: 
27); mada doxetre (2 Cor. 12:19). Cf. ard Bpédous otdas (2 Tim. 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 443. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 119. 
3 Synt., p. 86. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189; Burton, N. T. Moods 
and Tenses, p. 10. 


S80 A GRAMMAR OF’ THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3:15). It is a common:ididm. in the N. T, Cf. 2 Pet..3: 4; 
1 Jo.3:8. In Jo. 8:58 etui is really absolute. 

(y) The Iterative or Customary Present. Its graph is (..... iy 
Cf. éyxpareverar (1 Cor. 9 : 25); ruxrebw and trwmidtw kai dovlaywyd 
(9: 26f.). So vnorebw dis rod caBBarov, arodexarebw ravtTa boa KTQpat 
(Lu. 18 : 12); didwpye Kat arrodidbwu (19:8, more likely it is a new 
purpose in Zaccheus, when it would be aoristic); 6 evAoyobuev (1 
Cor. 10:16); dv kAGuer (10: 16); mpodauBave (11:21); karayyed- 
Nere (11: 26); EoOier Kat miver (11:29); Koiudvrar (11:30); odx duap- 
rave (1 Jo. 3 : 6); auapraver (3:8). Cf. Mt. 9:17. Probably also 
adiouey (Lu. 11:4). 

(5) The Inchoative or Conative Present. Either an act just 
beginning, like yiverac (Mk. 11: 23), eds cxavdadivovrar (4 : 17), 
NOatere (JO. 10:32), virres (18:6), morets (18:27), aye (Ro. 
2:4), or an act begun but interrupted like 7eifers (Ac. 26: 28; 
ef. 2 Cor. 5:11), avayxafes (Gal. 2:14), dixavodcbe (5 : 4), avay- 
kacvovow (6:12). Indeed Abagere (Jo. 10:32) and vimrers (13 : 6) 
may be regarded as conative also. This idiom is more common 
in the imperfect. Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 82. In English we 
have to use ‘‘begin” or ‘‘try.” ~ 

(e) The Historical Present. These examples are usually aoristic, 
but sometimes durative.t In Mk. 1:12 we have é®é\X\e which 
is durative. Cf. qyero in Lu. 4:1 (but Mt. 4:1, advjy6n). So in 
Mk. 1 : 21 eioropevovrar is durative. The same thing seems to be 
true of axoXovfotco.w in 6:1. 

(¢) The Deliberative Present. Rhetorical deliberative questions 
may be put by the present ind., but it is rather a rhetorical way 
of putting a negation than a question of doubt. Cf. ri rovoduev; 
(Jo. 11:47), ‘What are we doing?’ Cf. ri roumoe (Mt. 21:40) 
with ri rodyev (Jo. 6: 28) and ri romowyer (Ac. 4:16). The im- 
plication of the question in Jo. 11:47 is that nothing was being 
done. In Mt. 12:34, més dtvacbe ayaba Nadetv; a durative delib- 
erative question is expressed by means of dtvacbe and the pres. 
inf. Cf. a similar construction with 6e? in Ac. 16:30.2 Cf. the 
same idiom in an indirect question (Col. 4:6; 2 Th. 3:7; 1 Tim. 
3:15). The use of the pres. ind. in a deliberative question -is a 
rare idiom. Blass? finds parallels in colloquial Latin and an ex- 
ample in Herm., Sim., IX, 9, 1. 

(n) The Periphrastic Present. The examples are not numerous 
in the LXX.4 Cf. Num. 14:8; 1 Ki. 18:12, ete. It is rare in 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 11. hth ; 
2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 210. 4 C. and S., Sel., p. 68. 


TENSE (XPONOS)) / 881 


the N. T. Moulton! warns us that ‘“éxwy éori and déov éori (with 
other impersonal verbs) are both classical and vernacular.’’ In 
the present tense the idiom is on purely Greek lines, not Semitic. 
For classical examples see Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 81). So the 
impersonal verbs (and éxw) stand to themselves? in support from 
ancient Greek and the xown. Cf. éorw Eexovra (Col. 2 : 23); mpée- 
mov éotiv (Mt. 3:15); efor (sc. éori) in Ac. 2:29 and 2 Cor. 12: 
4; deov éoriv (Ac. 19:36. Cf. 1 Pet. 1:6). Other examples are 
éotws eiul (Ac. 25:10), éorw xatrepyouern (Jas. 3:15), éoriv rpocava- 
mTAnpodoa — adda Kal teprocebovoa (2 Cor. 9:12), éoriv a&ddnyopob- 
peva (Gal. 4:24) and, in particular, explanatory phrases with 
6: éorw (Mt. 12233) 272338; Mk. 5:41; Jo. 1:41). Cf. further 
AGS) 2209, COL 2 0°.3 2172) Cor2:17; 

(6) Presents as Perfects. Here the form is that of the present, 
but the root has the sense of completion. The action is durative 
only in the sense of state, not of linear action. This is an old 
use of these roots. Cf. Lu. 15 : 27, 6 adeddos jeer (‘has come,’ ‘is 
here’). Cf. €&NOov kal new (Jo. 8:42). See ch. VIII. So with 
xetrar (Mt. 3:10), ‘the axe lies at the root of the trees’ (has 
been placed there); 6 6vdacxados mapeotw (Jo. 11:28) = ‘the 
Teacher is come.’ Sometimes mxaw is so used (cf. Ro. 12:21; 
Rev. 15:2). So srrévrac (2 Pet. 2:20). Cf. dxotw in 1 Cor. 
11:18. See also dxoverar (1 Cor. 5:1) which is rather iterative. 
"Add in Mt. 20:18 is durative, but approaches a perfect in 
Ac. 25:11 (ef. rerpaxa). 

(.\) Perfects as Presents. Some perfect forms have come to be 
used as practical durative presents, though not of the same 
word. Thus otéa from eféov=‘I have seen,’ ‘I know’ (cf. Mt. 6 : 8). 
So éornxa (Lu. 8 : 20), wéuvnuae (1 Cor. 11:2). As to adrdd\wda that 
occurs in the N. T. in the participle (Mt. 10:6) and the same 
thing is true of elw#a (Lu. 4:16), which occurs in past perfect. 
So BeBnka, yeyova, déborxa, Nudlerpuar, éypnyopa, eoika, KEKANMaL, KEKTNUAL, 
méeroa, tepuxa, TéOvynxa. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 488. 

(x) Futuristic Presents. These are usually punctiliar, but some 
are durative.t Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 83) calls this ‘‘ Praesens 
Propheticum.” The absence of eu in the N. T. is noticeable. 
The papyri illustrate abundantly this futuristic present (Moul- 
ton, Prol., p. 120). Since the pres. ind. occurs for past, pres- 


1 Prol., p. 226. Cf. also Schmid, Atticismus, III, p. 114; K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 
38 ff. 2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 204. 

3 Goodwin, M. and T., p.9; Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 10; Gildersl., Synt., 
p. 87. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 120. 


882 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ent and future time it is clear that ‘time’ is secondary even 
in the ind. In the other moods it has, of course, no time at all. 
As examples of the durative present in this sense take zapadidorat 
(Mt. 26:45), avaBaivowey (Mk. 10:33), brayw adrevey and épxdpucba 
(Jo. 21:3), depyouae (1 Cor. 16:5), éxouey (2 Cor. 5:1). Meéddrw 
and the pres. inf. is, of course, a prospective present. This idiom 
is very common in the N. T., 84 examples with the pres. (6 aor., 
3 fut.) inf., though, of course, weAdAw is not always in the pres. ind. 
Cia Mita Za4l3 810 2 eel 

(b) The Imperfect for Past Time (6 tapararixos). Here we have 
the time-element proper, the augment probably being an old 
adverb for “then,” and the action being always durative. ‘‘The 
augment throws linear action into the past.”! The absence of a 
true imperfect in English makes it hard to translate this Greek 
tense. 

(a) Doubtful Imperfects. They are sometimes called “ aoristic”’ 
imperfects. This term is not a happy one, as Gildersleeve? shows 
in his criticism of Stahl for his “synonym-mongering” and 
“multiplication of categories.’ The only justification for the 
term is that, as already shown in the discussion of the aorist, it 
is not possible always to tell whether some forms are aorist ind. 
or imperf.ind. The same root was used for both forms, as only 
one form existed and it is hard to tell which tense the form is. A 
certain amount of obscurity and so of overlapping existed from 
the beginning.2 We see this difficulty in jv, édnv, ereyor, ete., par- 
ticularly in verbs of saying, commanding, etc. Modern Greek 
conceives of briya, érjya and édepa as aorists (Thumb, Handb., p. 
143). Thumb (Th. L.-Z., xxviii, 423) thinks that in the N. T. 
édepov had begun to be treated as aorist, but Moulton (Prol., p. 
129) demurs, though he admits the possibility of punctiliar action 
In rpoadepe TO SGpov in Mt. 5 : 24 (2b., p. 247). See also dépe kai ide, 
géepe kai Bare In Jo. 20:27. But one must not think that the 
Greeks did not know how to distinguish between the aorist and 
the imperfect. They “did not care to use their finest tools on 
every oceasion,”’® but the line between aorist and imperf. was 
usually very sharply drawn.* The distinction is as old as the 
Sanskrit.?. In modern Greek it still survives, though the differ- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 128. 2 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 394. 

3 Giles, Man., p. 488; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 487; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 46. 
4 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., XXIV, p. 180; X XIX, p. 4. 

5 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 17. 

6 Gildersl., Synt., pp. 91, 94. 7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201 f. 


TENSE (XPONO2) 883 


ence between é\eyev and efzev is well-nigh gone,! if it ever existed. 
The same thing is true of the usage of Achilles Tatius.2, Hence we 
need not insist that 7#v (Jo. 1:1) is strictly durative always (im- 
perfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist also. So as to 
éon (Mt. 4:7); ever (Mk. 4:21, 24, 26, 30, etc.), etc. Blass, 
Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192, fails to make a clear distinction. Note 
éxedevoy (Ac. 16 : 22). 

(8) The Descriptive Tense in Narrative. But the linear action 
may be insisted on in the true imperfect. It is properly “nicht- 
punktuell.”’ Though less frequent in Homer than the aorist 
it often “divides the crown with the aorist.”* The imperfect 
is here a sort of moving panorama, a ‘‘moving-picture show.” 
The modern Greek preserves this idiom (Thumb, Handb., p. 
121). In1 Cor. 10:3 f. ébayov and érwv give the summary (con- 
stative) record, while érivoy presents an explanatory description. 
See further mpoofov Kat dinxovory (Mt. 4:11); execey xal édidouv 
(13:8); evicratay xai exafevdov (25:5). Sometimes the change 
from aorist to imperf. or vice versa in narrative may be due 
to the desire to avoid monotony. In Mt. 26:60 we have ovx 
etpov, in Mk. 14:55 ovx etpicxov. The aorist tells the simple 
story. The imperfect draws the picture. It helps you to see the 
course of the act. It passes before the eye the flowing stream of 
history. It is the tense of Schilderung.A Cf. efxev ro &vdupa atrod 
(Mt. 3:4), éferopevero (8:5), eBarrifovro (38:6). The whole 
vivid scene at the Jordan is thus sketched. Then Matthew re- 
verts to the aorist (8:7). Cf. apxov7o in Jo. 19:2. So ds dderev 
ait@ (Mt. 18: 28) aptly describes a debtor as émvvyev, ‘the choking 
in his rage.’ See the picture of Jesus in ewper (Mk. 12:41). Cf. 
€ewpovv (Lu. 10:18), éeXeyovro (14: 7), wepreBderero (Mk. 5 : 32), 
éfioravro (Lu. 2:47; cf. Ac. 2:12). Cf. Lu. 9: 438-45; 16:19; 
Mt. 8:24. A good example is éxuAiero adpifwy (Mk. 9:20). Cf. 
further, érirrev kai mpoontxero (Mk. 14:35), the realistic scene in 
Gethsemane (Peter’s description probably); éreiua Kat ovdels 
édi6ov (Lu. 15:16); cpidovv mpds addAndous (24 : 14); e€erANocovvTo 
(Mt. 7:28); érifee (2 Cor. 3:18); HxoddvOe Kai exaPnro (Mt. 26: 
58). A splendid example of the descriptive durative is éo.w7a 
(Mt. 26 :63)=‘kept silent.’ So érdéouev (Ac. 21:3). Note évo- 
pucov (Ac. 21:29) between past perfect and aorist. Cf. epire 


- 1 Moulton, Prol., p. 128. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 436. 
2 Sexauer, Der Sprachgebr. d. rém. Schriftst. Achilles Tatius, 1899, p. 29, 
3 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 242. 
4 Hultsch, Der Gebr. d. erziihlenden Zeitf. bei Polyb. 


884 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Jo. 11:36), dvernpe (Lu. 2:51. Cf. 2:19). See the picture of 
Noah’s time in Lu. 17:27. Cf. éropebovto xaipovres (Ac. 5:41). 
Quite striking is 7Arifouey in Lu. 24:21. See further for the 
“imperfect and aorist interwoven” in narrative Gildersleeve, 
Syntax, p. 91. An artist could describe his work by ézoinoa or 
érolouv. Gildersleeve notes (zb., p. 93) that in the inscriptions of 
the fourth cent. B.c. the imperfect is absent. It becomes com- 
mon again in the imperial time. 

(y) The Iterative (Customary) Imperfect. Sometimes it is diffi- 
cult to tell whether an act is merely descriptive or is a series. 
Cf. moddol rAobvovor EBadrdov (Mk. 12:41); erviyovro (5: 13), where 
the separate details are well described by the vivid imperfect. 
The notion of repetition is clearly present in jpwra éXenuoot’yny 
(Ac. 3:3); qpwra abrov (Mk. 7:26). Cf. Jo. 4:31. The modern 
Greek keeps this usage (Thumb, Handb., p. 122). It is not neces- 
sary to see any ‘‘aoristic”’ notion here.t Cf. rapexadouv orovdaiws 
(Lu. 7:4, W. H.); rapynve (Ac. 27:9). It is well shown in Bapva- 
Bas éBovX\ero, Ilatdos néiov (15 : 37 f.), the one opposing the other. 
In Ac. 24:26 repetition is shown in g@pide. by muxvorepov pera- 
mweumouevos. Cf. ardour dé GAAO TL Eredwvovy (21 : 34); exvvOavero in 
verse 33; kab’ jucpay exabefouny (Mt. 26:55); érumrov (27: 30); 
Saou jxovov (Mk. 6:55); Karnyopovy mod\d\a (15:3); aéedvey dy 
mapntotvTo (15:6. Cf. elaBer arodvew dv HOedov, Mt. 27 : 15); eve- 
vevoy (Liu. 1: 62); eGarritev (Jo. 3 : 22); Erve (5:18); edidocay (19: 
3); éCwvvves (21:18); ériovy (Ac. 3 : 2); érimpackov kai dreweprfov (2 : 
45. Cf. 4:34). Moulton (Prol., p. 128) represents the iterative 
imperfect by the graph (...... eel AG a16 21 San Sees Mike 
3:11;4:33f. A good example is in Lu. 2 : 41, éropetovro kar’ Eros. 

(6) The Progressive Imperfect. Sometimes the imperfect: looks 
backward or forward, as the case may be.?, Thus Ti é7e é(nretré 
pe (Lu. 2:49); qv elxere am’ apxns (1 Jo. 2:7); évexomrouny (Ro. 
15:22); éueddov (Rev. 3:2). This idea is, however, often ex- 
pressed by péd\d\w,? but without the backward look also. Cf. 
Lu. 9:31; 10:1; Jo. 4:47; 6:71, etc. In éxevdtvevov (Lu. 8 : 23) 
the verb itself expresses peril or danger. Gildersleeve (Syntaz, 
p. 97) calls this idiom ‘Imperfect of Unity of Time.” Cf. the 
“progressive” present in (a), (8). The Text. Recept. gives a good 
example in jv radar TO TAoloy ev peow THs Dadaoons (Mk. 6:47). 
See also nv yap é& ikavdv xpdvev Oédwv idety adbtov (Lu. 23 : 8). 


1, Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 191. 
2 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 13 f. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 13. 
$ Gildersl., Synt., p. 94 f, 7 ¥ 


TENSE (XPONOZ) ; 885 


(e) The Inchoative or Conative Imperfect. Here the accent is 
on the beginning of the action either in contrast to preceding 
aorists (just begun) or because the action was interrupted (be- 
gun, but not completed). The two sorts of inchoative action 
may be represented by two graphs, thus ( ——) for the first, (—. ) 
for the second.!' In English we have to say ‘“‘began”’ for the one, 
“tried” for the other. The modern Greek maintains this idiom 
(Thumb, Handb., p. 121). As examples of the first sort where 
“began” brings out the idea, note édidacxe (Mt. 5:2. Cf. Jo. 7: 
14); dade (Mk. 7:35. Cf. Lu. 1 : 64); &xdauev (14 : 72); dtephocero 
(Lu. 5:6); dveAcdouv (6 : 11); cuverAnpodyto (8 : 23); ereckiagey (9: 
34. Note ingressive aorist éfoBnOncav); eréepwoxey (23 : 54); éere- 
yivwoxov (Ac. 3:10); exnpyvocey (9 : 20); dtexpivovro (11:2); Karhy- 
yeddov (13:5); CopiBovv (17:5); mapwébvero (17:16); aedoyetro 
(26:1); éxowtyro (27:18); edvero (27:41). Cf. Lu. 18:13, 17. 
In éddovy (Lu. 1:59) we see both ideas combined. The action 
was begun, but was sharply interrupted by ovxi, adda from Eliza- 
beth. Cf. viv énrovy (Jo. 11:8). A good instance of the inter- 
rupted imperf. is zpocégepey in Heb. 11:17. Examples of the 
conative imperfect (action begun, but interrupted) are dvexmAvev 
(Mt. 3:14); édidouv (Mk. 15:23, in contrast with oix aGer); 
éxwrvouey (Lu. 9:49); efnrow (Jo. 10:39; cf. 19:11); educter 
(Ac. 7:25. Note od ovvixay); cvvprAdaocev (7:26. Note amwcaro); 
érebev (Ac. 18:4); qvayxatov (26:11); but not Gal. 1:13. Moul- 
ton (Prol., p. 247) cites the conative pres. dvayxafovow (Gal. 
6:12). 

(¢) The “Negative” Imperfect. This is not a very happy piece 
of nomenclature, to use Gildersleeve’s remark about Stahl’s over- 
refinement, and yet it is the best one can do. “The negative 
imperfect commonly denotes resistance to pressure or disappoint- 
ment.’’2 As examples note 6 6€ oix 70eXev (followed by ¢8adev, Mt. 
18:30) and preceded by zapexade (iterative), ovdels edidov (Lu. 
15 : 16), ovk H0eXev (15:28. Note wpyicbn), odk ériorevey (Jo. 2 : 24), 
ob yap HOedkev (Jo. 7: 1), obdels Erodua (21:12), od eiwy (Ac. 19 : 30). 
CRN te 22h: | 

(n) The “Potential” Imperfect. This is a peculiar use of the 
tense for present time, where the present ind. fails to meet the 
requirement of the situation. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 97) calls it 
““modal’’ use, éde., etc. The unfulfilled duty comes as a surprise. 
This “modal” force of the imperfect ind. appears still in the 


1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 128. 
2 Gildersl., Synt., p. 95. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 339. 


886 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 128). There are several va- 
rieties of it. Verbs of wishing form one class of passages. In 
a case like éBovdounv (Ac. 25 : 22), BotAouwar would be too blunt 
(cf. 1 Tim. 2:8). The exact idea is ‘I was just on the point of 
wishing.’ It is freely rendered ‘I could wish’ or ‘I should wish.’ 
In 2 Cor. 1:15 éBovdouny rpdrepov has its usual signification. In 
Phil. 13 f. €BovdAdunv (a past preference) is set over against ovdevy 
n0é\noa (a past decision).! Another example is 70edXov sapetvar 
mpos tuas apte (Gal. 4 : 20). Note ap7. For the force of the pres- 
ent see 1 Cor. 10:20; Col. 2:1; and especially Lu. 19:14, ov 
dedouev. In Jo. 6:21, HOedov, the usual notion occurs. An ex- 
ample is found in Ro. 9:3, nixéunv, where Paul almost expresses 
a moral wrong. He holds himself back from the abyss by the 
tense. He does not say evxouar (cf. 2 Cor. 13:7), nor evéaiuny av 
(Ac. 26 : 29). Note ov Yevdoun in Ro. 9:1. In Ac. 27:29 nixovro 
has its usual force. 

Wishes about the present are naturally unattainable. In the 
ancient idiom ¢i@e or e yap was used with the imperf. ind. or 
@pedov and the inf. Callimachus, B.c. 260, uses Sedov with the 
ind. The augmentless form éded\ov appears in Herodotus (Moul- 
ton, Prol., p. 201). In the N. T. only édedov is used with the 
imperf. for wishes about the present. Cf. ddedov aveixerbe (2 Cor. 
11:1); ddedov Fs (Rev. 3:15). 

Verbs of propriety, possibility, obligation or necessity are also 
used in the imperfect when the obligation, etc., is not lived up to, 
has not been met. Winer? has stated the matter well. The 
Greeks (and the Latins) start from the past and state the real 
possibility or obligation, and the reader, by comparing that with 
facts, notes that the obligation was not met. The English and 
the Germans start from the present and find trouble with this 
past statement of a present duty (an unfulfilled duty). A distinc- 
tion is usually drawn between the present and the aorist infini- 
tives when they occur with these verbs (é6tvaro, dperdov, Ede, KaNov 
iv, Kpetrrov qv, avixev, xa0fxev). The present inf. refers more di- 
rectly to the present, the aorist to an action in the past. This is, 
however, only by suggestion. Thus in Mt. 18 : 33, ox ee kai cé 
éXenoar, note ws Kayw oé nrenoa. Cf. also Mt. 23:23 ratdra 6e 
der Torjoar KaKEelva pr adetvat, (25 : 27) eer ce Badetv, (26:9) edbvaro 
mpabfvar Kal doOjvar, (26 : 24) cadov jv a’rd (no inf. here), (Ac. 22: 
22) ob yap Kabjxev aitov (Hv, (24:19) ods eer Ext gov mapetvat, (26 : 
32) amodeNobar édtvaro (note perf. inf.), (27:21) eeu py avayecbar 

1 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 15. 2 W.-Th., p. 282. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 887 


xepdjoat te, (2 Pet. 2:21) xpeirrov jv abrots uy ereyvwxevar (perf. 
inf.), (2 Cor. 2:3) ad’ av ee pe xaipew, (Col. 3:18) ws avixey & 
xupiw. (Cf. Eph. 5:4.) But it must not be supposed that these 
imperfects cannot be used in the normal expression of a past ob- 
ligation or possibility that was met. The context makes the 
mA terecicaree Gilet Ue als 2105: 22574224 °26;-J0; 4:4, ete. In 
Lu. 15:32 ée applies to both the past and present, probably 
with an implication against the attitude of the elder brother. In 
Heb. 2:10 érpere and 2:17 Sdere have their natural past 
meaning. 

Another instance where the imperfect refers to present time is in 
the second-class conditional sentences (see chapter XIX, Mode). 
When a condition is assumed as unreal and refers to present 
time, the imperfect tense is used both in the protasis and the 
apodosis in normal constructions. See apodosis in Mt. 26 : 24 
and in Ac. 26 : 32 (both quoted above). It is only the tense that 
calls for discussion here. Cf. auapriav ody elxoocay (Jo. 15 : 22, 24), 
where vodv d€ is used to explain the point. So ovx eyes (Jo. 19: 
11). In 1 Cor. 5:10, wdetrere dpa — e€eNetv, and Heb. 9 : 26, eel 
éoe. — mabetv, we only have the apodosis. Cf. ef qv — eéyiwwokey av 
(Lu. 7:39) as a type of the more usual construction wih 4a». 
Cf. Lu. 17:6. In Heb. 11:15 the imperfects describe past time. 

(0) In Indirect Discourse. In general the imperfect in indir. 
discourse represents an imperfect of the direct discourse. But 
sometimes with verbs of perception it is relative time and refers 
to a time previous to the perception.! Thus efxov tov “Iwavny ore 
mpopnrns nv (Mk. 11:32); efdov dre otk nv (Jo. 6:22. Cf. odk'€orw 
in verse 24); 671 mpocairns jv (9:8); Ereyivwoxov bre jv 6 KabnyeEvos 
(Ac. 3:10), while in 4:13 joay is rightly antecedent to éreyivw- 
oxov, jnoecay Oru—brapxev (16:3). In Ac. 3:10 the idiom ap- 
proaches that in Jo. 1:15, otros jv 6 elrwv (a parenthesis), where 
the verb is thrown back to past time. Our idiom more natu- 
rally calls for éortv here. Gildersleeve? calls this the ‘imperfect 
of sudden appreciation of real state of things.” 

(.) The Periphrastic Imperfect. It is easy to see how in the 
present, and especially in the future, periphrastic forms were felt 
to be needed to emphasize durative action. But that was the 
real function of the imperfect tense. The demand for this stress- 
ing of the durative idea by jv and the present participle was cer- 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192; Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 339. This imperfect 
is particularly common in John. 
2 Synt., p. 96 f. 


888 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tainly not so great. And yet it is just in the imperfect in the N. T. 
that this idiom is most frequent. It is not unknown in the an- 
cient Greek.! Schmid? finds it rare in the xowy, especially in the 
imperfect, where the N. T. is so rich in the idiom. He suggests 
the Aramaic influence, particularly as that laneuage is fond of 
this periphrasis. Periphrasis is thoroughly Greek, and yet in the 
N. T. we have unusual frequency of a usage that the xow7 has 
not greatly developed except ‘‘where Aramaic sources underlie the 
Greek”? (Moulton, Prol., p. 226). Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 124) 
gives classical examples from Pindar, Thuc., Isocrates, etc. It 
is true that in the N. T. the pres. participle with 7#v occurs chiefly 
in Mark (19 times), Luke (31), Acts (28, but 17 of them in chap- 
ters 1-12), and just in those portions most subject to Aramaic 
influence (possible Aramaic sources). Only 7 occur in Acts 13- 
28, and these mainly in the speech in 22 delivered in Aramaic.* 
The LXX* gives abundant illustration of this analytic tendency 
in-the imperfect. Cf. Gen. 37:2; Deut. 9:24: Judg.1:7. Cf. 
Thackeray, Gr., p. 24. From Pelagia (p. 18) Moulton (Prol., p. 
249) cites junv amepxouevos. For a papyrus illustration see éca 
nv kaOynxovra, P. Oxy. 115 (ii/A.pd.). The idiom itself is therefore 
Greek, but the frequency of it in the N. T. is due to the Hebrew 
and Aramaic. Matthew has it 10 times, John 11, Paul 5.6 The 
Pauline examples (Gal. 1: 22f.; Ph. 2:26) are more like the 
classic independence of the participle. It is usually the de- 
scriptive imperfect that uses the periphrastic form. So jv 6.64- 
oxwy (Mt. 7:29); qv éxaov (Mk. 10:22); joav dvaBaivovres (10: 
32); Av mpocevyouevoy (Lu. 1:10); kacouevn fv (Lu. 24:32). But 
sometimes it is the iterative imperfect as in jv Siaveboy (Lu. 1: 
22); nv didacKkwv 76 Kab’ juepay (19:47). In Lu. 5:17 the peri- 
phrastic imperfect and past perfect occur in the same sentence. 
In Lu. 23 : 12 note rpovripxov dvres (cf. Ac. 8 : 9). 

(x) Past Perfects as Imperfects. The present perfects of these 
verbs are merely presents in sense when compared with other 
verbs. So the past perfects have only an imperfect force. Thus 
noee (Mt. 27:18); eiwOer (27:15); tarnxe (Jo. 18: 5). 

(c) The Future for Future Time. The future is mainly aoristic 
(punctiliar), as has already been shown, but sometimes dura- 
tive.’ The broad lines of the problem have already been 


t Cf. K--G.) Ba? bp, dad: 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 227. 

2 Atticismus, III, p. 113 f. § Burton,.N. T. M.and T.) p. 16: 
§ Moulton, Prol., p. 227. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 149. 

4 


C. and S., Sel., p. 69. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 889 


drawn. As already shown, the modern Greek has a special dura- 
tive future by means of 0a \tw (pres. subj.). See Thumb, Handb., 
p. 160. A summary statement of the durative future is given. 

(a) The Three Kinds of Action in the Future (futuristic, voli- 
tive, deliberative). ‘These occur here also. Thus merely futur- 
istic are cwoe (Mt. 1:21); Barrices (Mt. 3:11); edrvodow (12: 
21); éorae (Lu. 1:14 f.); ervorpeper and rpoedeboerar (1: 16 f.); €- 
kbow (Jo. 12:32); fnoowey (Ro. 6:2); xupreboe (6:14); Baorace 
(Gal. 6 : 5); émredeoan (Ph. 1 : 6); xapjoouar (1:18); Snrhoov- 
ow (Rev. 9:6). Burton! calls this “the progressive future.” Cf. 
Ac. 7:6. Durative also is décxnoer with od un (Lu. 10:19). So 
ov pn dunce (Jo. 4:14; ef. 6:35); ob pw axodovPyoovew (Jo. 10: 
5). Examples of the volitive durative future are the legal pre- 
cepts (common in the LXX) so often quoted in the N. T. Cf. 
ov doveboers (Mt. 5: 21); ob porxeboes (5 : 27); otk éxvopxnoes, a70dW- 
ges (5:33); ayarnoeas (5:48; cf. ayamare, verse 44); écecbe (5: 
48), ete. Perhaps oixodounow (Mt. 16:18)=‘I will’ rather than 
‘I shall.’ In 1 Tim. 6:8, rotros dpxecOnooueba, the resolution is 
volitive. It is possible that we have the volitive use in Mt. 
4:4, otk én’ dptw povy fnoerar 6 avOpwros. The deliberative future 
may also be durative. Cf. Mt. 18:21, rocaxis auaprnoe; (merely 
interrogative) and Lu. 14 : 34, & rin adprvOncerat; (rhetorical). Cf. 
aor., pres. and fut. ind. in Mt. 28: 7. 

(8) The Periphrastic Future. The very failure of the future 
to express durative action clearly? led to the use of the present 
participle with écouwar. In Lysias (2), 13, note écovrar yevouevor More 
like a future punctiliar (or perfect). Cf. Mt. 10:22 and 24:9, 
éoecbe prcovmevor. (Mk. 13:13; Lu. 21:17); (Mk. 18:25) écovra 
mimtovtes, (Lu. 1: 20) eon cwrdv, (5:10) eon fwypav, (17 : 35) 
éoovtat adnOovoa, (21:24) éorac warouwevn, (1 Cor. 14:9) evecbe 
Nadobdvres. Cf. Gen. 4:12, 14; Deut. 28 : 29; Mal. 3:38, etc. The 
frequent use of wedAd\w and the pres. inf. (durative) has already 
been mentioned. The fut. of wéddw itself occurs (Mt. 24 : 6) with 
the pres. inf. 

2. SUBJUNCTIVE AND Oprative. The rarity of the pres. subj. 
(and opt., of course) has already been commented upon. The 
aorist is used as a. matter of course here unless durative action is 
to be expressed. A few examples will suffice. Thus 7i rope; 
(Jo. 6:28); éav exnre (Mt. 17: 20); éxwuev (Ro. 5:1). The sub- 
junctive is very common indeed, but not in the present tense. 
There is in the N. T. no instance of a periphrastic present subj. 

ieN, To Meands lip. ac. 2 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 444. 


890) A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


or optative. John’s free use of the pres. subj. has already been 
noted (Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 369 ff.). Cf. éav moire (13:17); eav 
paptup® (5:31). In Col. 1:18 note yernrac rpwrebwy like éyévero 
otiABovra (Mk. 9:3). The present opt. survives in duvaiuny (Ac. 
8:31); éxou (Ac. 17:11); BotdAjor7o (Ac. 25: 20); bédor (Ac. 17: 18; 
Lu. 1:62);>et) (9:46; 15% 265-18): 3863) 22 : 23;sAc. 10 17). 

3. IMPERATIVE. The contrast between the present imperative 
and the aorist subj. in prohibitions had to be set forth in con- 
nection with the punctiliar-aorist subj. The present imper. was 
found to be regularly durative. In Paul’s frequent use of the 
pres. imper. with yu the inchoative or conative or customary 
(prohibiting a course of conduct) use of the present is noticeable, 
as in pa) duerer (1 Tim. 4:14); wndevt émirider (5 : 22); unde xowvwver 
(ib.); wy wcOvoxecbe (Eph. 5:18); wy Pebdecbe (Col. 3:9). Cf. ua 
amaire. (Lu. 6:30). In general py is used with the present 
imper. to forbid what one is already doing. Cf. un doBetobe 
(Jo. 6: 20); ux xpivere (Mt. 7:1); unxere auaprave (Jo. 5 : 14); wh 
Oavuatere (5:28); py Soxetre (5:45); wnxere oxtd\dr}9e (Lu. 8: 49). 
The durative force of the pres. imper. is well seen in xafevdere 
kal dvaravecbe (Mt. 26:45). Cf. also wavrore xaipere, ddvadeirrws 
mpocevxebe, Ev Tavtt ebxapioretre (1 Th. 5 : 16-22). A good ex- 
ample is seen in Ac. 18:9, Mj doBod, adda Adder Kal pr) cLwrHons, 
‘He had been afraid, he was to go on speaking, he was not to 
become silent.’ Cf. 2 Tim. 2:16, 22f. The contrast between 
aorist and pres. imper. is often drawn in the N. T., as in Jo. 5: 8; 
Mt. 16:24. We note the periphrastic pres. imper. in ict ebvodv 
(Mt. 5:25); tcf exw (Lu. 19:17); tore ywaookovres (Eph. 5 : 5)?; 
éotwoav Katouevor (Lu. 12:35). Cf. Judg. 11:10; Prov. 3:5; yivov 
yenyopav (Rev. 3:2); 2 Cor.6:14. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) cites 
from Pelagia (p. 26) éco ywwoxwr. 

4. InFrniTIVE. The present inf. can be assumed to be dura- 
tive. The matter has had some discussion in connection with the 
aorist inf. (punctiliar), but a few further examples will illustrate 
the usage. Cf. ra attra ypadev buty (Ph. 3:1) and 76 dayarav 
avrov (Mk. 12:33) where the linear action is obvious.2 Indeed 
the force of the pres. inf. is so normal as to call for little com- 
ment.! Cf. od. divayae roety (Jo. 5:30. Cf. Mt. 6 : 24); 76 Oé\euv 
(Ro. 7:18); duapravey (1 Jo. 3:9); mpocebxecbar (1 Cor. 11:13); 
rob mwarety (Lu. 10:19), ete. For the distinction between the 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 125f. Cf. Naylor, Cl. Rev., 1906, p. 348. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 204. 
3’ Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 46. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 204. 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 891 


aorist and pres. inf. see éuBfvar — cal rpoayev (Mt. 14:22). Cf. 
airetvy in Ac. 3:2. The frequent use of weAdXw and the pres. inf. 
has already been twice mentioned. In indirect discourse the 
pres. inf. merely represents the pres. ind. of the direct discourse. 
Cf. efvar (Mt. 22:23; Ro. 1:.22);. éxBadry9u» (Lu. 11:18), ete. 
There is one instance in the N. T. of a pres. inf. in indir. discourse 
representing an imperfect ind.1. Luke has a periphrastic pres. 
inf., év 7d elvac abtov mpocevxduevov, which occurs twice (9 : 18; 
11:1). Cf.2 Chron. 15:16. Only two fut. infs. in the N. T. 
seem to be durative (Ac. 11:28; Jo. 21:25). The pres. inf. is 
most natural with éy (cf. Lu. 8:40), and is common with 6&4 
(cf. Mt. 13:5 f.); es (Ro. 12:2); but not (pres. 3, aor. 9) with 
mpos (Mk. 13:22). It is used only once with apd (Jo. 17:5) 
and is not used with pera. Cf. Burton, N. 7’. Moods and Tenses, 
p. 49 f. 

5. ParticipLe. The present participle, like the present inf., is 
timeless and durative. 

(a) The Time of the Present Participle Relative. The time comes 
from the principal verb. Thus in zwdodvres ehepov (Ac. 4:34. 
Cf. twrjoas jveyxev in verse 37) the time is past; in pepiuvdv dbvarar 
(Mt. 6 : 27) the time is present; in écecbe picobmevor (Mt. 10 : 22), 
6 Br\érwv atrodwoe (Mt. 6:18), dWovrar Tov vidvy rod avOpwrov éEpy6- 
pevoy (24:30) it is future. Cf. Mt. 24:46; Lu. 5:4; 12:43. 
Further examples of the pres. part. of coincident action are seen 
meMt2/:41;) Mk: 16%: 20; Jo. 6: 6;:21:19; Ac. 9: 22; 10 344; 
19:9. 

(b) Futuristic. Just as the pres. ind. sometimes has a futuristic 
sense, so the pres. part. may be used of the future in the sense of 
purpose (by implication only, however). Cf. evdAoyodvra (Ac. 3: 
26); amayyédAovtas (15 : 27); dtaxovdv (Ro. 15: 25). In Ac. 18: 23, 
éEnrOev Srepyouevos tv Tadarixjnvy xwpav, the pres. part. is coincident 
with the verb. In 21:2 f. the pres. parts. dcarepdv and amodopre- 
¢ouevov are futuristic (cf. 3:26; 15:27). Blass, page 189, notes 
6 épxdouevos (Jo. 11:27) and épxduevoy (1:9). This use of the pres. 
part. is common in Thue. (Gildersleeve, A. J. P., 1908, p. 408). 

(c) Descriptive. But usually the pres. part. is merely descrip- 
tives Cla Mk ele 4: Ace 201.952, Cor. 3): 1834 :18. There is:no 
notion of purpose in a&yovres (Ac. 21:16). In rods cwfouévous (Ac. 
2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative 
is certainly all that is true of rots ayraftouevous in Heb. 10: 14 (cf. 
LOFLO). 

1 Lu. 20: 6, contrary to Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 52. 


S92 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(d) Conative. It may be conative like the pres. or imperf. ind. 
as in 7elOwy (Ac. 28 : 23) or rods eicepxouevous (Mt. 23 : 14). 

(e) Antecedent Time.. By implication also the pres. part. may 

be used to suggest antecedent time (a sort of ‘imperfect’ part.). 
So ruddos dv dpte BAerw (Jo. 9:25). See further Mt. 2 : 20; Jo. 
2.217: Ac. 4:34:10 :.7; Gal Wi: 235" Cfe 6 Gaxritow(MEKR ea): 
— (f) Indirect Discourse. Cf. p. 864. An example of the pres. 
part. with the object of a verb (a sort of indir. disc. with verbs of 
sensation) is found in eléapyéy twa exBaddovra dauora (Lu. 9 : 49). 
The pres. part. is common after edov in Rev. (10:1; 13:1, 11; 
14:6; 18:1; 20:1, etc.). Cf. Ac. 19:35, ywwoxe tHv rod odcar. 

(g) With the Article. The present participle has often the itera- 
tive (cf. pres. ind.) sense. So 6 kAérrwy (Eph. 4 : 28)=‘the rogue.’ 
Cf. 6 xatadkiwy (Mt. 27:40); of ¢nrotvres (2:20). The part. with 
the article sometimes loses much of its verbal force (Moulton, 
Prol., p. 127; Kihner-Gerth, I, p. 266). He cites from the pa- 
pyri, tots yayodo., C. P. R. 24 (ii/a.p.). Cf. rods cwfopuevous (Ac. 
2:47). So in Gal. 4: 27, 4 ob rixrovoa, 7 otk wdivouca. 

(h) Past Action Still in Progress. This may be represented by 
the pres. part. So Mk. 5:25; Jo. 5:5; Ac. 24:10. Cf. Burton, 
N.T. Moods and Tenses, p. 59. 

(7) “Subsequent”? Action. Blass! finds ‘‘subsequent” action 
in the pres. parts. in Ac. 14:22 and 18:23. But in 14: 22 note 
breotpevay eis THY Avotrpay — émcotnpifovres Tas Wuxas Tov pabn- 
Trav, the aorist ind. is “effective”? and accents the completion 
of the action. The pres. part. is merely coincident with the 
“effective” stage. It is a point, not a process in the aorist. 

(7) No Durative Future Participles. The few fut. parts. in the 
N. T. seem to be punctiliar, not durative, unless 76 yevnoopevor 
(1 Cor. 15:37) be durative, but this example is pretty clearly 
ingressive punctiliar. 

IV. Perfected State of the Action (6 Téhetos 7 ouvTe\tKés). 

1. THe IDEA OF THE PERFECT. 

(a) The Present Perfect. The oldest of the perfects. ‘‘The 
perfect is a present perfect.”? Such it was in the beginning un- 
doubtedly. The past perfect and future perfect are both built 
upon the present perfect stem. Both are comparatively rare, 
especially the future perfect. The use was at first also confined 
to the indicative. Moulton (Prol., p. 140) calls it the most im- 
portant exegetically of the Greek tenses. 


. Groof- Nel. Gkamalos Cl, K-Ge Bastien ei 
2. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., p. 395. 


TENSE (XPONO®) pew} : 893 


. (6). The Intensive Perfect. This use (or the iterative) was prob- 
ably the origin of the tense. So 6ddvuar=‘I perish,’ 6\wd\a=‘I 
perish utterly.’! Cf. also Ovnokw, réOvnka; wiuvnoKw, peuvnua. The 
iterative process is seen in dméoradka (2 Cor. 12:17), éwpaxev 
(Jo. 1:18). The “effective” aoristic present is close kin to the 
perfect, as we have already seen,in jxw (Lu. 15 : 27); dxobw (1 Cor. 
11:18); adud (Ac. 25:11). Reduplication, though not always 
used, was an effort to express this intensive or iterative idea. So 
likewise the aorist of an action just accomplished, like éyvwv ri 
momow (Lu. 16:4), is near in idea to the present perfect, though 
there is a difference. More about the intensive perfect a little 
later. : } 

(c) The Extensive Perfect. This comes to be the usual force 
of the tense. Gildersleeve? has put the thing finely: ‘‘The perfect 
looks at both ends of an action.” It ‘unites in itself as it were 
present and aorist, since it expresses the continuance of com- 
pleted action.”’* That is to say, the perfect is both punctiliar and 
durative. The aorist (punctiliar) represents an action as finished, 
the linear present as durative, but the perfect presents a com- 
pleted state or condition. When the action was completed the 
perfect tense does not say. It is still complete at the time of the 
use of the tense by speaker or writer. In Jo. 1:32 reOéauar in 
the mouth of John the Baptist refers to the baptism of Jesus 
some weeks before, but he still has the vision. Cf. 1:34, éwpaxa 
Kal peuwaptipnxa, Where there is a difference of time between the 
two words. When Andrew said to Peter eipnxauer (1 : 41) his dis- 
covery is recent and vivid. No single graph for the perfect can 
therefore be made. In some cases the line of connection from 
the act (punctiliar) to the time of speaking would be very short, 
in others very long. This line of connection is just the contribu- 
tion of the perfect tense as distinct from aorist and present. As 
a matter of fact, in the combination of punctiliar and durative in 
the perfect it begins with the punctiliar and goes on with the 
durative thus (¢ ), but the emphasis may be now on the 
punctiliar, now on the durative. In others the two are drawn 
almost to.a point, but not quite. In still others there is a broken 
continuity thus (A*:::>-::-:B)#* It is the perfect of repeated 
action. «Cia JOmbnlS @osors 2: Cor. 12:17. 





1 Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 327. Cf. Giles, Man., pp. 449, 491 f. 
2 Synt., p. 99. Cf. also Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 395 f. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 144. 


894. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(d) Idea of Time in the Tense. In the ind. it appears in 
three forms with the notion of time (past perfect, present per- 
fect, future perfect). In the other modes only the present per- 
fect occurs, but it has no time in itself and in the imper. and 
subj. is naturally future. Often in the N. T., as in the Attic 
writers,' a sharp distinction is drawn between the perfect and the 
aorist or the present. Cf. waprupe? with aréoradxey and peuapripn- 
xe in Jo. 5:36 f.; elonyayev — kal xexoivwxev (Ac. 21: 28); dre eradn, 
kal Ore eynyeprac (1 Cor. 15 : 4); éxricOn — exriorar (Col. 1: 16); joar, 
édwxas, ternpnxas (Jo. 17:6). The perfect active is frequently in- 
transitive,? as has been already shown under Voice. Cf. tornm, 
éoTnka, amTo\AvmL, ATOAWAQ, etc. 

2. THE INDICATIVE. 

(a) The Present Perfect (6 éveata&s cuvtedtKos 7) Tapaxkeipevos). It 
is not clear how the notion of present time is conveyed by this 
tense in the ind. since it is absent in the subj. and imper., not to 
say inf. and part. Gildersleeve suggests that it ‘““comes from the 
absence of the augment and from the fact that a completed 
phenomenon cannot complete itself in the future.” But that ex- 
planation is not very satisfactory. The tense does occur some- 
times in the future, and the present perfect is older than the past 
perfect which rests on it. Perhaps at first it was Just the perfect 
tense (cf. aoristic presents and timeless aorists) and was timeless. 
By degrees it came to be used only for present time. The rise of 
the past perfect made it clear. The pres. perf. is much more 
common in the xow7 than in the earlier Greek. ‘The perfect was 
increasingly used, as the language grew older, for what would 
formerly have been a narrative aorist”? (Moulton, Prol., p. 141). 
In particular is this true of the vernacular as the papyri show. 

(a) The Intensive Present Perfect. Moulton? calls these “ Per- 
fects with Present Force.” They are Perfecta Praesentia. In 
reality they are perfects where the punctiliar force is dropped and 
only the durative remains (cf. past perfect). Gildersleeve‘ dis- 
tinguishes sharply between the intensive use of emotional verbs 
and what he calls the “Perfect of Maintenance of Result.” But 
it is questionable if the difference does not lie in the nature of the 
verb rather than in a special modification of the tense. A real 
distinction exists in 1 Jo. 4:14 between reOeaucba and paprupod- 
pwev. Burton® follows Gildersleeve, but he admits the doubt on 

1 Giles, Man., p. 4938. 4 Synt., p. 99 f. 


2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 23. BONeal Mandel. neois 
8 Prol., p. 147. 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 895 


the subject.!. In these verbs when the perfect has lost the 
punctiliar notion it is due to the change in meaning of the verbs.” 
The list is rather large in Homer, particularly where attitude of 
mind is expressed.2 Giles (Man., p. 481) thinks that originally 
the perf. was either intensive or iterative like éornxa, and that 
the notion of recently completed action (extensive) is a develop- 
ment. These almost purely durative perfects in the N. T. may 
be illustrated by éovxa (Jas. 1:6); avewya (2 Cor. 6:11); ofda (Mt. 
6:8); éornxa (Rev. 3:20); éveornxa (2 Th. 2: 2); wérouWa (Ph. 2: 24); 
xexpayev (Jo. 1: 15) which is an example of Gildersleeve’s emotional 
intensives and due according to Blass‘ to the ‘“‘literary language,” 
peuvnuac (1 Cor. 11:2); re6vnxa (Lu. 8:49). Most of these verbs 
have an inchoative or conative or iterative sense in the present. 
Moulton® has shown from the LXX and the papyri that xéxpaya 
is vernacular xowyn and not merely literary. He thinks that, while 
kpafw in the LXX is durative, xexpaya is merely punctiliar. See 
(9) The Aoristic Perfect. It is possible also that zemorebkapev xal 
éyvaxapev (Jo. 6:69) belong here. It is less open to dispute that 
kataBeBnka (Jo. 6:38) is a present state. Cf. xexoiunrar (Jo. 11:11). 
But more doubtful are #Amxa (Jo. 5:45); fynuae (Ac. 26 : 2); 
merrecopat (Ro. 8:38).° But rerapaxrac (Jo. 12 : 27) seems to fall 
under the intensive perfect. Cf. éoras eiui (Ac. 25 : 10). 

(8) The Extensive Present Perfect=a completed state. This 
act may be durative-punctiliar like jyyuxev (Mt. 3: 2) with a 
backward look ( e). Cf. thus 7yariopat, Terédexa, TerHpnKa (2 
Tim. 4:7). This consummative effect is seen in rernpnxayv (Jo. 
17:6), EAn\vOev (12 : 23) and emdAnpwxate (Ac. 5:28). Cf. Heb. 
8:13; 10:14. In Jo. 20:29, drt éwpakds we reriorevxas, the cul- 
mination is just reached a few moments before. But more fre- 
quently it is the punctiliar-durative perfect where the completed 
act is followed by a state of greater or less duration (¢ een 
Jo. 19 : 22, 6 yeypada yeypada, we have an example of each. Cf. 
the common yéypartac (Mt. 4:7). ‘It was written (punctiliar) 
and still is on record’ (durative). Thus is to be explained in- 
stances like elpyxey in Heb. 10:9 (cf. efrov in 10:7). ‘The state- 
ment is on record.’ It is only in appearance that rpocevnvoxey and 
reroinxey (Heb. 11:17, 28) seem different. This common usage in 
Hebrews has been compared to that in Thue. vol. I, pp. 2, 6, ete. 








1 Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 269 f. 

2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 15. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 22. 

4 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 347 f. 

Be Prol,. palais 6 Ib.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 199. 


896 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. further Heb. 7:6, 9, 11, 18, 16, 20, 23, where the perma- 
nence of the Jewish institutions is discussed. Jo. 6: 25 yéyovas 
has punctiliar and durative ideas (‘camest and art here’). Cf. 
Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 347. In Col. 1:16 éxric6y is merely punc- 
tiliar, while in same verse éxriorar adds the durative idea, whereas 
in verse 17 again ovvéornxey has lost the punctiliar and is only 
durative. In 1 Cor. 15:4 éynyepra: stands between two aorists 
because Paul wishes to emphasize the idea that Jesus is still 
risen. Usually 7yép6y was sufficient, but not here. Cf. éornpixrat 
(Lu. 16:26). Cf. adewyrar (Lu. 5 : 23); éxxéxuror (Ro. 5:5). John 
is especially fond of this use of the present perfect. Cf. 1:32, 
34, 41; 5:33, 36ff. In chapter 17. the present perfects call for 
special attention. Cf. 1 Jo. 1:1 for contrast between the pres- 
ent perfect and the aorist. 

(y) The Present Perfect of Broken Continuity. As already ex- 
plained, we here have a series of links rather than a line, a broken 
graph (°--°*>-*:*:°). Perhaps zérpaxa 7c in Ac. 25:11 1s to be so 
understood. But certainly it is true of améoradxa (2 Cor. 12 : 17) 
where Paul refers to various missions to the Corinthians. In 
particular Moulton? notes the examples with zwzore, as ovdels 
éwpakev mwmore (JO. 1:18). Cf. further weuapripnxer (5 : 37); dedov- 
NevKauev (8 : 33). 

(6) The Dramatic Historical Present Perfect. Here an action 
completed in the past is conceived in terms of the present time for 
the sake of vividness. Burton* doubts if any genuine examples of 
the vivid historical perfect occur in the N. T. Certainly xéexpayev 
(Jo. 1:15) is a vivid historical tense even if only intensive in sense. 
Cf. waprupet just before. But by the term “historical” it is not 
meant that this use of the perfect is common in all narrative. 
But the Vedic Sanskrit has it often in narrative. It is a matter 
of personal equation after all. Thus Xenophon, who “affects 
naiveté,” uses the present perfect much more frequently than 
Herodotus and Thucydides.* It is rather the tense of the orator 
or the dramatist and is often rhetorical. Hence Isocrates and 
Demosthenes surpass Plato in the use of the present perfect. 
“The nearness of any department of literature to. practical life 
may readily be measured by the perfect.”?®> Moulton’ notes how 
in the papyri there is an increasing use of the present perfect just 


1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 144. 

2 Ib. 4 Gildersl., Am. Jour. Philol., X XIX, p: 396. 
aN. DeMandel pede: 5 ibantea & Synt., p. 216. 

§ Gildersl., Am. Jour. Philol., 1908, p. 396. 44Prol.. plat. 


TENSE (XPONOS) | : 897 


because it is so largely the language of life. He notes also how 
Socrates in Plato’s Crito uses this vivid present perfect: ‘vexuat- 
pomat €xk Tivos évuTrviov, 6 éwpaka OALYov TpdTEpoy Ta’TNS Tis VUKTOs, 
where point of time in the past would have efdov as inevitable as 
the aorist is in English, had not Socrates meant to emphasize the 
present vividness of the vision.” This vivid perfect is found in 
John’s Gospel in particular. One only needs to have some imagi- 
nation himself. Cf. reBéauar (1:32). John still has that vision. 
So ebpyxauev (1:41). The aorist would have been prosaic. Cf. also 
amecradkate (5 : 33), a realistic change. (Cf. 1:19ff.) So also 
améotadkey in Ac. 7:35; xexoivwxey in 21:28 and zeroinxa in 2 Cor. 
11:25. A striking instance of it is seen in Rev. 5:7, eiAnde, 
where John sees Jesus with the book in his hand. It is dull to 
make eiAndev here=édAaBev. Another example of this vivid perfect 
is éoxnxayev (2 Cor. 1:9), a dreadful memory to Paul. So with 
éoxnxey in 7:5. A particularly good instance is yeyovey (Mt. 25: 
6), where the present perfect notes the sudden cry (cf. aorist 
and imperf. just before). Cf. e¢onxev in 2 Cor. 12: 9. Blass! has 
observed that it occurs sometimes in parables or illustrations, 
and quite naturally so, for the imagination is at play. Thus is 
to be explained azedn\vbev (Jas. 1: 24) between two aorists. James 
sees the man. ‘He has gone off.’ Cf. Mt. 13:46, ame\Mav rerpaxev 
mavta doa elxev Kal Ayopaceyv a’rov. In Lu. 9: 36 éwpaxay is “‘ virtu- 
ally reported speech.”? Cf. axnxdayev (Ac. 6:11, but jxovcayey in 
15 : 24). 

(e) The Gnomic Present Perfect. A few examples of this idiom 
seem to appear in the N. T. The present was always the more 
usual tense for customary truths,*? though the aorist and the per- 
fect both occur. Cf. reredetwrar (1 Jo. 2:5); déderar (1 Cor. 7: 
39) 4; Kéxpirae and reriotevxey (JO. 3:18); Karaxéxpirar (Ro. 14 :.23); 
rerAnopwkev (13:8). Cf. Jo. 5:24; Jas. 2:10. 

(¢) The Perfect in Indirect Discourse. It is misleading to say, 
as Blass® does, that ‘“‘the perfect is used relatively instead of the 
pluperfect”’ in such instances. This is explaining Greek from the 
German. Blass does not call this construction ‘indirect. dis- 
course,” but merely ‘‘after verbs of perception’; but see my 
discussion of Indirect Discourse in ch. XIX. Cf. Lu. 9: 36 
ovdevl amnyyeday ovdev Gv éwpaxav, Ac. 10:45 zkeornoay bre exxexuTar. 
In Mk. 5:33, eidvta 6 yéyovev aith @Oev, the perfect preserves the 

+ Gr: of IN. T.Gk.,:p~200. 4 Burton, N. T. M. and T.,,p. 39 


2 Moulton, Prol., p. 144. erGr- of N; Ta Gki,p. 2007" = 
* Goodwin, M. and T., p. 53 f. 


898 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


vividness of the woman’s consciousness. Here the past perfect 
or the aorist could have been used (cf. Mk. 15:10; Mt. 27: 18; 
Ac. 19:32). It is akin to the reportorial vividness of the historical 
perfect. It is not the perfects here that call for explanation from 
the Greek point of view. It is rather the occasional aorists, 
imperfects or past perfects. Cf. MS. differences in Mk. 3:8. 

(n) Futuristic Present Perfect. Since the present so often oc- 
curs in a futuristic sense, it is not strange if we find the present 
perfect so used also=future perfect. This proleptical use of the 
perfect may be illustrated by deddgaocuar (Jo. 17:10), dé5wxa (17: 
22), reredXeotac (19 : 28), céonrev and yeyovey and xatiwra in Jas. 
5:2f. (cf. éora cat dayerar). This use is sometimes called ‘ pro- 
phetico-perfect.”’ Indeed some of the examples classed as gnomic 
are really proleptical also. Cf. Jo. 3:18; 5:24; Jas. 2:10; Ro. 
1338; 14:23. | . 

(0) The ‘‘Aoristic’’ Present Perfect. The Present Perfect is 
here conceived as a mere punctiliar preterit like the aorist ind. 
We have seen how in some verbs the punctiliar idea drops out 
and only the durative remains in some present perfect forms (like 
oda). It is not per se unreasonable to suppose that with some 
other verbs the durative idea should disappear and the form be 
merely punctiliar. We seem to have this situation in xéxpaya in 
the LX X (Moulton, Prol., p. 147). The action itself took place 
in the past though the state following its completion is present. 
By centering attention on the former, while forgetting the latter, 
the perfect becomes aoristic. We must distinguish between the 
aoristic (punctiliar) and the preterit notions. We have seen 
that originally the tense was probably timeless. Nothing, then, 
but an appeal to the facts can decide whether in the N. T. the 
present perf. ind. ever=the aor. ind. (i.e..1s preterit punctiliar). 
The Sanskrit? shows a deal of confusion and freedom in the use 
of the pres. perf. ind. The blending of the perfect and aorist 
forms in Latin is also a point to note in spite of the independence 
of the Greek tense development. E. J. Goodspeed (Am. J. Theol., 
X, 102 f.) regards Latin as having some influence on the ultimate 
confusion in the Greek. There is no doubt of the ultimate con- 
fusion in the late Greek*® (from a.p. 300 on) between the perfect 
and the aorist (see later). The use of —Oyxa and —yxa in the aorist 
pass. ind. in modern Greek illustrates one way confusion could 

1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 15; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 101. 


2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 296. 
3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440; Moulton, Prol., p. 142. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 899 


arise (Thumb, Handb., p. 144). Cf. édwxa, dé5wxa. In the modern 
Greek all other remnants of the old perfect form are gone save in 
the participle, which has lost its reduplication, like deuvevos. But 
had it begun in the older Greek? Jannaris! answers Yes and 
cites Thuc. 1, 21, otre as rounral burvnxace — otte ws oyoypador 
~vvebecav. But this may be the dramatic historical perfect. 
Jebb? answers Yes and quotes Demosthenes and Lucian; but 
these again may be merely the rhetorical dramatic perfect. The 
grammarians and scholiasts, under the influence of the Latin, 
did come to lose all consciousness of any distinction and explained 
one tense by the other. The present perfect was always more 
common in every-day life, as we have noted. The papyri prove 
this abundantly.’ Moreover, the present perfect grew in popular 
use at the expense of the aorist, where the aorist might have been 
employed. There is thus no strong presumption against the pos- 
sibility of such confusion in the N. T. Besides, ‘‘the line between 
aorist and perfect is not always easy to draw.’’® This is especially 
true of an event just past which may be described by either 
tense. Moulton® admits that “the LX X and inscriptions show 
a few examples of a semi-aoristic perfect in the pre-Roman age, 
which, as Thumb remarks (Hellenismus, p. 153), disposes of the 
idea that Latin influence was working”’ thus early. But Moulton 
rightly rejects id@v 6 ads dre Kexpovike Mwvoys (Ex. 32:1) as an 
instance (merely oratio obliqua). Simcox’ says that ‘no one but 
a doctrinaire special pleader is likely to deny that in Rev. 5:7; 
8:5, et\ndev, and in 7: 14, etpnxa, are mere preterits in sense.” 
Well, I do deny it as to eiAndey in Rev. 5:7 and 8:5, where we 
have the vivid dramatic colloquial historical perfect. The same 
thing is possible with eipnxa in 7:14, but I waive that for the 
moment. Burton® is more cautious. He claims that the N. T. 
writers ‘‘had perfect command of the distinction between the 
aorist and the perfect,’ but admits that ‘there is clear evidence 
that the perfect tense was in the N. T. sometimes an aorist in 
force,’ though ‘the idiom is confined within narrow limits.” 
Some of the examples claimed by him for this usage I have ex- 
plained otherwise already. Moulton® sees that this confusion 
may exist in one writer, though not in another, but he admits a 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p..439. 8 Ib., p. 142. 

2 V. and D., Handb., p. 328. 7 Lang. of the N. T., p. 104. 
$1b-; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr:, p=339 f. 8 N. T. M. and T., p. 44. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 141. 9 Prol., pp. 148 ff. 

5 Tb. 


900 A GRAMMAR OF’ THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“residuum of genuinely aoristic perfects.” He admits yéyova 
to be “perplexing,” though in the 45: examples in the ind. 
in the N. T. “it has obviously present time” and ‘the aoristic 
sense is not really proved for any of them.” That is cer- 
tainly true. There are instances in the N. T., as in the later 
Greek generally,! where yeyova approaches a present in sense, as 
in 1 Cor. 13:11, but its use as a mere preterit is not shown, not 
even by the examples quoted by Moulton? from the papyri (O. P. 
478 and B. U. 136). The first has mpooBeBnxevar — yeyovevar — 
rerenevxevat, all three apparently vivid historical perfects. The 
example in Josephus (Apion, 4:21) may be the same. We have 
left eiAnda, elpnxa, Eoxnka, téerpaxa. The last Moulton® refuses to 
admit as an aorist in sense, since “the distinction is very clearly 
seen in papyri for some centuries” between zémpaxa and 7ydpaca. 
He cites O. P. 482 (ii/A.D.), xwpls Gv amreypavayunv kal wéerpaxa. Be- 
sides-in Mt. 13 :46 aézpaxev is in a vivid parable (dramatic his- 
torical perfect). Moulton notes the confusion as worse in illiterate 
papyri, like otk €hovoduny ovk ArAwE (= Hreupar), O. P. 528 (ii/A.D.). 
As to éoxnxa the matter is more plausible in one example (2 Cor. 
2:18). Blass‘ affirms the true present perfect sense for éoxnka 
elsewherein the N. ‘Te(Mko 55332: @or. 1 9s 5s Ronoe2), 
Moulton® replies that ‘‘we must, I think, treat all the Pauline 
passages alike.” But why? He does not claim such uniformity 
for -yeyova in any N. T. writer. There is some analogy between 
éoxnka and enka and adjxa, and écxov may be ingressive, not con- 
stative. Moulton (Prol., p. 145) makes a good deal out of the 
fact that écxov occurs only 20 times in the N. T. and that thus 
éoxnka may have come to mean ‘possessed’ (constative), but he 
admits that this does not suit in Ro. 5:2. He cites a possible 
example from, B. U. 297 (ii/A.D.) rots dixalay aitiay éoynkdoe Kal avev 
Twos audioBnThnoews ev TH vou yevouevouvs (=—o1s). Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 122) thinks that the perfect in the xow comes 
within the sphere of the aorist at times. Thackeray (Gr., p. 24) 
thinks that eiAnéa in Dan. 0 4 : 30 and écxnxa, 3 M. 5 : 20, belong 
here. But if the whole case has to be made out from one ex- 
ample (2 Cor. 2:18; cf. 2 Cor. 7:5), it is at least quite proble- 
matical. The only substantial plea for taking éoxnxa as preterit 
here is the fact that Paul did have aveocs for his spirit after Titus 


1 Cf. Buresch, Téyovay (Rh. M., 1891, p. 231 note). 
2 Prol., p. 146. 

Bib. .pa Laz. 5 Prol., p. 145. 

¢ GrcoleN, the kp a cu0. 651i pse). oo: 


TENSE (XPONOS) 904 


came. But it was a partial aveois as the Epistle shows. It is 
therefore possible that in 2 Cor. 2:13 we do have a present per- 
fect=preterit punctiliar (cf. é&\Oov), possible but not quite cer- 
tain. Paul may have wished to accent the strain of his anxiety 
up to the time of the arrival of Titus. The aorist would not have 
done that. The imperfect would not have noted the end of his 
anxiety. It was durative plus punctiliar. Only the past perfect 
and the present perfect could do both. The experience may have 
seemed too vivid to Paul for the past perfect. Hence he uses the 
(historical dramatic) present perfect. That is certainly a pos- 
sible interpretation of his idea. Moulton (Prol., p. 238) in the 
Additional Notes draws back a bit from the preterit use of 
éoxnka. He had advanced it “with great hesitation”? and as ‘‘a 
tentative account.”’ ‘The pure perfect force is found long after 
Paul’s day: thus in the formula of an IOU, éyuodtoyS éoxnxévar 
Tapa cod dua xeupos €& olxov xpjow evroxov (B. U. 1015 in the early 
iii/A.D.), ‘to have received and still possess.’’? We have eiAnda and 
etonxa left. Take ei\nda. In Rev. 3:3 we have urnuoveve otyv rds 
eiAndas Kal jKovoas Kal THpeL, Kal weTavonoov. It is preceded by evpyxa 
in the proper sense. This is an exhortation about the future. 
If jxovcas had been axjxoas no difficulty would exist. The perfect 
would emphasize the permanence of the obligation. It is as easy 
to say that jKovoas=a perfect as that ei\ndas=an aorist. Both 
are abstractly possible and neither may be true. The reception 
may seem more a matter to be emphasized as durative than the 
hearing (punctiliar). It is a fine point, but it is possible. Cf. 
meroinxey kal éhenoev IN Mk. 5:19. Cf. Jo. 3:32. The mere fact 
of the use of aorists and perfects side by side does not prove con- 
fusion of tenses. It rather argues the other way. It is possible 
with Blass! to see the force of each tense in éwpaxey and jxovcev 
in Jo. 3:32 (cf. 1 Jo. 1:1-3). Note also elonyayey xal Kexoivw- 
cv (Ac. 21:28). Cf. Lu. 4:18 where the change is natural. 
Moulton? does find such confusion in the illiterate documents 
among the papyri. Simcox (Lang. of the N. T., p. 105) wishes to 
know what ‘‘distinction of sense’”’ exists between é\a8ov and rere- 
Nelwuat in Ph. 3:12. It is very simple and very clear. ”EXafoy 
denies the sufficiency of Paul’s past achievement, reveAelwuar de- 
nies it as a present reality. Cf. Ro. 13:12. I have already ex- 
plained eiAnda in Rev. 5:7 and 8:5. There is surely no trouble 
about eiAnda in 2:28. In 11:17 again, dre eidndes rHv dbvapiv cov 
Thy peyadnv kai €Bacirevoas, it is not eiAndes (punctiliar-durative, 
ST ESOL Ne cL, Crk LOD; 2 Prol., p. 142 f. 


902 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


‘receivedst and still hast’) that calls for explanation, but éGaci- 
Aevoas, Which may be used to accent the ingressive idea or as a 
practical equivalent of the perfect. The use of eipnxa (Rev. 7: 
14) and elpynxay (19:3) seems more like a real preterit than any 
other examples in the N. T. In 7:14, B reads efrov. I would 
not labour the point over these two examples. If such a confu- 
sion of tenses occurred anywhere in the N. T., the Apocalypse 
would be the place to expect it. And yet even the Apocalypse is 
entitled to a word in its defence on this point in spite of the fact 
that Moulton! “frankly yields” these instances and Blass? says 
that “the popular intermixture of the two tenses appears un- 
doubtedly in the Apocalypse.’ It is to be remembered that the 
Apocalypse is a series of visions, is intensely dramatic. It is just 
here that the rhetorical dramatic (historical) perfect so freely 
granted in the orators would be found. It is wholly possible that 
in this use of elpyxa we have only this idiom. “In history the 
perfect has no place outside of the speeches and the reflective 
passages in which the author has his say.’’* It is curious how 
aptly Gildersleeve here describes these very instances of the 
present perfect which are called “aoristic.”’ So I conclude by 
saying that the N. T. writers may be guilty of this idiom,‘ but 
they have not as yet been proven to be. Cf. évapny bre edpnxa in 
2 Jo. 4. The distinction between the perf. and pres. is sharply 
drawn in Jas. 3:7, dauaterar xal dedamacrar. 

(.) The Periphrastic Perfect. For the origin of this idiom see 
discussion in connection with the Past Perfect, (b), (y). The use of 
éxw (so common in later Greek and finally triumphant in modern 
Greek) has a few parallels in the N. T.2 Cf. éye we czapnrnpévov 
(Lu. 14:19) with Latin idiom “TI have him beaten.’ Cf. éxw 
keiueva (Lu. 12:19, pres. part. used as perf.), éénpaupevny exwv rip 
xetpa (Mk. 3:1). Cf. Mk. 8:17; Heb. 5:14; Jo. 17:13, éxwow 
— memAnpwyernv. Here the perf. part. is, of course, predicate, but 
the idiom grew out of such examples. The modern Greek uses 
not only éxw deuévo, but also. deuéva, but, if a conjunctive pron. 
precedes, the part. agrees in gender and number (cf. French). 
So tiv Ew idwuevn, ‘I have seen her’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 162). 
Passive is efuar deuevos. The use of yivoua is limited. Cf. éyévero 


Le Prolinp, 145; 2 GTO Ng Gea 

§ Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 396. 

4 I. J. Goodspeed (Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 102 f.) shows that 
the ostraca confirm the pap. in the free use of the perfect. . 

5 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 438. 


TENSE (XPONOS) 903 


éoxorwuevn (Rev. 16:10), a mixture of tenses (cf. Mk. 9:3). See 
Ex. 17:12; Ps. 72:14. Peculiar is yeyovare éyovres in Heb. 5: 12. 
It is e(ui that is commonly used (about 40 times in the N. T.) 
with the perfect part. Cf. Num. 22:12; Is. 10:20. Burton! 
notes that the intensive use of the perfect tense (cf. past perfect) 
is more common than the extensive. As examples of the inten- 
sive (=present) take wemewcyévos éotiv (Lu. 20:6). So Jo. 2:17; 
Ac. 2:13, ete. For the extensive use (completed act) note éoriv 
mwerpaypevov (Lu. 23:15). So Jo. 6:31; Heb. 4:2, etc. In Ac. 
26 : 26 the main accent is on the punctiliar aspect (at the begin- 
ning, as in Jo. 6: 31). 

(x) Present as Perfect. These examples, like jxw, rape, nTTAa- 
oval, Ketuac, have already been discussed under 1, (a), (yn). Cf. azo- 
kerat (2 Tim. 4 : 8). 

(b) The Past Perfect (6 trepovvredxds). 

(a) The Double Idea. It is the perfect of the past and uses the 
form of the present perfect plus special endings and often with 
augment. The special endings? show kinship with the aorist. 
As the present perfect is a blending in idea of the aoristic (punc- 
tiliar) and the durative present (a sort of durative aoristic present 
combined), so the past perfect is a blend of the aorist and the 
imperfect in idea.2 It is continuance of the completed state in 
past time up to a prescribed limit in the past. As in the present 
perfect, so here the relation between the punctiliar and the dura- 
tive ideas will vary in different verbs. The name tepovvredckds 
(plus-quam-perfectum)=more than perfect in the sense that it 
always refers to an antecedent date, “a past prior to another 
past’’* is not always true. 

(8) A Luxury in Greek. The Greeks cared nothing for rela- 
tive time, though that was not the only use for the past perfect, 
as just stated. Ordinarily the aorist ind. was sufficient for a 
narrative unless the durative idea was wanted when the imperfect 
was ready to hand. Herodotus shows a fondness for the past 
perfect. It disappeared in Greek before the present perfect,’ 
though in the N. T. it still survives in current, but not common, 
usage. It was never so frequent in Greek as the past perfect 


tN cL Merand =e, pe40: **Blass.Gr, ofeN. L.. Gk. p. 201: 

2 Giles, Man., p. 457. 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 217. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 148. It is absent from the Boeotian dial. (Claflin, 
Synt., etc., p. 72). 

6 Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 122. 

7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 441, 8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201. 


904 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


was in Latin. The N. T. idiom conforms to that of the older 
language. 

(y) The Intensive Past Perfect. Present perfects that had 
come to be mere presents through accent on the durative idea 
and loss of emphasis on the aoristic (punctiliar) are virtual im- 
perfects when turned into the past. Cf. as eiwfe. (Mk. 10:1). 
So yoev (Jo. 1:31), tornxecay (Jo. 19:25; cf. Ac. 1: 10f.), ére- 
mole. (Lu. 11:22) and even ‘éyvwxere (Mt. 12:7),! for eyvaxa 
sometimes is used like oféa (1 Jo. 2:4). So with jv arod\wdws (Lu. 
15 : 24; cf. ebpeOn). Here we have a mere existing state in the 
past with the obscuration of the idea of completion (aoristic- 
punctiliar). But it is to be noted that the durative sense is usually 
a changed meaning from the aoristic sense. Cf. oféa from eléov. 
For this idiom in classic Greek see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 103. 
Cf. also E. Schwartz, Index to Eus., pp. 214 ff. 

(6) The Extensive Past Perfect. The past perfect usually pre- 
sents a completed state or fixed condition in past time. As already 
said, it is not necessarily ‘‘a blend of past and preeterpast.’’? In 
Latin the past perfect shows no trace of the Aktionsart of the per- 
fect; the past perfect is just time relatively past. The Greek past 
perfect expresses a state following a completed act in past time.’ 
Sometimes it is made clear by the context that a considerable 
space of time had intervened, though this is quite incidental with 
the Greek. Take Jo. 6:17, kat cxoria nbn evyeyover kat obrw EXndAVOE 
mpos avtovs 6 “Incot’s. The verb in the sentence before is 4#pxovro 
(descriptive) and the verb following is déveyeipero (inchoative). The 
time of these imperfects is, of course, past. But the two interven- 
ing past perfects indicate stages in the going (fpyxovro) before 
they reached the shore. Both 46n and otzw help to accent the 
interval between the first darkness and the final appearance of 
Jesus which is soon expressed by the vivid historical present, 
dewpodow (6:19). Here we have a past behind a past beyond a 
doubt from the standpoint of the writer, and that is the very rea- 
son why John used the past perfect here. In verse 16, as 6é€ dpia 
eyevero KateBnoay of uabnrai, he had been content with the aorist 
in both the principal and the subordinate clauses. He had not 
cared there to express relative time, to stress the interval at all. 
The tenses in Jo. 6 : 16-21, by the way, form a very interesting 
study. John‘ does, as a matter of fact, use the past perfect more 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 148. * Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 397. 


$ Brugmann, K. Vergl. Gr., pp. 569, 576. Cf. Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., pp. 
120 ff. ; 4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 349. 


TENSE (XPONO2) | 905 


frequently than do the Synoptists. He uses it to take the reader 
“behind the scenes” and often throws it in by way of parenthesis. 
Thus in 1:24 the past perfect amrecradyevor joavy points back to 
the aorist dréoreday in 1:19. In 4:8 arednd\ideoay is a paren- 
thetical explanation of what the disciples had done before this 
incident with the woman. So in 9:22 ouveréewro has Hon and 
notes a previous agreement. In 11:13 elpnxe points to a time 
just before, but note éofav. The tenses in 11:11-18 are all in- 
teresting (ef7e, Neyer, elrov, elpnKel, KeKolunvTal, Topevouat, cwOnoeTaL). 
In 11:19 édndA’Oacay denotes antecedent action, and in 11 : 30, 
orw é\—, the interval is marked. Cf. also 11:44, zepiedédero. 
In 11: 57 édc6axeccay points backward as is true of ovdérw ovdels Hv 
réeuevos (19:41). In 3:24 and 7:30; 8:20, the standpoint is 
later than the event described, but none the less it stretches 
backward though from a relatively future time. But this dis- 
tinction is not confined to John. Cf. Mt. 7:25, reeuediwzo, 
which points back to verse 24. So in Mk. 14 : 44 dedaxe refers to 
Judas’ previous arrangement. Cf. also éxGeSAnxee in Mk. 16:9 
with édavn. The tenses in Mk. 15:6-10 are interesting. The 
three.past perfects all refer to antecedent action. Cf. @xoddunro 
with jyayov in Lu. 4: 29, and with éropevero in verse 30. In Lu. 
16 : 20 é8e€Bdnro suggests that the poor man had been at the door 
some while. In Ac. 4 : 22+vyeyove (cf. 7S yeyovort) does not pre- 
cede amrédvoay (verse 21) by any great amount of time, yet the in- 
terval is real (cf. 3: 1-10)... In Ac. 9:21 €&ndiOe is contrasted 
with éorw 6 ropOnoas. In 14:23 cf. remore’kecay with mapéerTo. 
Cf. Ac. 4:27 and 31. In 14:26 the reference is to the begin- 
ning of the tour from Antioch. In 20:16, kexpixe, and 20 : 38, 
etonxe, the two ends of the action nearly come together, but in 
21:29 the antecedent action is clear. In Jo. 11:30, otrw End0- 
Bec — add’ Hv Ett — Grou brnvrnoev, the three past tenses of the ind. 
come out well. In 11:56 f. ri boxe? but; bre od un EXO Els THY EopTHr; 
dedwxeccay, the three kinds of time (present, future, past) are all 
employed. But in 12:16 the aorist ind. is employed, otk éyvw- 
gav TO Tpatov — ToTe éuvnoOnoav, though antecedent time is indi- 
cated by 7d mp&rov and rére. Here the past perfect would more 
exactly have marked off 76 rp&rov. If the previous time is to be 
depicted in its course, the past perfect is used (Thumb, Handb., 
Deelo3). i | | 

(ce) The Past Perfect of Broken Continuity? ((°::>*+°:*).. This 
is true of Lu. 8:29, moddots xpdvois cuvnpraxer aitov. It;is an 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T..Gk., p..201.: 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 148. ° 


906 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


iterative past perfect in a series of links instead of a line, like the 
present perfect of broken continuity in Jo. 1:18. Cf. the perf. 
inf. in Ac. 8:11. 

(¢) Past Perfect in Conditional Sentences. Usually the aorist 
ind. occurs in these conditions of the second class determined as 
unfulfilled in relation to the past. But sometimes the past per- 
fect appears. Cf. Jo. 19:11; Ac. 26:32; 1 Jo. 2:19. See Con- 
ditional Sentences, ch. XIX. 

(n) The Periphrastic Past Perfect. This construction had al- 
ready begun in ancient Greek. In the third person plural of liquid 
and mute verbs it was uniformly done for the sake of euphony. 
It was occasionally found also with other verbs. In the modern 
Greek! we find efxa deuevo, ‘I had bound,’ jour deuevos or efxa 
defer. "Exw was at first more than a mere auxiliary, though in 
Herodotus it appears as a true auxiliary. The dramatists also 
use it often.?. In the N. T. the examples with efxov are not per- 
tinent. Cf. cuxny efxev tis teputevuerny (Lu. 13:6); qv efxov aro- 
keuevnv (Lu. 19 : 20), really predicative accusative participles with 
éxw. But the past perfect with the perfect partic. and jv is rather 
common. Cf. Jo. 19:11. Burton notes that about two-thirds 
of them are intensive and only one-third extensive. As examples 
of the intensive use see Mt. 26:43, jicav BeGapnuevor; Lu. 15 : 24, 
nv amrokwrws. Cf. also Lu. 1:7. Examples of the extensive type 
are joav édndvOores (Lu. 5:17); joav mpoewpaxdres (Ac. 21:29). For 
examples in the LXX see 2 Chron. 18 : 34; Judg. 8:11; Ex. 39: 
23, etc. See also BeBarricpevor brjpxov (Ac. 8 : 16). 

(0) Special Use of éxeiunv. This verb was used as the passive 
of 7lOnu. The present was=a present perfect. So the imperfect 
was used as a past perfect, as in Jo. 20:12, dou éxertro 76 cua= 
‘where the body had lain’ or ‘had been placed.’ So in Jo. 2: 6 joa 
keiuevat 1S & periphrastic past perfect in sense. Cf. Lu. 23 : 53, Fv 
keiuevos. See also 19:20. Perhaps a similar notion is seen in 
Ouobupadov rapjioay (Ac. 12 : 20). 

(c) The Future Perfect (6 wé\\wy cuvtedrkds).. There was never 
much need for this tense, perfect action in future time.‘ It is rare. 
in ancient Greek and in the LX X (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). The 
only active forms in the N. T. are eiéjow (Heb. 8: 11, LXX, pos- 
sibly a mere future) and the periphrastic form écouat remoibws (Heb. 
2:13, LX X also). Both of these are intensive. Most of the MSS. 


1 Thumb, Handb., pp. 161, 165. 
2 Jebb in Vine. and Dickson’s Handb., p. 329. 
3 N.T. M. and _-T., p:.46. 4 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 395. 


TENSE (XPONO2) 907 


read xexpafovrac in Lu. 19:40, but NBL have xpdtovow. This is 
also intensive (cf. xéxpaya), if it is accepted, as it is not by W. H. 
nor by Nestle. I note éon po weyadnv xdpirav xarla}rebeulélvo(s), 
B. G. U. 596 (a.p. 84). The modern Greek has a fut. perf. in 6a 
éxw deuevo (Thumb, Handb., p. 162). In Héovow (Lu. 19 : 43) we 
have a practical future perfect (intensive). For the rest the fu- 
turum exactum is expressed only by means of the perfect part. and 
etul. This idiom is found in the LXX (the active in Gen. 43 : 8; 
44:32; Is. 58:14, etc. The passive in Gen. 41:36; Ex. 12:6). 
N. T. examples are éorar dedeuevov and éorar AeAvuevov (Mt. 16: 
19); éorar AeAvpeva (18:18); Ecovrar Siapeueprouévor (Lu. 12 : 52). 
These all seem to be extensive. Fora sketch of the future per- 
fect see Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 225f. This tense 
died before the future did. 

3. THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND OPpTATIVE. The perfect optative 
is not found in the N. T. It was always rare in the Greek of 
the early period. See Hatzidakis, Hinl., p. 219. The only in- 
flected perf. subj. in the N. T. is «i64, which occurs ten times 
(Mt. 9:6; Mk. 2:10; Lu. 5: 24, etc.). But in this form the per- 
fect sense is gone. See iva eléfve, P. B. M. 1178 (a.p. 194). In- 
deed, the perf. subj. was always very rare in Greek. In the 
Sanskrit the perf. tense, outside of the Vedic language, never de- 
veloped to any extent except in the ind. and the participle.t. In 
the classic Greek it was in subj. and opt. a mark of the literary 
style and did not really belong to the life of the people. The 
perf. subj. is absent from the vernacular modern Greek. A little 
reflection will show how usually there was no demand for a true 
perfect, combining punctiliar and durative, in the subj. Even in 
the literary style of the older Greek, when the perf. subj. did 
occur it was often the periphrastic form in the active and nearly 
always so in the passive. ‘The perfect of the side-moods is true 
to the kind of time, completion, intensity, overwhelming finality.’’’ 
By “kind of time” Gildersleeve means kind of action, not past, 
present or future. Cf. the LXX also, Is. 8:14; 10:20; 17:8. 
In Lu. 14:8 there appears to be a conscious change from «\nO7s 
to pnmote 7 KexAnuévos, possibly suggesting a long-standing invi- 
tation by the latter. In Jo. 3:27, éay pi) 7 dedouevov, 1t is punc- 
tiliar-durative. In 16:24, twa 7 arerAnpwyern (cf. 1 Jo. 1:4), the 
consummation is emphasized (durative-punctiliar), extensive per- 

1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 292. 


2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 31f. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 140. 
8 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 401. 


908 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


fect (completed act). The same thing is true of 17:19, ta dow 
Hytacuevor, and 17:23, va dow reredewuevor. In Jas. 5:15, xav F 
merounkws, we seem to have the perfect of “broken continuity.” In 
2 Cor. 1:9, tva uw meroores Guyer, it is merely intensive. 

4. Toe IMPERATIVE. What has been said of the rarity of 
the perf. subj. can be repeated concerning the perf. imper. Out 
of 2445 imperatives in the Attic orators the speeches themselves 
show only eight real perfects (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part I, p. 
158. Cf. also Miller, ‘The Limitation of the Imperative in the 
Attic Orators,” A. J. P., xill, 1892, pp. 399-436). In Is. 4:1 one 
may note xexdnoOw intensive. The perfect imper. is common in 
Homer.! In the late Greek it occurred most frequently in the 
purely intensive perfects or in the third person singular of other 
verbs2. But it is gone from the modern Greek and is nearly dead 
in the N. T. In Jas. 1:19 tore may be imperative (intensive) 
or ind. See the formula éppwabe (Ac. 15 : 29) and éppwoo in Text. 
Rec. (23 : 30). The only other example is found in Mk. 4:39, 
g.wmra, tepiuwoo, Where it is also intensive like the others. The 
durative idea is in both owra (linear pres.) and rediuwao, ‘put the 
muzzle on and keep it on.’ The periphrastic perf. imper. occurs 
in Lu. 12:35, éorwoar reprefwouevar (intensive). Cf. karduevor. The 
time of the perf. imper. and subj. is, of course, really future. 
Cf. p. 848 (a). 

5. THe INFINITIVE. There were originally no tenses in the 
inf. (see Sanskrit), as has already been stated. But the Greek 
developed a double use of the inf. (the common use, and indir. 
discourse). 

(a) Indirect Discourse. In indir. discourse (cf. ch. XIX) the 
tenses of the inf. had the element of time, that of the direct. 
But in the N. T. there is no instance of the perf. inf. repre- 
senting a past perf. ind.t The tense occurs in indir. discourse, 
but the time is not changed. Cf. Ac. 14:19 écvpov é&w ris 76- 
News, vouitovres On TeOvynKevar, (12 : 14) arnyyerdrev Ectavar. So eldévar 
in Lu. 22:34; yeyovera (Jo. 12:29); yeyovevar (2 Tim. 2: 18). 
These examples are also all intensive perfects. So with Col. 
2:1, O€d\w buds eidevar. In 1 Tim. 6:17, rapayyeddc tYndodpovety 
unde 7Amckevae (indir. command), the intensive perf. again occurs. 
In Lu. 10 : 36, doxe? cou yeyovevar, we have ‘‘the vivid present of 
story-telling.”’® Cf. wempaxevar (Ac. 25: 25). On the whole the 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 22. 4 Burton, N. T. M. and T.., p. 52. 
2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 23f. ° Moulton, Prol., p. 146. So Heb. 4:1. 
8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200 f, 


TENSE (XPONOZ) 909 


perf. inf. is rather common (47 times, according to H. Scott) in 
the N. T.!. See further Jo. 12:18; Ac. 16:27; 27:13; Ro. 15: 
oy dalle May 

(b) Perfect Infinitive not in Indirect Discourse. 

(a) Subject or Object Infinitive. Cf. 2 Pet. 2:21, uy éxeyvw- 
xevat, Where the tense accents the climacteric aspect (durative- 
punctiliar) of the act and rather suggests antecedence (extensive) 
to jv. In Ac. 26 : 32, arodedtobar édtvaro, We have an instance of 
the obj. inf. with implied antecedence (extensive). Note also 6s 
épyaciay amndddxOar (Lu. 12:58). In Ac. 19:36 xarecradpéevous 
brapxew is a periphrastic form of the subject inf. In 2 Cor. 
5:11 note redavepScba with edxmifw. Cf. 1 Pet. 4:3 (with dapxe- 
tos). Not very different is the use with wore (Ro. 15:19). 

(8) With Prepositions. At first it may seem surprising that the 
perfect tense should occur with the articular inf. after preposi- 
tions. But the inf. does not lose its verbal character in such con- 
structions. It is still a verbal substantive. It is, of course, only 
by analogy that the tense function is brought into the infinitive. 
For the papyri note éml 7 yeyovévar, P. Oxy. 294 (A.D. 22); brép 
Tod amo\eNvcOa oe, P. B. M. 42 (B.c. 168). Cf. wera 70 eipnxévar 
(Heb. 10:15), the only instance with pera. Here the tense has 
the same force as eipnxev in 10:9. It stands on record as said. 
We find it with eis (twice), as in Eph. 1:18, eis 76 eidevar (intensive) 
and eis ro yeyoverae (Heb. 11:3). It is most frequent with 64 
and the acc. (7 times). So Mk. 5:4, dedéo0ar kat duvecracbar Kat 
ovvrerpipba (extensive). See oixodoujcba (Lu. 6:48). Cf. Ac. 18: 
2; 27:9. In8:11 we have the perf. inf. of ‘broken continuity.” 
In the N. T. the perf. inf. with prepositions appears only with 
6a, eis and pera. 

6. THE PARTICIPLE. 

(a) The Meaning. The perf. part. either represents a state (in- 
tensive) or a completed act (extensive). Examples of the former 
are xexotiaxws (JO. 4: 6); éotws (18 : 18); 76 elwOos (Lu. 4:16). In- 
stances of the latter occur in 6 etAndws (Mt. 25 : 24); wemounxores 
(Jo. 18:18). The perf. part. is quite common in the N. T. and 
preserves the usual idea of the tense. 

(b) The Time of the Tense. It is relative, not absolute. It 
may be coincident with that of the principal verb, usually so in 
the intensive use.2 Cf. Jo. 4:6 kexomiaxws exabéfero, (19 : 33) ef- 
dov dn teOvynxora, (Ro. 15: 14) éore — wetAnpwuevr. But by sug- 
gestion the act may be represented as completed before that of 

1 W.-Th., p. 334. 2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 71. 


910 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the principal verb and so antecedent action. Thus iornxeoay — 
merounxotes (JO. 18: 18); rpoodatws éEdXndvOora (Ac. 18 : 2); amodedv- 
nevnv (Lu. 16:18); eipnxoros (Mt. 26:75). This antecedent action 
may be expressed also by the intensive perfect as in éé#\Oev 6 Te- 
Ovnxws (Jo. 11:44), but dedeuevos is coincident action. So in Mk. 
5:15 tuariopevor is coincident, but tov éoxnxora antecedent. Cf. 
Rev. 6:9. The modern Greek keeps the perf. part. (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 167). 

(c) The Perfect Tense Occurs with Various Uses of the Participle. 
The part. is used as attributive. Cf. of areoradyevor (Ac. 10:17). 
Sometimes a distinction is drawn between the aorist and the 
perf. part. Cf. 6 AaBov in Mt. 25:20 with 6 eidAndws (25 : 24); 
6 kadeoas in Lu. 14: 9 with 6 kexAnxws (14:10). Cf. 2 Cor. 12: 21; 
1 Pet. 2:10. The predicate participle also uses it. Cf. Lu. 8: 
46; 16:18, 201.; Jo. 19:33; Ac. 18:2; Heb. 13 : 23. With Rev. 
9:1, edov mertwxdra, compare Lu. 10:18, ewpovy recovra (the 
state, the act). 

(d) The Periphrastic Participle. There are two examples of this 
unusual idiom. Cf. Eph. 4:18 éoxorwyevor 7H Stavoia dvres, (Col. 
1:21) dvras arnddoTpiwpuevovs. The durative aspect of the perfect 
is thus accented. Cf. Heb. 5: 14 for éw used periphrastically. 


CHAPTER XIX 
MODE (ErKAIZzI>z) 


Introductory. For a brief sketch of the number of the modes 
and the reasons for treating the indicative as a mode see Conju- 
gation of the Verb, chapter VIII, v, (a). References are there 
given to the pertinent literature. The use of dy is given a brief 
treatment below in connection with the modes. The subject of 
conjunctions is divided for logical consistency. The Paratactic 
Conjunctions belong to the same division with Paratactic Sen- 
tences, while Hypotactic Conjunctions fall under Hypotactic Sen- 
tences. The conjunctions could of course be treated in sepa- 
rate chapter or as a division of the chapter on Particles (XXJ). 
That will be there done (v, 1) for Paratactic Conjunctions. Hy- 
potactic Conjunctions will there receive only summary treatment 
and can best be discussed in detail in connection with subordinate 
clauses. And there are advantages in the present method. It 
needs to be said also that the division of the treatment of modes 
into those of Independent and Subordinate Sentences (A and B) 
is purely arbitrary and for the sake of clearness. There is no real 
difference in the meaning of a mode in an independent and a 
dependent sentence. The significance of each mode will be suffi- 
ciently discussed under A (Independent Sentences). The inclu- 
sion of all the subordinate clauses under mode is likewise for the 
sake of perspicuity. Voice, tense, mode thus stand out sharply.! 
The difficulty of making a clear distinction in the significance of 
the modes has already been discussed in chapter VIII, pp. 321 ff. 
A mood is a mode of statement, an attitude of mind in which the 
speaker conceives the matter stated.2 Apollonius Dyskolos first 
described moods as Yuxixal drabeces. That is a correct descrip- 
tion of the function of mood as distinct from voice and tense.’ 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 445 ff., has this plan. I had already made my 
outline before reading his treatment of the subject. 

2 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 185. 

3 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 498; K.-G., I, p. 200; Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., 
p. 220. See Sandys, Hist. of Class. Scholarship, III, p. 458. 
911 


912 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The mode is the manner of the affirmation, while voice and tense 
have to do with the action of the verb (voice with relation of the 
subject to the action of the verb, tense with the state of the 
action). But even so the matter is not always clear. The mode 
is far and away the most difficult theme in Greek syntax. Our 
modern grammatical nomenclature is never so clumsy as here in 
the effort to express “the delicate accuracy and beauty of those 
slight nuances of thought which the Greek reflected in the synthetic 
and manifold forms of his verb.’’!_ So appeal is made to psychology 
to help us out. ‘If the moods are Wuxixal dvabecers, Why is not every 
utterance modal? Why does not every utterance denote a state 
of the soul? A universal psychology would be a universal syntax.’’? 
Every utterance does denote a state of the soul. This is one 
argument for treating the indicative as amode. The verb is neces- 
sarily modal from this point of view. But the term is naturally 
confined to the finite verb and denied to the infinitive and participle. 
Dionysius Thrax does call the infinitive a mode, but he is not 
generally followed. Gildersleeve* notes also that “‘moods are 
temporal and tenses modal.” He sees that the order moods 
and tenses is the natural sequence in the English (cf. chapter 
VIII, v, p. 320), but he follows the order tenses and moods in his 
Syntax of Classical Greek, though it is hard to separate them 
in actual study. Gildersleeve® laments also that 6:d%eo1s came 
to be applied to voice and éyxdoits to mode (cf. enclitic words 
as to accent), “‘but after all tone of utterance is not so bad 
a description of mood.” It is possible that at the beginning 
the indicative was used to express all the various moods or 
tones of the speaker, as the accusative case originally included 
the whole field of the oblique cases. It was only gradually 
that the other moods were developed by the side of the indic- 
ative (thus limiting the scope of the ind.) to accent certain 
“moods of mind, i.e. various shades of desire,”® more sharply. 
Thompson calls this development “artificial,” since no other race 
but the Greeks have preserved these fine distinctions between in- 
dicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative, not to say injunctive 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 1386. 

* Gildersl., “A Syntactician among the Psychologists,’ Am. Jour. of 
Philol., Jan., 1910, p. 74. 

3 Cf. Steinthal, Gesch. d. Sprachw., pp: 309, 628. 

4 Am. Jour. of Philol., XXIII, p. 127; XXX, p. 1. 

5 Ib., XXX, p.1; Synt. of Classic. Gk., p. 79. 

6 Thompson, Synt., p. 510. 


MODE (EIKAISI=) | 913 


and future indicative (almost a mode to itself). But that is too 
severe a term, for the modes were a gradual evolution. The in- 
junctive was the unaugmented indicative, like \vov, ecb, AVcacbe, 
AVOnTe, AVeTE, AUcaTe, cxés.1 Moulton? says: “‘Syntactically it rep- 
resented the bare combination of verbal idea with the ending 
which supplies the subject; and its prevailing use was for prohi- 
bitions, if we may judge from the Sanskrit, where it still remains 
to some extent alive. The fact that this primitive mood thus 
occupies ground appropriate to the subjunctive, while it supplies 
the imperative ultimately with nearly all its forms, illustrates the 
syntactical nearness of the moods. Since the optative also can 
express prohibition, even in the N. T. (Mk. 11:14), we see how 
much common ground is shared by all the subjective moods.” 
Yes, and by the indicative also. The present indicative is often 
a practical future. Originally the subjunctive had the short 
vowel (cf. tovey in Homer). The distinction between the indic- 
ative and subjunctive is not always clear.? The subjunctive in 
Homer is often merely futuristic. The affinity between the sub- 
junctive and the optative is very close. The indicative continued 
to be used in the volitive sense (past tenses) and of command 
(future tense). Thus the other modes were luxuries of the lan- 
guage rather than necessities, while the indicative was the original 
possessor of the field. As already shown (chapter VIII, v) the 
injunctive survived in the imperative and subjunctive. The 
future indicative continued to fulfil the function of all the modes 
(ef. the indicative before the rise of the other modes). Thus the 
future indicative may be merely futuristic, or volitive, or delibera- 
tive. The same thing is true of the subjunctive and the optative. 
Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 184f. Thompson (Syntax, p. 186) curiously 
says that ‘the indicative, however, assumed some of the func- 
tions of the other moods.” If he had said “retained,” he would 
have it right. He had just said properly enough: “It would be an 
error, with regard both to their origin and functions, to regard 
the moods as separate and water-tight compartments.” The early 
process was from simplicity to variety and then from variety to 
simplicity (cf. again the history of the cases). The struggle be- 
tween the modes has continued until in the modern Greek we 
have practically only the indicative and the subjunctive, and they 


! Moulton, Prol., p. 165. 

2 Ib. Cf. also Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 510. The injunctive had 
“a meaning hovering between the imperative, conjunctive and optative.”’ 

3 Giles, Man., p. 459. 


914 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


are in some instances alike in sound (Thumb, Handb., p. 115 f.). 
The subj. is “considerably reduced” in use in the modern 
Greek. The optative has disappeared entirely, and the im- 
perative, outside the second person, and the future indicative 
are expressed by periphrasis. Even the infinitive and the par- 
ticiple in the xown have felt the mroads of the subjunctive.! 
It is true that as a rule we see the modes to best advantage in 
the simple sentence,” though essentially the meaning in the com- 
pound sentence is the same. But it is true, as Gildersleeve? 
urges, that ‘‘the predominance of parataxis over hypotaxis is a 
matter of style as well as of period. Hypotaxis holds fast to 
constructions that parataxis has abandoned. The futural subjunc- 
tive abides defiantiy in the dependent clause of temporal sen- 
tences and dares the future indicative to invade its domain. The 
modal nature of the future,.obscured in the principal sentence, 
forces itself upon the most superficial observer in the dependent 
clause.’ In a broad sense the indicative is the mode of objective 
statement in contrast with the subjective modes developed 
from it. But the description needs modification and is only true 
in a general sense. The N.T. idiom as of the xow7 in general will 
be found to differ from the classic Greek idiom here more than is 
true of the construction of the tenses. The disappearance of the 
optative is responsible for part of this change. But the effort 
must now be made to differentiate the four modes in actual usage 
whatever may be true of the original idea of each. That point 
will need discussion also. The vernacular in all languages is fond 
of parataxis. See Pfister, “‘ Die parataktische Darsteliungsform in 
der volkstiimlichen Erzihlung” (Woch. f. klass. Phil., 1911, pp. 
809-813). 


A. INDEPENDENT OR PARATACTIC SENTENCES (IIAPATAKTIKA 
"AS IOMATA) 


e 


I. The Indicative Mode (Adyos dtropavtiKds or 1 OpLoTLKh 
€YKALCLS). 

1. MEANING OF THE ianecwiens Mops. 

The name is not distinctive, since all the modes “indicate.” It 
is not true that the indicative gives ‘absolute reality,”’® though it 


1 Thompson, Synt., p. 494. In the Sans. it was the subjunctive that went 
down in the fight. Cf. Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201 f. 

2 Ib., p. 495; 3 Am. Jour. of Philol., Jan., 1909, p. 2. 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 205. 

® Bernhardy, Wiss. Synt. der griech. Sprache, p. 384. 


MODE (EPKAISI2) 915 


is the “modus rectus.”’ It does express “l’affirmation pure et 
simple.”! The indicative does state a thing as true, but does not 
guarantee the reality of the thing. In the nature of the case only 
the statement is under discussion.’ A clear grip on this point will 
help one all along. The indicative has nothing to do with reality 
(‘an sich’’).2. The speaker presents something as true.? Actuality 
is implied, to be sure, but nothing more.*’ Whether it is true or 
no is another matter. Most untruths are told in the indicative 
mode. The true translation into Latin of épiori«y would be finitus or 
definitus.. Indicatiwus is a translation of amodavrixés. The indic- 
ative is the most frequent mode in all languages.. It is the nor- 
mal mode to use when there is no special reason for employing 
another mode. The assertion may be qualified or unqualified.® 
This fact does not affect the function of the indicative mode to 
make a definite, positive assertion. Cf. Jo. 13:8, for instance. 
A fine study of the indicative mode is afforded in Jo. 1 : 1-18, 
where we have it 38 times, chiefly in independent sentences. The 
subjunctive occurs only three times (1:7f.). The use of jv, éyé- 
vero, nAOEV, OK EyYW, TapédaBov, EXaBov, Edwxev, eacaucba, etc., has the 
note of certitude and confident statement that illustrate finely 
the indicative mode. 

2. Kinps oF SENTENCES USING THE INDICATIVE. 

(a) Hither Declarative or Interrogative. The mere declaration 
probably (and logically) precedes in use the question.” But there 
is no essential difference in the significance of the mode. This 
extension of the indicative from simple assertion to question is 
true of all Indo-Germanic tongues. Cf. Mt. 2:2; Mk. 4:7; Jo. 
1:19. The simple assertion is easily turned to question. Cf. 
éreivaca yap édwKaTe por dayety, ediynoa Kal éroTicaTé me, KTr., and 
wore oe eldouev TevavrTa Kal €OpeWauev, kTrX. (Mt. 25: 35-39). For 
the change from question to simple assertion see mucrevers todo; 
éyw meriorevxa (Jo. 11:26f.). Cf. Ac. 26:27. The formula od 
heyers iS Sometimes used for the answer, as in Mt. 27:11; Lu. 
22:70; Jo. 18:37. So also ot eas in Mt. 26:25, 64. ~The 
question without interrogative words is seen in Mt. 13:28; Jo. 
13 :6; Ac. 21:37; Ro. 2: 21-28; 7:7, etc. Sometimes it is diffi- 


1 Vandacle, L’Optatif Grec, 1897, p. 111. ab K-Gorbd. epecol. 
3 Ib. Der Redende stellt etwas als wirklich. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 445. 

5 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 297 f. 

6 Burton, M. and T., p. 73. 

7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 445. ge blass. Gr. Ol UNL Gk Dp, 200: 


916 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cult to tell whether a sentence is declarative or interrogative, as 


inl. Cor: lw18s4ROwS sous 

For this very reason the Greek used various interrogatory par- 
ticles to make plain the question. Thus dpa ye ywawokes & dva- 
yuwwoKxeas; (Ac. 8:30. Note the play on the verb). Cf. Lu. 18:8; 
Gal. 2:17. It is rare also in the LXX (cf. Gen. 18 : 9; 37:10; 
Jer. 4:10), but &pa is common.! It is a slight literary touch in 
Luke and Paul. The use of ef in a question is elliptical. It is 
really a condition with the conclusion not expressed or it is an 
indirect question (cf. Mk. 15:44; Lu. 23:6; Ph. 3:12). It is 
used in the N. T., as in the LXX quite often (Gen. 17: 17, etc.). 
This construction with a direct question is unclassical and may 
be due to the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew 5 by e as well 
as by un Cf. Mt. 12:10, Ei é&eorw rots caBBacw Oeparetoar; see 
also Mt. 1923; Mk./83 235 4lu. 189233022749 AicwleG 7 ai ator 
2; 21:37; 22:25. Note frequency in Luke. In Mk. 10: 2 (parallel 
to Mt. 19: 3) the question is indirect. The idiom, though singular, 
has “attained to all the rights of a direct interrogative’’® by this 
time. The idiom may be illustrated by the Latin an which in 


later writers was used in direct questions. So si, used in the Vul- — 


gate to translate this ef, became in late Latin a direct interroga- 
tive particle. A similar ellipsis appears in the use of e (cf. Heb. 
3:11) in the negative sense of a strong oath (from the LXX also).* 
The particle 7 is found in the LXX Job 25:5 B, but not in the 
N.T.° So far the questions are colourless. 

The use of interrogative pronouns and adverbs is, of course, 
abundant in the N. T. Thus zis, either alone as in Mt. 3 : 7, with 
dopa as in Mt. 24:45, with yap as in Mt. 9:5, with ovv as in Lu. 
3:10.° See the double interrogative ris ri in Mk. 15:24. For ri 
tovro (predicative use of rotdro) see Lu. 16:2. For the ellipsis 
with iva ri (cf. dca ri in Mt. 9:11; efs 77 in Mk. 14:4) see Mt. 
9:4, and for ri ére note Lu. 2:49 (cf. ri yeyovey dru in Jo. 14: 
22). The use of 7i in Ac. 12:18 and 13: 25 is interesting. Ti is an 
accusative adverb in Mk. 10:18. A sort of prolepsis or double 
accusative occurs in otéa cé ris e (Mk. 1:24). Other pronouns 
used in direct questions are zotos (Mk. 11:28), mocos (Mk. 6: 


1 Viteau, Etude sur le Grec du N. T. Le Verbe, p. 22. Some editors read 
dpa in Gal. 2:17, but see Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 259. See épa in Mt. 18: 1. 

2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 260. 

8 W.-Th.,. p. 509. 4 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 179. 

6 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 22. 

6 Cf. Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 178. 


MODE (EIKAIZI=) 917 


38), woraros (Mt. 8:27). The sense of 6 in Mt. 26:50 is dis- 
puted, as of dr in Mk. 2:16; 9:11, 28; Jo. 8:25.1. The use of 
interrogative adverbs is frequent. Cf. wore (Mt. 25:38); éws 
mote (Mt. 17 : 17); w&s (Lu. 10 : 26); rod (Lu. 8 : 25); wocdxs (Mt. 
18 : 21). 

Alternative questions are expressed by # alone as in 1 Cor. 9: 
8, or with 7i— 7 as in Mt. 9:5. The case of 4 tis is different 
Cite 9): 

Exclamations are sometimes expressed by the relative forms, 
like ws wpato. in Ro. 10:15, but more frequently by the inter- 
rogative pronouns like réca (Mk. 15 : 4); mnXixos (Gal. 6: 11); Ti 
(Lu. 12 : 49); wocaxs (Mt. 23 : 37). Cf. rocov in Mt. 6 : 23. 

(b) Positive and Negative. If an affirmative or negative an- 
‘wer is expected, then that fact is shown by the use of ov for 
the question expecting the affirmative reply and by uy for the 
negative answer. As a matter of fact, any answer may be ac- 
tually given. It is only the expectation that is presented by ov 
or yn. This use of od is like the Latin nonne. So ob 7G oG dvoyuate 
éxpodynrevoapev; (Mt. 7:22). Cf. Mt. 6:25; 13:27; 13:55; Lu.: 
et el Oe cen ee ee Core Oo 14 23°" Jas.°2 75° Heb. 3 : 
16, etc. This is the common classic construction. The use of od 
may suggest indignation as in oik droxpivy obdév; (Mk. 14 : 60. Cf. 
ovK amexpivato ovdev in verse 61). So with od ratbon diacrpédwv; (Ac. 
13:10). Surprise is indicated by ovk apa in Ac. 21:38. Ovxi is 
common. Cf. Lu. 6:39. Ovxody occurs once in the N. T. (Jo. 
18:37). The presence of uw shows that the answer ‘‘no”’ is an- 
ticipated (the only instance of uy with the indicative in a princi- 
pal sentence). Gildersleeve? calls ob “the masculine negative”’ 
and wn “the feminine negative.’’ There is certainly a feminine 
touch in the use of un by the woman at Jacob’s well when she 
came to the village. She refused to arouse opposition by using 
ov and excited their curiosity by uy. Thus pare oités éorw 6 
Xpiorés; (Jo. 4: 29).3 The examples in the N. T. are very numer- 
ous. The shades of negative expectation and surprise vary very 
greatly. Each context supplies a slightly different tone. Cf. 
Vitae Otte) 2ee2o e202 2b eM ki 421 Lu 6: 39° Jo. 6: 
Di aieicO Nooo limecieo RO. 9 14°11: 1. Both ob:and uA 
may occur in contrast in the same sentence. So yu} kata d&vOpwrov 
TavTa Aad, 7} Kal 6 vouwos Tadra ov Neyer; (1 Cor. 9:8). Cf. Lu. 6: 
39 unre divatat TUPAds TUPAdv SdnyeEtv; o'xt auddoTepor eis BOOvVov EuTre- 

1 See ch. XV, Pronouns. 
2 Am. Jour. of Philol., Jan., 1910, p. 78. 3 Cf. also Jo. 4 : 33. 


918 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cotvra; The use of pyre is common (ef. ovxi).!. The combination 
uu ov will be discussed in the chapter on Particles, but it may be 
noted here that od is the negative of the verb while y7 is the in- 
terrogative particle expecting the answer “no.” The English 
translation expects the answer “‘yes,” because it ignores wn and 
translates only ov. Cf. 1 Cor. 9:4, 5; 11:22; Ro. 10:18, 19. 
The construction is in the LX X (Judg. 6 : 13, etc.) and in classic 
Greek. It is a rhetorical question, not a simple interrogative.? 
The kinds of sentences overlap inevitably so that we have already 
transgressed into the territory of the next group. 

As already shown, the indicative is used indifferently with or 
without the negative in either declarative or interrogative sen- 
tences. The groups thus overlap. Cf., for instance, Jo. 1: 2-8. 
The negative of a declarative independent sentence with the in- 
dicative is od. This outright “masculine” negative suits the 
indicative. With questions, however, it is different, as has already 
been shown. Thus it is true that un made a “raid” into the in- 
dicative, as od did in the early language into the subjunctive.’ 
The optative uses either ov or uy, but that is another story. The 
indicative with od makes a pointed denial. Note the progressive 
abruptness of the Baptist’s three denials in Jo. 1 : 20 f. 

3. SPECIAL USES OF THE INDICATIVE. 

(a) Past Tenses. 

(a) For Courtesy. It is true that the indicative ‘is suited by 
its whole character only to positive and negative statements, and 
not to the expression of contingencies, wishes, commands or 
other subjective conceptions.’’* That is perfectly true. The in- 
dicative is the normal mode for saying a thing. The other modes 
Gildersleeve® aptly terms “‘side moods.” I consider, as already 
explained, the indicative the mode par excellence, and I doubt the 
value of such language as “the modal uses of the indicative.’’® 
It is not so much that the indicative ‘‘encroached upon the other 
moods, and in so doing assumed their functions, especially in de- 
pendent sentences,’ as that the indicative, particularly in de- 
pendent sentences; retained to some extent all the functions of 
all the modes. It is true, as already said, that the indicative was 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 254. 

2"Burton, N. ‘T..M: and 2.) p.179: 

3 Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., Jan., 1910, p. 78. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 199. 5 Synt. of Classic Gk., Pt. I, § 365. 
6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 235. 

7 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 186. 


MODE (EIKAIZI2z) 919 


always the most virile of all the modes and has outlived them all. 
But, after the other modes became fully developed, these less fre- 
quent uses of the indicative seemed anomalous. The courteous or 
polite use of the imperfect indicative is the simplest of these spe- 
cial constructions. Here the indicative is used for direct assertion, 
but the statement is thrown into a past tense, though the present 
time is contemplated. We do this in English when we say: “‘I was 
just thinking,” “I was on the point of saying,” etc. So Ac. 25: 
22, éBovrounv kat a’tos Tod avOpwrov axodom. Agrippa does not 
bluntly say Botdouar (cf. Paul in 1 Tim. 2:8; 5:14) nor éGovddunv 
av, which would suggest unreality, a thing not true. He does wish. 
He could have said Bovdoiuny av (cf. Ac. 26 : 29, where Paul uses 
the optative), but the simple éGovAduny is better. The optative 
would have been much weaker.! In 2 Cor. 1:15 é8ovddunv rpo- 
tepov has its natural reference to past time. Cf. é8ovAnOnv in 2 
Jo. 12 and Phil. 13, eGovAdunv, not ‘would have liked’ as Blass 
(Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 207) has it. In Gal. 4: 20, 70edov 5€ rapetvar 
mpos buds a&ptt, Paul is speaking of present time (cf. dre dzopoduat). 
He puts the statement in the imperfect as a polite idiom. The 
use of #é\w is seen in Ro. 16:19. The usual force of the mode 
and tense appears in #0e\ov in Jo. 6:21. The negative brings out 
sharply the element of will (cf. Lu. 19:14; Mt. 22:3). In Ro. 
9:3, nixounv yap avabeua efvar aitos éyw a6 Tov Xpiorod, the same 
courteous (even passionate) idiom occurs. It is not ejxouar as in 
2 Cor. 18:7 (he does not dare pray such a prayer), nor did he 
do it (cf. niyovro Ac. 27: 29). He was, however, on the verge of 
doing it, but drew back. With this example we come close to the 
use of the indicative for unreality, the so-called ‘‘unreal’’ indica- 
tive. See also chapter on Tense. 

(8) Present Necessity, Obligation, Possibility, Propriety in 
Tenses of the Past. This is the usual ‘potential’ indicative. 
The imperfect of such verbs does not necessarily refer to the 
present.2. Thus in Jo. 4:4, ee atrov drepxecbar dia THs LVapapias, it 
is simply a necessity in past time about a past event. So de? in 
Jo. 4:20, 24 expresses a present necessity. This use of the im- 
perfect ée thus differs from either the present or the ordinary 
imperfect. The idiom is logical enough.? It was a necessity and 
the statement may be confined to that phase of the matter, though 
the necessity still exists. So Lu. 24:26, obxi ratra ee radety tov 
Xptoroy; Cl: also Mt: 18: 53323: 23°25 +27; Tsu. 11: 42; 13 216 (ef. 


1 W.-Th., p. 283. 
2 K.-G., Bd. I, p. 204 f. 3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. 


920 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


det in verse 14); Ac. 27:21. It is an easy step from this notion to 
that of an obligation which comes over from the past and is not 
lived up to. The present non-fulfilment of the obligation is left 
to the inference of the reader or hearer. It is not formally stated. 
It happens that in the N. T. it is only in the subordinate clauses 
that the further development of this use of ée: comes, when only 
the present time is referred to. Thus in Ac. 24:19, ods é5e ézi 
cov mapetvar. They ought to be here, but they are not. Our Eng- 
lish ‘“‘ought”’ is likewise a past form about the present as well as 
about the past.! So 2 Cor. 2:3, ad’ dv ee pe xaipev. In Heb. 
9 : 26, éel Eder ad’rov ToANaKis wabeiv, there is an implied condition 
and éde. is practically an apodosis of the second-class condition, 
which see. The same process is seen in the other words. Thus 
in 2 Cor. 12:11, éya Sedov bd’ buSv cvvicracba, we have a simple 
past obligation. So in Lu. 7:41; Heb. 2:17. Note common use 
_of the present tense also, as in Ac. 17:29. Cf. 6 apetdouer rorioar 
merornkapev (Lu. 17:10), where the obligation comes on from the 
past. But in 1 Cor. 5:10, ézel adetdere dpa ex Tod Kdopou €£edOetv, 
we have merely present time under consideration and a practical 
apodosis of a second-class condition implied. I do not agree with 
Moulton? that ay in such instances has been “dropped.” It simply 
was not needed to suggest the unreality or non-realization of the 
obligation. The context made it clear enough. Xp7 occurs only 
once in the N. T. (Jas. 3 : 10), whereas rpoonxe (Attic) is not found 
at all, nor éfeo7e (but éov) nor ééfv.2 But édivaro is used of the 
present time. So Jo. 11:37. Cf. the apodosis in the second-class 
condition without av in Jo. 9:33; Ac. 26:32. The use of ws avijxev 
(Col. 8:18) and @ ovx avfjxev (Eph. 5: 4) are both pertinent, though 
in subordinate clauses. Note in particular ot yap xabjxev abrov CRv 
(Ac. 22 : 22), ‘He is not fit to live.’ In Mt. 26:24, xcadov fv aird 
el ox eyevvnbn, we have the apodosis without ay of a condition of 
the second class (determined as unfulfilled). There is no condition 
expressed in 2 Pet. 2:21, xpetrrov yap jv abrots pu) éreyvwKevar THY 
6b0v THs duxacoctyns. Moulton‘ finds the origin of this idiom in the 
conditional sentence, but Winer® sees in it merely the Greek way 
of affirming what was necessary, possible or appropriate in itself. 
So Gildersleeve.6 The modern Greek preserves this idiom (Thumb, . 


1 Our transl. therefore often fails to distinguish the two senses of é5e. in Gk. 
Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 144f. Cf. chapter on Tense. 

47 Prol, pr2uu; 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. 5 W.-Th., p. 282. 

4 Prol., p. 200. 6 Synt., Pt. I, p. 144. 


MODE (EIrKAIZ=I=) 921 


Handb., p. 128). The use of éueddov in Rev. 3: 2 approaches this 
potential indicative. Cf. Thompson, Syntax, p. 274. For the use 
of the infinitive rather than the indicative see 7 — zece?y in Lu. 16: 
17. So also ta and subjunctive as in Jo. 6:7. Cf. Viteau, Le 
Verbe, p. 21. The use of édiyou or uxpod with an aorist does not 
occur in the N. T. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 445. 

(y) The Apodosis of Conditions of the Second Class. This 
matter has already been touched on slightly and is treated at 
length under Conditional Sentences. It can be merely sketched 
here. The condition is not always expressed and dy usually is 
present. The use of av, however, in the apodosis is not obliga- 
tory... We know very little about the origin and meaning of ap 
anyhow. It seems to have a demonstrative sense (definite, then, 
in that case) which was shifted to an indefinite use. Cf. rév xal 
Tov, Ta kat ta.” Gildersleeve interprets it as a particle ‘‘used to 
colour the moods of the Greek language.’ With the past tenses 
of the indicative in independent sentences it is a definite particle. 
The effort to express unreality by the indicative was a somewhat 
difficult process. In Homer “the unreal imperfect indicative 
always refers to the past.” So in Heb. 11:15. Nothing but 
the context can show whether these past tenses are used in oppo- 
sition to the past or the present. The xow7 received this idiom of 
the unreal indicative ‘‘from the earlier age as a fully grown and 
normal ysage, which it proceeded to limit in various directions.’’4 
In Jo. 15:22 we have a good illustration of this construction. | 
We know that duapriay ovk elxocay is in opposition to the present 
reality because it is followed by viv 6€ rpddacw otk éxovow. The 
same thing is seen in verse 24 when voy 6€ éwpdxacw follows. In 
verse 19 ay éider 1s used, the usual construction. In Lu. 17:6 
édéyere Gy and brnxovoey dy are used after the protasis ei éxere (first- 
class condition). This is a mixed condition. So also the marginal 
reading in W. H. in Jo. 8:39 is éwaetre after ei éo7é and is fol- 
lowed by viv 6é fnretre (cf. above). The absence of avy seems more 
noticeable in John’s Gospel. Cf. Jo. 19:11, ov efyes éEovctay Kar’ 
éuod ovdeuiay ef pr Hv dedomevov cor avwhev.” Paul has the same® 
idiom. Thus Gal. 4:15 e duvvatéy robs d¢badyols budv é~opbEavres 
édwxare po. and Ro. 7: 7 tiv auapriav ok Eyvwv ei pn dua vopov, THY TE 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 205. 2 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 168 f. 

3 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., Jan., 1909, p. 16. Cf. Stahl, Krit.-hist. 
Synt., p. zo. f: 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 199. 5 Here 8A read éxets. 


6 But not in Acts. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 206. 


922 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


yap érOuplav obk joe ef ur) 6 vouos. The MSS. vary in the support 
of dv as in Gal. 4:15, where EKLP (and X°D°) have it. In Jo. 
18 : 36, B does not have av, while in 8:19, D does not have it, 
and the other MSS. differ in the position of av.1. This particle 
comes near the beginning of the clause, though not at the begin- 
ning. It does not precede oix (cf. Gal. 1:10). It is sometimes 
repeated in successive apodoses (cf. Jo. 4:10), but not always 
(cf. Lu. 12:39). Cf. Kiihner-Gerth, Bd. I, p. 247. On the use 
of & in general see Thompson, Syntax, pp. 291 ff. Hoogeveen 
(Doctrina Partic. Linguae Graecae, ed. sec., 1806, p. 35) makes 
ay mean simply debeo, a very doubtful interpretation. ‘The 
addition of ay to an indicative apodosis produced much the same 
effect as we can express in writing by italicizing ‘if.’’’? This 
emphasis suggests that the condition was not realized. The 
papyri likewise occasionally show the absence of av... The condi- 
tion is not always expressed. It may be definitely implied in the 
context or left to inference. So kaya éOav ody roKw av érpaka avto 
(Lu. 19 : 23) and kai €\Odv eye éxourcdunv av To Eudv ory ToKw (Mt. 
25:27). Here the condition is implied in the context, a con- 
struction thoroughly classical. But, in principal clauses, there is 
no instance of av with a past tense of the indicative in a frequent- 
ative sense. It only survives in relative, comparative or tem- 
poral clauses (cf. Mk. 6 : 56; Ac. 2:45; 4:35; 1 Cor. 12: 2;5Mk: 
3:11; 11:19). So Din Mk. 15 :6, dp dv qrodvro. Both the aorist 
and the imperfect tenses are used thus with ay in these subordinate 
clauses. There was considerable ambiguity in the use of the past 
tenses for this ‘‘unreal”’ indicative. No hard and fast rule could 
be laid down. A past tense of the indicative, in a condition with- 
out dv, naturally meant a simple condition of the first class and 
described past time (cf. Heb. 12:25). But in certain contexts 
it was a condition of the second class (as in Jo. 15 : 22, 24). Even 
with ay it is not certain® whether past or present time is meant. 
The certain application to present time is probably post- 
Homeric. The imperfect might denote’ a past condition, as in 
Mt.:23 :30;*24. 743; (Luml239)-e lon 43310-. 23D Siemon 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. TT. GE: p. 206. * Moulton, Prol., p. 200. 

3 Ib. Cf. Moulton, Class. Quart., Apr., 1908, p. 140. Moulton (Prol., p. 
200) cites without av O.P. 526 (i1/4.D.) ob rapéBevov, O.P. 530 (ii/A.D.) raduv cor 
amectadkev, Rein. P..7 (ii/B.c.) obk aréorn, all apodoses of 2d class conditions. 
The mod. Gk. here uses the conditional @4 (Thumb, Handb., p. 195). 

4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 207. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 170 f. 


5 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., § 399. 
6 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 236 f. 7 Moulton, Prol., p. 201. 


MODE (EPKAIZIz) 923 


19; Heb. 11:15, or, as commonly, a present condition (cf. Lu. 7: 
39). The aorist would naturally denote past time, as in Mt. 11: 
21. The two tenses may come in the same condition and con- 
clusion, as in Jo. 14: 28. The past perfect is found in the protasis, 
as in Mt. 12:7; Jo. 19:11. Once the real past perfect meets us 
in the conclusion (1 Jo. 2:19). And note ay féere in Jo. 14:7. 

(6) Impossible Wishes. These impracticable wishes were in- 
troduced in Attic by ei@e or ef yap, which used also Sedov with the 
infinitive. From this form a particle was developed ddedov (aug- 
mentless) which took the place of ei#e and ei yap. The dropping 
of the augment is noted in Herodotus (Moulton, Prol., p. 201). 
As a matter of fact, this unfulfilled wish occurs only three times 
in the N. T.: once with the aorist about the past, d¢eddv ye EBact- 
Nevoate (1 Cor. 4:8), and twice with the imperfect about the 
present (2 Cor. 11:1; Rev. 3:15). ”“Od¢edov occurs once also with 
the future (Gal. 5:12). Many of the MSS. (D°EFGKL) read 
@pedov in 2 Cor. 11: 1, and a few do the same in 1 Cor. 4:8. The 
idiom occurs in the LXX and in the inscriptions. Cf. Schwyzer, 
Perg., p. 173. The modern Greek expresses such wishes by va or 
as and imperf. or aorist (Thumb, p. 128). For édpauov in Gal. 2: 
2, of unrealized purpose, see Final Clauses. Radermacher (N. T. 
Gr., p. 127) quotes ddedov éwecvas, Achilles Tatius, II, 24, 3. and 
pedov €yw waddov exbpeccorv, Epict., Diss., 22, 12. 

(b) The Present. In Mt. 12 : 38, diddcKxare, Oé€XMowev ad God on- 
petov idetv, the present seems rather abrupt. In Jo. 12 : 21, kipre, 
Oédouev tov Inaody isety, this is felt so strongly that it is translated: 
‘Sir, we would see Jesus.’ See also Jo. 6:67. Cf. €BovrAounv in 
Ac. 25 : 22 and evéaiuny av in 26:29. There does not seem to be 
the same abruptness in #é\w in 1 Cor. 7:7. Cf. also deidowar in 
7:28. There were probably delicate nuances of meaning which 
sufficiently softened these words, shadings which now escape us. 
There is no difficulty about dpxet in 2 Cor. 12:9. In a case like 
brayw adevey (cf. épxdueba) in Jo. 21:3, the suggestion or hint is 
in the fact, not in the statement. The indicative is a definite 
assertion. The nature of the case supplies the rest. In 1 Cor. 
10:22, 4% rapatndotue tov xbprov; the indicative notes the fact, 
while the surprise and indignation come out in the interrogative 
form. The question in Jo. 11:47, ri wowdpyev; is very striking. 
It may be questioned? if the point is the same as Ti roidpev; (cf. 
Jo. 6: 28), like the Latin Quid faciamus? The subjunctive of de- 


1 Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 21. 
2 Against Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 210. 


924 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


‘liberation suggests doubt on the whole subject or expresses a 
wish to do something. Blass! cites the colloquial Latin for paral- 
lels for this idiom. But we do not need such parallels here. The 
inquiry of Caiaphas is rather indignant protest against the in- 
activity of the Sanhedrin than a puzzled quandary as to what 
they should do. The indicative suits exactly his purpose. He 
charges them with doing nothing and knowing nothing and 
makes a definite proposal himself. Winer sees the point clearly.? 
The same use of #é\w noted above appears in questions of delib- 
eration as in Oédevs cv\NeEwuev; (Mt. 13 : 28). So Bobd\ecbe arrodtow; 
(Jo. 18:39). Cf. Lu. 18:41. Possibility or duty may be ex- 
pressed in questions also, as in 7s dbvacbe ayala dadetv rovypol 
bvres; (Mt. 12 : 34); ri we det rovety va cw0G; (Ac. 16:30). This is 
the analytical method rather than trusting to the mode.’ ° “It is 
found possible, and more convenient, to show the modal character 
of a clause by means of particles, or from the drift of the context, 
without a distinct verbal form.’’4 

(c) The Future. The future indicative ‘was originally a sub- 
junctive in the main’’® and it has a distinct modal development. 
This fact comes out in the fact that the future tense of the indic- 
ative is a rival. of the subjunctive, the optative and the impera- 
tive.6 Like the subjunctive and optative the future may be 
merely futuristic (prospective) or deliberative or volitive. This 
matter has been discussed at length under Tenses, which see. As 
an example of the merely futuristic note Mt. 11 : 28, of the voli- 
tive see Lu. 13:9, of the deliberative note Jo. 6 : 68. 

II. The Subjunctive Mode (j totaktikh €yKXtots). 

Some of the Greek grammarians called it 4 ducraxrixn, Some % 
ovpBovreuTiKn, Some 7) b7oertKH. But no one of the names is happy, 
for the mode is not always subordinate, since it is used freely in 
principal clauses, nor is it the only mode used in subordinate 
clauses. But the best one is 7 dcoraxrixy. 

1. RELATIONS TO OTHER MOopEs. 

The development of the modes was gradual and the differen- 
tiation was never absolutely distinct. 

(a) The Aorist Subjunctive and the Future Indicative. These 
are closely allied in form and sense. It is quite probable that 
the future indicative is just a variation of the aorist subjunctive. 
Cf. eouar, riouar, Payouat. The subjunctive is always future, in 

1 Ib. Cf. Thompson, Synt., p. 187. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 235. 


2 W.-Th., p. 284. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 199. 
+ Blass, Groot Ni CeGkenee lo, 6 Thompson, Synt., p. 218. 


t ae 


MODE (EPKAIZIZ) 925 


subordinate clauses relatively future. Hence the two forms con- 
tinued side by side in the language. There is a possible dis- 
tinction. ‘The subjunctive differs from the future indicative in 
stating what is thought likely to occur, not positively what will 
occur.”! But in the beginning (cf. Homer) it was probably not 
so. Brugmann (Griech. Gr., p. 499) pointedly contends that many 
so-called future indicatives are just ‘‘emancipated short-vowel 
conjunctives.” Cf. Giles, Manual, pp. 446-448; Moulton, Prol., 
p. 149. 

(b) The Subjunctive and the Imperative. These are closely al- 
lied. Indeed, the first person imperative in Greek, as in San- 
skrit,? is absent in usage and the subjunctive has to be employed 
instead. There is a possible instance of the subjunctive as im- 
perative in the second person in Sophocles, but the text is uncer- 
tain.’ The use of uy and the aorist subjunctive in prohibitions 
of the second and third persons is also pertinent. Thus the 
subjunctive is in close affinity with the imperative. 

(c) The Subjunctive and the Optative. They are really varia- 
tions of the same mode. In my Short Grammar of the Greek 
N.T.4 I have for the sake of clearness grouped them together. I 
treat them separately here, not because I have changed my view, 
but in order to give a more exhaustive discussion. The closeness 
of the connection between the subjunctive and the optative is 
manifest in the Sanskrit. ‘“‘Subjunctive and optative run closely 
parallel with one another in the oldest language in their use in 
independent clauses, and are hardly distinguishable in depen- 
dent.”> In the Sanskrit the subjunctive disappeared before the 
optative save in the imperatival uses. It is well known that the 
“TLatin subjunctive is syncretistic, and does duty for the Greek 
conjunctive and optative.’’® Delbriick, indeed, insists that the 
two modes originally had the same form and the same meaning.’ 
Delbriick’s view has carried the bulk of modern opinion. But 
Giles® is justified in saying: ‘The original meaning of these moods 
and the history of their development is the most difficult of the 
many vexed questions of comparative syntax.” It is true that 


1 Thompson, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. 133. 

2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 216. 

3 Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 149. 

4 Pp. 129-131. 5 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 216. 
6 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., 1907, p. 191. ~ 

7 Die Grundl. d. griech. Synt., p. 115 f. 

8 Comp. Philol., p. 502. 


926 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the subjunctive in Greek refers only to the future, while the 
optative is not bound to any sphere.! But the optative is usually 
relatively? future like our “‘should,” “could,” etc. The use of the 
subjunctive was greater in Homer’s time than afterwards. ‘The 
independent subjunctive in particular was more freely used in 
Epic than in Attic. In the modern Greek’ the subjunctive has 
not only displaced the optative, but the future indicative and the 
infinitive. But even so in modern Greek the subjunctive is rela- 
tively reduced and is almost confined to subordinate clauses 
(Thumb, Handb., pp. 115, 126). The fut. ind. in modern Greek 
is really 0a (@ava) and subj. G. Hamilton‘ overstates it in say- 
ing: ‘This monarch of the moods, which stands absolute and 
alone, has all the other moods dependent on it.’’ It is possible 
that originally these two moods were used indifferently. Van- 
dacle® argues for a radical difference between the two moods, but 
he does not show what that difference is. There were distinctions 
developed beyond a doubt in actual use,’ but they are not of a 
radical nature. The Iranian, Sanskrit and the Greek are the 
only languages which had both the subjunctive and optative. 
The Sanskrit dropped the subjunctive and the Greek finally dis- 
pensed with the optative as the Latin had done long ago.® 

2. ORIGINAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SuUBJUNCTIVE. Delbriick® 
is clear that “will” is the fundamental idea of the subjunctive, 
while ‘‘wish”’ came to be that of the optative. But this position 
is sharply challenged to-day. Goodwin” denies that it is possible 
“to include under one fundamental idea all the actual uses of 
any mood in Greek except the imperative.’ He admits that the 
only fundamental idea always present in the subjunctive is that 
of futurity and claims this as the primitive meaning from the 
idiom of Homer. Brugmann"™ denies that a single root-idea of 
the subjunctive can be found. He cuts the Gordian knot by three 
uses of the subjunctive (the volitive, the deliberative, the futur- 


1 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., Jan., 1909, p. 11. 

2 Cf. Baumlein, Unters. iiber griech. Modi (1846, p. 25 f.). 

* Cf Verand DD Handbs paaciar: 

4 Latin of the Latins and Greek of the Greeks, p. 23. 

5 Bergaigne, De conjunctivi et optativi in indoeurop. linguis. 

6 L’optatif grec, p. xxii. beaut 

8 Jolly, Ein Kapitel d. vergl. Synt., Der Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 119. 

® Die Grund]., p. 116f. ‘Cf. Synt., II, pp. 349 ff. : 

10 M. and T., App., Relation of the Optative to the Subjunctive and other 
Moods, p. 371. : 

1 Griech. Gr., p. 499. 


j 





MODE (EIKAIZI=) 927 


istic). W.G. Hale! identifies the deliberative and futuristic uses 
as the same. Sonnenschein? sees no distinction between volitive 
and deliberative, to which Moulton’ agrees. ‘‘The objection to 
the term ‘deliberative,’ and to the separation of the first two classes, 
appears to be well grounded.’ He adds: “A command may 
easily be put in the interrogative tone.” That is true. It is also 
true ‘‘that the future indicative has carried off not only the fu- 
turistic but also the volitive and deliberative subjunctives.” But 
for practical purposes there is wisdom in Brugmann’s division. 
Stahl* sees the origin of all the subjunctive uses in the notion of 
will. The future meaning grows out of the volitive. Mutzbauer® 
finds the fundamental meaning of the subjunctive to be the atti- 
tude of expectation. This was its original idea. All else comes 
out of that. With this Gildersleeve® agrees: “The subjunctive 
mood is the mood of anticipation,” except that he draws a sharp 
distinction between ‘‘anticipation” and “expectation.” ‘ Antici- 
pation treats the future as if it were present.’”’ He thinks that 
the futuristic subjunctive is a “deadened imperative.’ But 
Monro’ on the whole thinks that the futuristic meaning is older 
than the volitive. So the grammarians lead us a merry dance 
with the subjunctive. Béumlein® denies that the subjunctive is 
mere possibility. It aims after actuality, ‘‘a tendency towards 
actuality.”” At any rate it is clear that we must seek the true 
meaning of the subjunctive in principal clauses, since subordinate 
clauses are a later development, though the futuristic idea best 
survives in the subordinate clause.!° In asense Hermann’s notion 
is true that three ideas come in the modes (Wirklichkeit, M églich- 
keit, Notwendigkeit). The indicative is Wirklichkect, the impera- 
tive is Notwendigkeit, while the subjunctive and the optative 
are Méglichkeit. I have ventured in my Short Grammar?" to call 
the subjunctive and optative the modes of doubtful statement, 


1 The Anticipatory Subjunctive in Gk. and Lat., Stud. Class. Phil. (Chicago), 
I, p. 6. See discussion of these three uses of fut. ind. under Tense. 


2 Cl. Rev., XVI, p. 166. 6 Synt., Pt. I, p. 147; 
3 Prol., p. 184. TT ibstp. 14s. 
4 Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 235 f. is Co) v0 Ya © ym 0 Fub13 9 


5 Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 8 f. 

9 Unters. iiber die griech. Modi, p.35. Cf. Wetzel, De Conjunctivi et Op- 
tativi apud Graecos Usu, p. 7. 

10 Hammerschmidt, Uber die Grundb. von Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 4. 

1 Pp. 129-131. As a matter of fact both Delbriick and Goodwin fail to 
establish a sharp distinction between the subjunctive and the optative. Cf. 
Giles, Man., p. 504. 


928 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


while the indicative is the mode of positive assertion and the im- 
perative that of commanding statement. The modes, as already 
seen, overlap all along the line, but in a general way this outline 
is correct. ‘The subjunctive in principal sentences appears in both 
declarative and interrogative sentences. Cf. elonvnv Exwpev mpos 
tov Oedv (Ro. 5:1), Ti eirw dytv; (1 Cor. 11: 22). It is found in 
both positive and negative statements. Cf. dduer 7} uw dGyev; (Mk. 
12:14), ua cxiowper aitov, dddrAa Adxwue (Jo. 19:24). It is the 
mood of doubt, of hesitation, of proposal, of prohibition, of anti- 
cipation, of expectation, of brooding hope, of imperious will. We 
shall, then, do best to follow Brugmann. 

3. THREEFOLD Usace. The three uses do exist, whatever their 
origin or order of development.+ 

(a) Futuristic. This idiom is seen in Homer with the negative 
ov as in ovdé téwua, ‘I never shall see.’ It is an emphatic future.? 
This emphatic future with the subjunctive is common in Homer 
with ay or kev and once without. Gildersleeve?® calls this the ‘‘ Ho- 
meric subjunctive,” but it is more than doubtful if the usage was 
confined to Homer. Moulton (Prol., p. 239) quotes P. Giles as 
saying: “This like does for many dialects what the subjunctive 
did for Greek, putting a statement in a polite, inoffensive way, 
asserting only verisimilitude.”’ Note the presence of the subjunc- 
tive in the subordinate clauses with éay (e).4 The presence of ov 
here and there with the subjunctive testifies to a feeling for the 
futuristic sense. See 77s od KarouxiobA (Jer. 6:8). In the modern 
Greek, Thumb (Handb., p. 195) gives @ dé muorebys, where dév is 
for ovédév. The practical equivalence of the aorist subjunctive 
and the future indicative is evident in the subordinate clauses, 
particularly those with ei, iva, és and éa71s. Cf. 6 rpocevéyxn (Heb. 
8:3). This is manifest in the LXX, the N. T., the inscriptions 
and the late papyri.2 Blass® pronounces ws d&vOpwaos Badn (Mk. 
4 : 26) “quite impossible” against NBDLA. But Moulton? quotes 
ov t607 from inscriptions 317, 391, 395, 399 al. in Ramsay’s Cities 
and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii, 392. For the papyri, Moulton 
(Prol., p. 240) notes B. U. 308 (wi/a.D.) tapadcxw= ‘I will furnish,’ 
A. P. 144 (w/a.p.) &dw=‘T will come.’ The itacisms in -on and 
—oe prove less, as Moulton notes. The examples in the papyri 
of itacistic —-ce, -cy are “innumerable.” In Ac. 5:15, W. H. 


1 Cf. Giles, Man., p. 505. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 240. 
* Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 198. 6 Gre ofr Ne 1 eGkoiphaais 
reMariing team thor eh Tasty 7 Prol., p. 240. : 


4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 503. 


MODE (EIKAI=I2z) 929 


print tva — émoxiace. (B, some cursives). Radermacher (N. T. 
Gr., p. 136) is quite prepared to take ras dtynre (Mt. 23 : 33) 
=Tas devéeobe. This is probably deliberative, but he makes a 
better case for ev 7G Enp@ ri yervnrac (Lu. 23:31). Blass! notes 
that “the mixture of the fut. ind. and aorist conj. has, in com- 
parison with the classical language, made considerable progress.” 
He refers to Sophocles, Lexicon, p. 45, where eirw cou is quoted as 
=€p6 0.2 In a principal clause in Clem., Hom. XI. 3, we have xal 
o’tws — duvnOf7, and Blass has noted also in Is. 33:24 adeOq yap 
avrots 7 duaptia. We cannot, indeed, trace the idiom all the way 
from Homer. ‘But the root-ideas of the subjunctive changed 
remarkably little in the millennium or so separating Homer from 
the Gospels; and the mood which was more and more winning 
back its old domain from the future tense may well have come to 
be used again as a ‘gnomic future’ without any knowledge of the 
antiquity of such a usage.”’? It was certainly primitive in its sim- 
plicity* even if it was not the most primitive idiom. The use of od 
with the subj. did continue here and_ there after Homer’s day. 
We find it in the LXX, as in Jer. 6: 8 (above) and in the Phrygian 
inscription (above). In fact, in certain constructions it is common, 
as in mu ov after verbs of fearing and caution. Cf. 2 Cor. 12:20 
and MSS. in Mt. 25: 9 (un rore otk apxéeon). It is even possible that 
the idiom od yf is to be thus explained. Gildersleeve> remarks 
on this point: ‘It might even seem easier’ to make od belong to 
aicxvv0G, thus combining objective and subjective negatives, but 
it must be remembered that od with the’subjunctive had died out 
(except in yu ov) before this construction came in.’”’? The vernacu- 
lar may, however, have preserved ov with the subj. for quite a 
while. Jannaris® confidently connects ov in this idiom with the 
subj. and explains wu as an abbreviation of unv. If either of these 
explanations is true, the N. T. would then preserve in negative 
principal sentences the purely futuristic subjunctive. Burton? is 
clear that anyhow “the aorist subjunctive is used with od yu in 
the sense of an emphatic future indicative.” The ancient Greek 
sometimes employed the present subjunctive in this sense, but 
the N. T. does not use it. But the LXX has it, as in Jer. 1:19. 
So in Is. 11:9 we find od pu) Kaxoroinoovow obdé pw} Siywvta. The 
future ind. with od wu is rare in the N. T., but od uy with the aorist 


1 Gr, of NT: Gkiy p2208. 5 Justin Martyr, p. 169. 
2 See also Hatz., Einl., p. 218. 6 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 449. 
? Moulton, Prol., p. 186. TON Le Meandilpe7is. 


4 Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 2, 372. 


930 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


subj. appears in the W. H. text 100 times.! It cannot be said that 
the origin of this ob uw construction has been solved. Goodwin? 
states the problem well. The two negatives ought to neutralize 
each other, being simplex, but they do not (cf. u7 od). The ex- 
amples are partly futuristic and partly prohibitory. Ellipsis is 
not satisfactory nor complete separation (Gildersleeve) of the two 
negatives. Perhaps od expresses the emphatic denial and wr the 
prohibition which come to be blended into the one construction. 
At any rate it is proper to cite the examples of emphatic denial 
as instances of the futuristic subjunctive. Thus od un ce avd, ovd’ 
od wh oe &yxataXirw (Heb. 18 : 5); ob wp arodeon (MK. 9 : 41); odkeére 
ob wh wiw (Mk. 14 : 25). Cf. Lu. 6:37 etc. See od uy in both prin- 
cipal and subordinate clauses in Mk. 18:2. See also Tense. 

It is a rhetorical question in Lu. 18:7 (note also paxpofupet) 
rather than a deliberative one. In Rev. 15:4 we have the aor. 
subj. and the fut. ind. side by side in a rhetorical question, ris ob 
un} poBnOn, Kbpre, Kal dokacer Td dvoua; See also the ris €& budv eter 
gidrov Kal mopevoerat mpos a’tov — kal elrn atrG@; (Lu. 11:5). It is 
difficult to see here anything very “deliberative” about eizy as 
distinct from é&. It may be merely the rhetorical use of the 
futuristic subj. in a question. Have the grammars been correct 
in explaining all these subjunctives in questions as ‘‘ deliberative’’? 
Certainly the future ind. is very common in rhetorical and other 
questions in the N. T. 

(b) Volitive. There is no doubt about the presence of the voli- 
tive subjunctive in the N. T. The personal equation undoubtedly 
cuts some figure in the shades of meaning in the moods, here as 
elsewhere.* Gildersleeve* would indeed make this “imperative 
sense’ the only meaning of the mood in the standard language 
after Homer. He does this because the deliberative subjunc- 
tive expects an imperative answer. But, as already seen, that 
is a mooted question. Brugmann® takes pains to remark that 
the element of ‘‘will’’ in the volitive subjunctive belongs to the 
speaker, not to the one addressed. It is purely a matter of the 
context. It occurs in both positive and negative sentences and 
the negative is always un. The usage is common in Homer.® 
Monro interprets it as expressing ‘‘ what the speaker resolves or in- 


1 Moulton, Prol., 3d ed., p. 190. But in the Germ. ed., p. 300, Moul- 
ton names 74. He had given 78 in the first Engl. ed. 

* M. and T., pp. 389 ff. See also pp. 101-105. 

8 Giles, Man., p. 505. 5 Griech. Gr., p. 500. 

4 Synt., Pt. I, p. 148. 6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 197. 


MODE (EIKAI=I=) 931 


sists upon.”’ In principle the hortatory subjunctive is the same as 
the prohibitive use with uy. It was a necessity for the first person, 
since the imperative was deficient there. Moulton! ventures to 
treat this hortatory use of the first person subj. under the imper- 
ative, since the Sanskrit grammars give the Vedic subjunctive of 
the first person as an ordinary part of the imperative. The other 
persons of the Sanskrit subj. are obsolete in the epic period. 
Thus bhardma, bharata, bharantu are compared with ¢épwyer, 
depete, hepovtwy (Attic for Kown deperwoav). Moulton? appeals 
also to the combination of the first and second persons in con- 
structions like éyeipecOe aywuer (Mk. 14:42). This example il- 
lustrates well the volitive idea in aéywyuev.2 The first person is 
usually found in this construction. Cf. also adywuev (Jo. 11:7); 
gayouey kal miwuev (1 Cor. 15:32); Exywuev (Ro. 5:1, correct 
text); dpovduev (Ph. 3:15); yenyopSuev kat vrpdwuev (1 Th. 5: 6). 
Cf. Lu. 9 : 33 in, particular (infinitive and subj.). In 1 Cor. 5: 
8, dore éoptafwyuev, the subjunctive is hortatory and gore is an 
inferential particle. Cf. further Heb. 12:1;1 Jo.4:7. As ex- 
amples with un see uy cxiowpev (Jo. 19: 24); pw) Kadebdwuev (1 Th. 
5:6). The construction continued to flourish in all stages of the 
language.t We have 6edre dmoxretvwuevy (Mk. 12:7. Cf. dedre 
idere, Mt. 28:6) and Gdes tdwuev (Mt. 27:49). In ades the sin- 
gular has become stereotyped. This use of ades was finally 
shortened into as in the modern Greek and came to be universal 
with the hortatory subjunctive of the first person and even for 
the third person imperative in the vernacular (as as éyy for 
éxérw). In the N. T. ades is not yet a mere auxiliary as is our 
““let’”’ and the modern Greek ds. It is more like “do let me go.’’® 
Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 134) quotes ades deiEwuev, Epict. I, 
9,15. In the first person singular the N. T. always has ddes or 
dedpo with the hortatory subjunctive.’ Thus ddes éxBadrkw (Mt. 7: 


PeETOL, Palin; 2 Ib. 

3 See 1 Cor. 10: 7-9 for the change from first to second persons. 

4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 447. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 208. But see adere tdwuev (Mk. 15: 36), though 
ND here read &des. 

6 Moulton, Prol., p. 176. Jannaris (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 448) derives as from 
éace (Zacov), aoe. 

7 It was rare in classic Gk. not to have &ye or dépe or Some such word. Cf. 
Goodwin, M. and T., p. 88; Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 148f. The volitive 
subj. is common in mod. Gk. (Thumb, Handb., p. 126) both for exhortations, 
commands, prohibitions and wishes. It occurs in the late pap. for wish, as 
katatiwon, P.Oxy. I, 128, 9. So in the inscr. rovadra 74y, Pontica III, 62, § 


932 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


4)=Lu. 6:42 and detpo amocreihw (Ac. 7:34, LXX). Moulton! 
cites ades ya altiv Opnvnow from O. P. 413 (Roman period). We 
do not have to suppose the ellipsis of tva, for ages is here the 
auxiliary. In Jo. 12:7, ades adriy tva trnpnoy, it is hardly prob- 
able that ages is Just auxiliary,” though in the modern Greek, as 
already stated, as is used with the third person. 

In the second person we have only the negative construction 
in prohibitions with the aorist subjunctive, a very old idiom? 
(see Tenses, Aorist). ‘‘The future and the imperative between 
them carried off the old jussive use of the subjunctive in positive 
commands of 2d and 3d person. The old rule which in (‘Angli- 
cistic’) Latin made sileas an entirely grammatical retort dis- 
courteous to the Public Orator’s szleam? — which in the dialect 
of Elis” (to go on with Moulton’s rather long sentence) ‘ pro- 
duced such phrases as émipéderav mommarar Nexodpouop — ‘let Nico- 
dromus attend to it,’ has no place in classical or later Greek, 
unless in Soph., Phil., 300 (see Jebb). Add doubtfully Ll. P. 1, vs. 
8 (iii/B.c.), Tb. P. 414 °°™ (ii/a.p.).”” See Moulton, Prol., p. 178. 
In the LXX, Jer. 18:8, note kai éruorpadq, parallel with aoorpa- 
gjtw in 18:11. In the modern Greek we have wishes for the fu- 
ture in the subj., since the opt. is dead. So 6 eds duddén, ‘God 
forbid’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 127). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 
135) finds the subj. for wish in late papyri and inscriptions. It is 
even in the LXX, Ruth 1:9 A, 64 xtpros duty kal ebpynre dvaravov, 
but B has optative. In the Veda the prohibitive ma@ is found 
only with the conjunctive, thus seeming to show that the imper- 
ative was originally used only in positive sentences. This idiom 
of uy and the aorist subj. held its own steadily in the second 
person. This point has been discussed at some length under 
Tenses. Take as illustrations the following: pu) doBnOfs (Mt. 1: 
20); ur voulonre (5:17); ut eiceveyxns (6:13). The use of dpa and 
opare with uy and the aorist subj. is to be noted. Some of these 
are examples of asyndeton just like ades. Thus dpa pndevit under 
eimns (Mk. 1:44; cf. Mt. 8:4). So also dpa un (Rev. 22: 9) where 
the verb zoujons is not expressed. Cf. LX X épa rounoes (Heb. 8: 
5) épare undels ywwoxéerw (Mt. 9 : 30), and dpare pr Opoetcbe (24 : 6). 
With Bdézere it is not always clear whether we have asyndeton 
(parataxis) or a subordinate clause (hypotaxis). In Lu. 21:8, 


(Anderson-Cumont-Grégoire). Radermacher (N.T. Gk., p. 128) cites also ovvr 
undeinoay kat yerwvra, Acta Thomae, p. 129. 

. Proline ti: ae 

3 Delbriick, Synt., p. 120; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 240. 


MODE (EIPKAI=IS) 933 


Brérere uw TAaYNOATE, We May (p. 996) have parataxis as is possible! 
in Heb. 12 :.25, BdXerere wu) mapartnonobe. Cf. Ac. 13:40; Gal. 5:15. 

These forms occur with the third person also, as BXérere wh Tres 
vuads mAavnon (Mt. 24:4). But, per contra, see 1 Cor. 10:12 (un 
éorat in Col. 2:8). In 1 Th. 5:15, 6pare un ris xaxdyv dvri Kaxod 
Twt &706, parataxis is probable. But the third person aorist 
subj. occurs with un alone as in uw tis obv abrov EEovbernan (1 Cor. 
16:11); uy ris we 60&n Adpova eivar (2 Cor. 11:16); uh res buds efa- 
matnon (2 Th. 2:3). Elsewhere uw and the aorist imperative 
occur in the third person. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 134) 
quotes wy and 3d person aor. subj. from xo.wn writers, inscr. and 
papyri. Careless writers even use py? oty a\dws rogs, B. G. U. III, 
824,17. Even Epictetus (II, 22, 24) has wu abrdbev arodaivn. No 
less volitive is an example with ov yy, like od wy eoedOnre (Mt. 5: 
20), which is prohibitive. So od py vidys (Jo. 13:8); od wh rin (Lu. 
1:15). There is the will of God in idéra & #4 ula Kepaia ob py 
mapedOn (Mt. 5:18) in the third person. In Mt. 25:9, uh zore 
ov wi) apKéon Nuty Kal duty, the subj. is probably futuristic (or de- 
liberative). In a late papyrus, O. P. 1150, 6 (vi/aA.p.), note deo 
Thy dvvaulv cov kal €£€Xn where the 3d pers. subj. = imperative like 
Latin. There are examples in the N. T. where tva seems to be 
merely an introductory expletive with the volitive subjunctive. 
Thus iva ériOjs (Mk. 5 : 23); tva dvaBdebw (10 : 51); va repiccednte 
(2 Cor. 8:7); ta prnyovebwuev (Gal. 2:10. Note present tense) ; 
wa doBfira (Eph. 5 : 33) parallel with ayaratrw. Cf. va—dan (63) 
margin of W. H., Eph. 1:17. Moulton? finds in the papyri 
(B. U. 48, ii/iii A.D.) édv dvaBis TH éoptH tva buoce yevwuca. So 
also he cites eva abrov uy dvowrnoys, F. P. 112 (99 a.p.), and tva 
unde Tv ToKwWY Od\vywpnons (Cicero, Att. vi. 5). The modern Greek 
uses va and subj. as imperative for both second and third per- 
sons (Thumb, Handb., p. 127 f.). Note also wu) wa avactatwons 
quas, B. G. U. 1079 (a.p, 41), not iva wy. Moulton (Prol., p. 248) 
quotes Epict., IV, 1, 41, tva ux) uwpds 7, ddd’ va wan. The use of 
bedkw iva (cf. Mk. 6 : 25; 10:35; Jo. 17: 24) preceded this idiom. 
Moulton? even suggests that rpocedxyecbe iva pi ENOnTe eis TELpacpov 
(Mk. 14 : 38) is as much parataxis as.dpare xal duddooeobe (Lu. 12 : 
15). This “innovation” in the xow7 takes the place of éxws and 
the future ind. Moulton (Prol., p. 177 note) cites drws por uh 
épets, Plato, 337 B, ‘don’t tell me,’ where éz7ws=‘in which case.’ 
The use of un after words of caution and apprehension is probably 


1 But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 278) holds the opposite view. 
a od x0) Oe OPED WV AY ae Los oyun Whee 


934 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


paratactic in origin.1 Moulton? notes the use of the present subj. 
with expressions of warning as well as the aorist. Thus in Heb. 
12 : 15, érvoxorobdyres un Tis pita mexpias évoxdj. But this construc- 
tion borders so closely on subordinate clauses, if not clear over 
the line, that it will be best discussed there. 

Subordinate clauses show many examples of the volitive sub- 
junctive (as clauses of design, probably paratactic in origin, 
Moulton, Prol., p. 185). See 62 js AXarpebwuev (Heb. 12:28). See 
discussion of Sub. Clauses. 

(c) Deliberative. There is no great amount of difference be- 
tween the hortatory (volitive) subjunctive and the deliberative. 
The volitive is connected with the deliberative in Mk. 6: 24 f., 
ti altnowpat; Oédw iva 6Gs. Thus rornowyer, ‘suppose we do it,’ and 
Tl roujowuev; ‘what are we to (must we) do?’ do not vary much. 
The interrogative’ is a quasi-imperative. Gildersleeve* notes in 
Plato (rare elsewhere in Attic) a “number of hesitating half- 
questions with yy or uw) od and the present subjunctive.” It is 
possible that we have this construction in Mt. 25:9, uy rote ob 
uy (W. H. marg. just od) dpxéon juty cal duty. It is but a step to 
the deliberative question. This is either positive or negative, 
as in Mk. 12:14, dduev 7 wy) SOuev; So also od wy asin Jo. 18: 
11, od} pw) riw airo; Cf. also Lu. 18:7; Rev. 15:4. The aorist 
or the present tense occurs as in Lu. 3:10, ri otv rounowper; 
and in Jo. 6:28, ri wowjuev; so Aeyw in Heb. 11: 32. Cf. the 
indicative ri tovoduev; in Jo. 11:47 and the future Ti otv épodyuev; 
(Ro. 9:14). The question may be rhetorical (cf. Mt. 26 : 54; 
Lu. 14:34; Jo. 6:68; Ro. 10:14) or interrogative (cf. Mt. 6: 
31; 18:21; Mk. 12:14; Lu. 22:49).6 The kinship between 
delib. subj. and delib. fut. ind. is seen in Mk. 6 : 37, dyopdowyev 
kal dwoouev; The first person is the one of most frequent occur- 
rence (cf. Ro. 6:1), ri airnowuar (Mk. 6 : 24). But examples are 
not wanting for the second and third persons. Thus zés diynre 
amo Ths Kpicews THs yeevyns; (Mt. 23 : 33); ri yévnra; (Lu. 23 : 31). 
See further Mt. 26:14; Ro. 10:54. It is sometimes uncertain 
whether we have the subjunctive or the indicative, as in érepov 
mpocbokauev; (Mt. 11:38) and émravéeow buds; (1 Cor. 11 : 22). But 
note ri eizw byutv; in the last passage. In Lu. 11:5 we have both 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 212 f. 

*sPrOl Dads 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 199, 229. 
4 ‘Synt., Pt. I, p. 152. Ch.Goodwin, M-and 17.0292. 

* Blass,(Grof Ne TY GE pa2lis 

§ Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 77. 


MODE (EIKAI=I2) 935 


ris €€e. and elzy. So ri dot (Mk. 8:37, ACD duce) may be com- 
pared with ri dace (Mt. 16 : 26)... This ambiguity appears in ri 
rowow; and éyrw ti mornow in Lu. 16:3f. The deliberative subj. 
is retained in indirect questions. Cf. Mt. 6:31 with Mt. 6: 25. 
The kinship between the deliberative subj. in indirect questions 
and the imperative and the volitive subjunctive is seen in Lu. 
12:4 f., wy poBnOAre — brodeiEw 5€ duty riva hoBnOjre’ poBHOnre KTr. 
The deliberative subj., like the volitive, has various introductory 
words which make asyndeton (parataxis). These become set 
phrases like ades, dpa. Thus od Oéders éroudaowpev; (Mt. 26 : 17), 
Oéders eimwuev; (Lu. 9:54). In Lu. 18:41 we have ri cor dédes 
moijow; and wa dvaBd\eyw as the reply, using wa in the brief 
answer. Cf. further Mt. 13:28. In Jo. 18:39, Botdecbe ovy 
amo\vow, we probably have the subj. also. Some MSS. have 
ei wataéwuevy; in Lu. 22: 49.2 We may leave further discus- 
sion of the subj. to the subordinate clauses. We have no ex- 
amples in the N. T. of av with the subj. in independent sentences 
(but see xe and the subj. in Homer). In subordinate clauses av 
is very common, though not necessary, as will be seen.* (Cf. 
discussion of ¢, dc7s.) But Jannaris* gives instances of av with 
the subj. in principal clauses (futuristic) in Polybius, Philo, Plu- 
tarch, Galen, etc. With the disappearance of the fut. ind., the 
opt. and the imper., the subj. has the field as the “prospective 
mood.” It is found in the modern Greek as in ri va yivp (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 126). 

III. The Optative Mode (7 evxtiky EykXtots). It has already 
been shown that the optative does not differ radically from the 
subjunctive. Jannaris® calls the optative the ‘secondary sub- 
junctive.” 

1. History oF THE OpTaTiIvE. For the facts see chapter on 
Conjugation of the Verb. It is an interesting history and is well 
outlined by Jannaris® in his Appendix V, ‘The Moods Chiefly 
Since A. (Ancient Greek) Times.” It retreated first from de- 
pendent clauses and held on longest in the use for wish in inde- 
pendent sentences like yévo.ro. But even here it finally went 
down_before the fut. ind. and subj. The optative was a luxury 


a rlass, Gu .ol Neb. Gk:, p.210,. Ci. K.-G., Tl. I, p. 221. 

2 Tb. 

3 Cf. Paley, The Gk. Particles, p. 5. See Koppin, Beitr. zu Entwick. und 
Wiird. der Ideen iiber die Grundb. d. griech. Modi (1880). 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 564. On the subj. see further Earle, Cl. Papers, p. 221. 

eTb., p. 450.-- ans Ib., pp. 560-567. 


936 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of the language and was probably never common in the vernacu- 
lar. Certainly it is very rare in the vernacular xow7 (both inscrip- 
tions and papyri). It is a literary mood that faded before the 
march of the subj. In a hundred pages of the Memorabilia of 
Xenophon the optative occurs 350 times. He had a “hyperor- 
thodox love of the mood.’’! Plato’s Phaedo shows it 250 times 
in a corresponding space, but Strabo has it only 76, Polybius 37, 
Diodorus Siculus 13 times in a hundred pages.? The 67 examples 
in the N. T. are in harmony with the xown usage. Gildersleeve 
pithily says: ‘The optative, which starts life as a wish of the 
speaker, becomes a notion of the speaker, then a notion of some- 
body else, and finally a gnomon of obliquity” (A. J. of Phil., 1908, 
p. 264). In the LXX the optative is rare, but not so rare as in 
the N. T., though even in the LXX it is replaced by the subj. 
(Thackeray, Gr., p. 193) as in the late papyri and inscriptions 
(Radermacher, N. T. Gr., pp. 128, 135). 

2. SIGNIFICANCE. There is no definite distinction between 
the subjunctive and the optative in the Sanskrit. The Latin put 
all the burden on the subj., as the Greek finally did. The San- 
skrit finally made the optative do most of the work. In a word, 
the optative is a sort of weaker subjunctive.’ Some writers make 
the opt. timeless and used definitely of the past.® It is rather 
a ‘“‘softened future’’® sometimes flung back into the past for a 
Standpunkt. We do not’ know “whether the opt. originally ex- 
pressed wish or supposition.”’” The name does not signify anything. 
It ‘‘was invented by grammarians long after the usages of the 
language were settled.’”’® They just gave it the name evxrixn be- 
cause at that time the only use it had without av was that of 
wishing. The name is no proof that wishing was the primitive or 
the only function or the real meaning of the mode. We have 
precisely the same difficulty as in the subjunctive. Indeed, the 


1 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Phil., Jan., 1909, p. 19. According to Vandacle 
(L’Optatif Gree, p. 251) Plato et Xén. “ont donné 4 l’optatif la plus grande 
extension possible; Xénophon marque l’apogée.”’ The optative he also de- 
scribes as “un instrument d’une délicatesse infinie.”” See further Kupff, Der 
Gebr. d. Opt. bei Diod. Sic. (1903); Reik, Der Opt. bei Polyb. und Philo (1907). 

2 Schmid, Der Gebr. des Optativs bei Diod. Sic., 1903, p. 2. 

§ Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 218. In the original speech there was no clear 
distinction between the subj. and the opt. (Curtius, Temp. und Modi, 1846, 
p. 266). 

4 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 384. 

5 Baumlein, Griech. Modi, p. 177. tb. pecs 

§ Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 229. 8 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 375. 


MODE (EPKAIZI2) 937 


optative has three values, just like the subjunctive, viz. the 
futuristic (potential), the volitive (wishes) and the deliberative.! 
In the first and third kinds a is usually present, but not always. 
Brugmann? notes only two, omitting the deliberative as some 
scholars do for the subj. He does reckon a third use in indirect 
discourse, but this is merely the opt. in subordinate sentences 
and may be either of the three normal usages. The rare fut. 
opt. in indirect discourse illustrates the point (not in the N. T.). 
There is no doubt of the distinction between the futuristic (po- 
tential) with negative od (cf. futuristic subj. in Homer) and the 
volitive use with yu (cf. subj. again).2 But there was also a “‘neu- 
tral sense” that can hardly be classed either as futuristic or voli- 
tive. Gildersleeve® calls this the “‘optative in questions,”’ usually 
with av. This is the deliberative use. 

3. THE THREE USEs. 

(a) Futuristic or Potential. We begin with this whether it is 
the first in time or not. Delbriick® has taken several positions on 
this point. The use of the negative ot here shows its kinship with 
the future (cf. fut. ind. and aorist subj. in Homer).’? The ay was 
not always present in Homer and it is not the ay that gives the 
potential idea to the mode. In poetry the use without av con- 
tinued. ‘The optative is the ideal mood of the Greek language, 
the mood of the fancy.”’® Moulton® puts it clearly: “It was used 
to express a future in a milder form, and to express a request in 
deferential style.”’ Radermacher cites from Epictetus, II, 23, 1, 
dy jdvov avayvan — av Tis padov axovce, Showing clearly that the opt. 
and the fut. ind. are somewhat parallel. Moulton (Prol., p. 194) 
cites Deut. 28 : 24ff., where the opt. and fut. ind. alternate in 
translating the same Hebrew. I do not agree with Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 128) in seeing in #edov zapetvar (Gal. 4 : 20) a mere 
equivalent of Oé\o.we av. See imperfect ind. The presence of av 
gives “‘a contingent meaning’”’!® to the verb and makes one think 
of the unexpressed protasis of the fourth-class condition. The 


1 Giles, Man., p. 510. 3 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 375. 

2 Griech. Gr., pp. 504 ff. 4 Ib., p. 4. 

5 Synt., Pt. I, p. 154. Stahl (Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 236 f.) notes a “concessive 
opt.,”’ which is an overrefinement. It is merely a weakened form of wish 
(K.-G., Bd. I, p. 228) or of the potential use. 

6 Cf. his Konjunktiv und Optativ, Syntaktische Forschungen, Att.-indische 
Synt. In the last of these he suggests that the potential and wishing functions 
are distinct. in origin. 

7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 219. a Prol:; p: 197. 

§ Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 153: -% 10 Tb., p. 166. 


938 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


idiom has vanished as a living form from the vernacular xow7 in 
the N. T. times.! It appears only in Luke’s writings in the N. T. 
and is an evident literary touch. The LXX shows it only 19 
times outside of 4 Maccabees and 30 with it.2, Moulton® notes 
one papyrus which does not have ay (cf. Homer), though he would 
suspect the text and read as Mahaffy does otfev aly] eretraru, Par. 
P. 63 (ii/B.c.).. But curiously enough Luke has only one instance 
of this ‘softened assertion” apart from questions. That is in Ac. 
26 : 29 (critical text) evéatunv av. This fact shows how obsolete 
the idiom is in the xow7n. The use of av here avoids the passion- 
ateness of the mere optative (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 157). The 
other examples in Luke’s writings are all in questions and may 
be. compared with the subj. in deliberative questions. Only two 
examples appear of the opt. with av in direct questions. They 
are 7@s yap av duvaiunv éay un tis ddnynoe pe; (Ac. 8:31. The 
only instance of a protasis in connection with an optative apod- 
osis in the N. T.) and ri dv O€dou 6 creppoddoyos ovTos Neyer; (Ac. 
17:18). Both are rhetorical questions and the second has a de- 
liberative tone; see (c). In Ac. 2:12, Ehas ti av 6€\0. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 198) cites ris dy dan from Job 31:31 and holds that it 
does not differ from ris d6wn elsewhere (Num. 11:29). The other 
instances of av and the opt. are all in indirect questions, but the 
construction is not due to the indirect question. It is merely re-- 
tained from the direct. The use of the optative in an indirect 
question when the direct would have the indicative or the sub- 
junctive is not the point. This is merely the classic sequence of 
modes in indirect questions. See Lu. 8:9, érypwrwy tis ein. So 
Tu. 22:23 (cf. éoxet-in 24), 2 CivAc. 21: 33. oInulLusl 2oeioradas 
dv and MSS. vary with some of the other examples (cf. Lu. 
18 : 36). So a is correct in Lu. 15:26. Moulton (Prol., p. 198) 
cites Esth. 13:3 mvdouevou — rs dv axein and inscr. Magnes. 
215 (i/A.D.) érepwrd — Ti av movnoas dbeHs diatedoin. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 198) argues for “a minimum of difference’ in the 
examples of indirect questions with and without av. The differ- 
ence is in the direct question. The examples with av (W. H.’s 
text) in indirect questions are Lu. 1:62; 6:11; 9:46; 15:26; 
Ac. 5:24; 10:17.4 In all of these instances the deliberative ele- 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 197 f.; Blass, Gr. of N.T. Gk., p. 220. ? Prol., p. 197. 
3 Ib.,p. 198. He notes also 4 Macc. 5 : 18, cvyyrmoeev without &v. In the 
pap. ay is usually present with the potential opt. (Radermacher, N. T. Gk., p. 
129). Sometimes tows occurs with the opt., as tsws — arophoeer in Joh. Philop. 
* Burton, M. and T., p. 80; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 220. 


MODE (EIKAIZI>) 939 


ment is undoubtedly present; see (c). The same thing is true of 
Lu. 3:15 (uf wore), Ac. 17:27 (ei), but Ac. 25:16 (amply 4 in 
indirect discourse for subj. of the direct) is futuristic. 

(b) Volitive. Moulton! calls this use the ‘Optative Proper,” a 
curious concession to the mere name. It has been the most per- 
sistent construction of the optative, and (in independent clauses) 
thirty-eight of the sixty-seven examples of the N. T. come under 
this category.” Fifteen of the thirty-eight instances belong to mu} 
yevoiro, once in Lu. 20:16, and the other fourteen in Paul’s 
Epistles (10 in Romans, | in 1 Cor., 3 in Gal.).. Thumb considers 
the rare use of mu) yevorro in modern Greek (the only relic of 
the optative) a literary phenomenon, but Moulton? notes that 
Pallis retains it in Lu. 20:16. Moulton compares the persistence 
of the English optative in the phrase “be it so,” “so be it,” “be 
it never so humble,” etc. So he notes it in the papyri for oaths, 
prayers and wishes.’ O. P. 240 (i/a.p.) ed ein, O. P. 715 (ii/a.p.) 
évoxou einuev, O. P. 526 (ii/A.D.) xaipos, L. Pb. (ii/B.c.) ds dcd0in 
co, B. M. 21 (i1/B.c.) col 6€ yevorro. The N. T. examples are all 
in the third person except Phil. 20, éyw cov ovaiuny. One is a 
curse pnkere unoels payou (Mk. 11:14) and is equivalent to the im- 
perative. ‘‘There is a strong inclination to use the imperative 
instead of the optative, not only in requests, where the impera- 
tive has a legitimate place in classical Greek as well, but also in 
imprecations, where it takes the place of the classical optative: 
avabeua éorw, Gal. 1:8f. Cf. 1 Cor. 16:22.” Only in Mk.11: 
14 and Ac. 8 : 20, 76 dpytpiov cov atv col ein, do we have the opta- 
tive in imprecations in the N. T. The opt. comes very near the 
imper. in ancient Greek sometimes (Gildersleeve, p. 155). Cf. 
yivo.ro, P. Par. 26 (B.c. 163). In Ac. 1:20, where the LXX (Ps. 
109 : 8) has \éBo, Luke gives \aBérw.? There are only 23 exam- 
ples of the volitive optative in independent clauses outside of uy 
yévoiro. Paul has 15 of this 23 “(Ro. 15:5, 18; Phil. 20; 2 Tim. 
1:16, 18; 4:16, and the rest in 1 and 2 Th.), while Mark, Luke, 
Acts, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 2 Peter have one apiece, and Jude 
two.” They are all examples of the aorist optative except the 
present in Ac. 8:20. The negative is uy and a is not used. In 


' Prol., p. 194. 
2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 79; Moulton, Prol., p. 194. 
3 Ib., p. 240. 
4 Cf. Sweet, New Eng. Gr.: Synt., pp. 107 ff. 
5 Moulton, Prol., p. 195 f. Ue tor 
» ° Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 220. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 195, 


940 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2 Th. 3:16 doy 1s opt., not the subj. 6a7.. In 1. Th. 3; 12) the 
context shows that aepiccetoar is opt. (not aor. inf. nor aor. 
middle imperative).!. The rare use of the volitive opt. with «i 
(twelve cases in the N. T., but four belong to indirect questions), 
will be discussed under Conditional Sentences. If iva dwn is the 
correct text in Eph. 1:17, we probably have a volitive optative, 
the iva being merely introductory (cf. examples with the subj.) 
It is hardly a case of final tva with the optative. Blass? reads 
66 here subj. after B. In modern Greek Dr. Rouse finds people 
saying not uy yevoro, but 6 Beds va dvdaé (Moulton, Prol., p. 
249), though va is not here necessary (Thumb, Handb., p. 127). 
The ancient idiom with ei#e and ei yap is not found in the N. T., 
as stated already several times. ”"Odedov with the future ind. 
occurs for a future wish (Gal. 5 : 12). 

(c) Deliberative. There is little more to add here. The LXX4 
gives instances of ris dwn; (Num. 11:29; Judg. 9:29; 2 Sam. 
18 : 33, etc.) without év as in Homer, where a deliberative subj. 
would be admissible. ‘See also Ps. 120 (119) :3, ri do0€in cor Kat ri 
mpooteein cor; In Lu. 6:11 Moulton® remarks that ri av rovn- 
caev in the indirect question is ‘‘the hesitating substitute for the 
direct ri mrowjoouer;”” Why not rather suppose a “hesitating”’ 
(deliberative) direct question like ri dy Oé\ou 6 omreppoddoyos obdTOs 
Neve; (Ac. 17:18). As already remarked, the context shows 
doubt and perplexity in the indirect questions which have 4 and 
the opt. in the. N. TC iueil 625 6711505346 31s 26 SA cee 
10:17). The verbs (évevevoy, dvedadovr, elopOev Siadoyrouos, érvv- 
Oavero, duntopovv) all show this state of mind. See indirect question 
et BovAo.ro In Ac. 25:20 after dmopotmevos. Cf. 27:39. The de- 
liberative opt. undoubtedly occurs in Lu. 3:15, dcadoyrfouéevwv wh 
more aiTos ein 6 Xptords. It is not therefore pressing the optative 
unduly to find remnants of the deliberative use for it (cf. subj. 
and fut. indicative). 


1 They are all exx. of the third person save Phil. 20. Here is the list 
(with Burton’s errors corrected by H. Scott): Mk. 11:14; Lu. 1:38; 20: 
16; Ac. 8 3:20; Ro. 3::4,,6, OL S02 2 1b mii tcf, slop Oo eee eee eee 
5, 13; 1 Cor, 62°15; Galt 2 lira le Girls seri ass ee Lee ree 
bisse2 Th. 2 17.018} 37 p16; 82a Lime 1G SiS eG a Dee eee 
13 22151) Pet. 22 Pete oo ume. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 196. 

2 GT-OL) Newer ase eee 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 194. 

5 Ib., p. 198. On the “development principle” of the opt. see Mutzbauer, 
Konj. und Opt., p. 159. vr 


MODE (EPKAIZI>) 941 


IV. The Imperative (1) tpoctatiKh €yKAtcts). 

1. ORIGIN OF THE IMPERATIVE. See chapter on Conjugation 
of the Verb for discussion of the various devices used by this 
latest of the modes in order to get a foothold. Giles,! after 
giving the history of the imperative forms (five separate strata), 
curtly dismisses it as not properly a mode and declines to discuss 
it under syntax. So Radermacher passes it by in his N. T. Gr. 
Moulton,” on the other hand, takes it up “‘first among the moods”’ 
because “‘it is the simplest possible form of the verb.” It is the 
simplest in one of its forms like the interjectional aye, but it is 
also the latest of the modes and is without a distinct set of end- 
ings. Besides, it never dislodged the aorist subj. from the second 
person in prohibitions and finally gave up the fight all along the 
line. The modes were slower than the tenses in making sharp dis- 
tinctions anyhow, and in the Sanskrit “‘no distinction of meaning 
has been established between the modes of the present-system and 
those (in the older language) of the perfect- and aorist-systems.’’? 
The ambiguity of the imperative persists in the second person 
plural present where only the context can decide the mode. Thus 
épauvate (JO. 5:39); micrevere (14:1); ayaddaobe (1 Pet. 1:6); 
oixodouetabe (2:5); redetre (Ro. 13 : 6); xadigvere (1 Cor. 6:4); cf. 
Jo. 12:19. The perfect form icve (Jas. 1 : 19; Heb. 12 : 17) shows 
the same situation. 

2. MEANING OF THE IMPERATIVE. In its original significance it 
was demand? or exhortation. But, as will be shown, it was not 
confined to this simple idea. Besides, the notion of command 
(or prohibition) was expressed in various ways before the impera- 
tive was developed. These uses of the other modes continued to 
exist side by side with the imperative till the N. T. time. Ex- 
amples of this will be given directly. The imperative itself was 
extended to include various shades of the future ind., the subj. 
and the opt. There is a general sense in which the imperative is 
distinct, as is seen in dyarGre robs éxPpods budv (Mt. 5:44), but 
this idea of command easily softens to appeal as in kipie, cdaor, 
émoNbyeda (Mt. 8 : 25). 

3. DISAPPEARANCE OF THE IMPERATIVE Forms. It was the 
last mode to get on its feet. It followed the optative into ob- 
livion save in the second person (Thumb, Handb., p. 154). There 
the forms held on in the main, but the present subjunctive with 
uh came also into use instead of uf and the present imper., and 


1 Man., pp. 464-473, 502. 3 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 220. 
ae Prols ps 111; 4 Delbriick, Die Grundl., p. 120. 


942 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


finally the hortatory (positive) subj. also appeared asimper. In 
the third person (both positive and negative with un) as and 
the subj. drove out the imperative. Thus the imperative forms 
in modern Greek present a wreck, if indeed they were ever much 
else! The imperative, like the subjunctive, is always future 
in time, though it may apply to the ammediate future as in 
“quit that.” 

4, ALTERNATIVES FOR THE IMPERATIVE. These, under all the 
circumstances, can be logically treated before the imperative 
itself. Indeed, they have already been discussed in the preceding 
remarks on tense and mode, so that little in addition is required. 

(a) The Future Indicative. See ch. XVIII, Tense, where it is 
shown that the Volitive Future is the equivalent of the impera- 
tive. The fut. ind., like the subj. and the opt., may be merely 
futuristic or volitive, or deliberative. The volitive future is a 
matter of context and tone of voice, to be sure, but that is true 
also of the subj. and opt., and, in truth, of the real imperative. 
But more of the ‘‘tone of the imperative” further on. English, 
as well as Greek, continues to use this volitive future. Both posi- 
tive and negative (ov) commands are given by the fut. ind. The 
negative is sometimes py as In yw BovAnoecbe eidevac (Demosthenes), 
un egeorar (B. U. 197, 1/A.D.), undeva pronoere (Clem., Hom., III, 69).? 
So also ov un with the fut. ind. is sometimes prohibition, as in od 
uy €orar cow Tovro (Mt. 16:22). Cf. also Gal. 4:30. But it is 
commonest in the simple future like ot é~y (Mt. 27:4); dyets 
bWeobe (27: 24); exxoWers (Lu. 13 : 9); otk ececbe (Mt. 6: 5), ete. It 
is true that this use of od proves the origin of this idiom to be “a 
purely futuristic form,’’* as is the case with the question ov zaton 
diactpepwv; (Ac. 13:10), but the tone of this future is volitive 
(imperatival). The Latin use of the volitive future coincides 
with that of the Greek. Gildersleeve‘ says: “It is not a milder 
or gentler imperative. A prediction may imply resistless power 
or cold indifference, compulsion or concession.” The exact 
shade of idea in this volitive future must be watched as closely 
as in the imperative itself. Cf. xadeoers (Mt. 1:21) with od dyn 
(Mt. 27:4). Blass® denies that this is a ‘classical’ idiom (against 


1 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 449, 451, 555 ff.; V. and D., Handb. (Jebb), p. 
322 f.; Thumb, Handb., p. 127. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 177. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., p. 117. 

® Moulton, Prol., p. 177. 

4 Synt., Pt. I, p. 116: Cf. W.-Th.,’p. 316. 

5. Gr..of N.. T.:Gk., p. 209. 


MODE (EPKATSIS) 943 


Gildersleeve) and ‘rather minimizes its use in the N. T. Many 
of the examples do come from the O. T. (LXX) legal language. 
Certainly in the LXX the fut. ind. often replaces the imperative 
under the influence of the Hebrew (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). But 
examples occur where the two are equivalent. Cf. ayarnoes in 
Mt. 5:43, with ayarare in 5:44, épetre in Mt. 21:3, with’ erate 
in Mk. 11:3. Some MSS. have éo7w rather than éora in Mt. 
20 : 26. 

(b) The Subjunctive. The volitive subjunctive is quite to the 
point. In the first person this use of the subj. held its own al- 
ways in lieu of the imperative. It is needless to repeat the dis- 
cussion of this matter (see Subjunctive in this chapter). The use 
of iva with the subj. in an imperatival sense is seen in Mk. 5 : 23 
(6: 25); Eph. 5: 33 is there discussed also. Cf. Tit. 2:4. Let uy 
oxicwpev av’Tov, dddAa Aaxwuev (JO. 19 : 24) serve as an example. So 
in the second person the aorist subj. held its place in prohibitions 
past xo.wwy times to the practical exclusion of the aor. imper. with 
un. The two constructions existed in the xown side by side with 
the third person. Thus yu) yrorw (Mt. 6:3) and py tis ekovdernon 
(1 Cor. 16:11). Cf. 66s and pi droorpadjs in Mt. 5:42. The 
final triumph of the subj. over the imperative (save in the second 
person) has been shown. Cf. the fate of the opt. before the subj. 

(c) The Optative. There is only one example, pnxére pndels payor 
(Mk. 11:14), in the N. T. The distinction between a curse and 
a prohibition is not very great. The parallel passage in Mt. 21: 
19 has! ob unkére Ek cod Kapros yéerntar (volitive subj.). 

(d) The Infinitive. The idiom is very frequent in Homer.’ It 
occurs chiefly after an imperative. The command is carried on 
by the infinitive. There is no need for surprise in this construc- 
tion, since the probability is that imperative forms like detéac (like 
the Latin legimini, Homeric \eyé-pevar) are infinitive in origin.’ It 
is true that the accent of the editors for the aorist active optative 
is different from the aorist active inf. in forms like xarevOivat, repio- 
cevou (1 Th, 3:11f.), but the MSS. had no accent. We could 
properly print the infinitive if we wished.t So as to rapakadéoar 
(2 Th. 2:17) where the accent is the same for both infinitive 
and optative (the imper. form aor. mid. sec. singl. is mapaxa- 
Neca). Cf. Barricac and Barrioa, one and the same form. The 
idiom is less frequent in the Attic® outside of laws and maxims, 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 179. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 179. 


2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 162. 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 222. 
3 Giles, Man., p. 468. 


944 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


but happens to be the one infinitive construction that is alive in 
the Pontic dialect to-day.1. Moulton? expresses surprise at the 
rarity of this use of the inf. in the N. T., since it is common in 
the papyri. Cf. é&etvar, uicbGca, A. P. 86 (i/A.D.). Moulton 
(Prol., p. 248) notes that Burkitt (Hvang. da-Mepharr. ii, 252 f.) 
reads tatdra 6€ roijoar KaKetva pr adetvac in Mt. 23:23. Blass? 
notes also a revival of the simple inf. or the accusative and in- 
finitive in the later language in legal phraseology. He explains 
the idiom as an ellipsis, but Moulton is undoubtedly correct in 
rejecting this theory. There is no need of a verb of command 
understood in view of the etymology of a form like Bartica. The 
use of xaipew as greeting in epistles (with the nominative) is ex- 
plained in the same way. Cf. Ac. 15 : 23; 23:26; Jas. 1:1. It 
is the absolute use of the infinitive as often. It is very common 
in the papyri, as [HloAvxparns t&u rarpl xaipev, P. Petr. II, xi, 1 
(iii/B.c.). So Moulton (Prol., p. 180) denies the necessity of the 
ellipsis of a verb of command. In Ro. 12:15 xaipev and kdaiev 
are clearly parallel with ev\oyetre Kal pw} Katapacbe. So in Ph. 3 :16 
aroxeivy is to be compared with the hortatory dpovayuer. Blass4 
needlessly wishes to emend the text in 2 Tim. 2: 14, so as not to 
read yu Aoyouaxetv. This use of the inf. occurs also in Tit. 2: 9. 
We probably have the same construction in yw) ovvavapiyvuobar 
(2 Th. 3: 14), though it may be explained as purpose. In 1 Cor. 
5:12 xpivew is the subject inf. In Lu. 9:3 after efzev the quo- 
tation begins with Myéev aipere and is changed to pyre Exe (indi- 
rect command). In Mk. 6:8 f. both forms are indirect (one with 
iva pnoey aipwow, the other with pi) evdtcacbar). The marg. in 
W.H. has pi evdtonobe. The MSS. often vary between the middle 
inf. and imper. or subj. Winer® thinks that expositors have been 
unduly anxious to find this use of the infinitive in the N.T. But 
it is there. See further chapter XX, Verbal Nouns. 

(e) The Participle. Winer® found much difficulty in the abso- 
lute use of the participle in the N. T. The so-called genitive ab- 
solute is common enough and the participle in indirect discourse 
representing a finite verb. It would seem but a simple step to 
use the participle, like the infinitive, in an independent sentence 
without direct dependence on a verb. Winer admits that Greek 
prose writers have this construction, though ‘‘seldom.”’ He ex- 


Hatz., Einl., p. 192. Cf. Thumb, Hellen., p. 130 f. 


1 
25PYOLA pul 79 tf; 

* Gr..of Nei Gkaps222: 5 W.=Th5p.13163 
4" Tb: S Ib ipproodr. 


MODE (EPKAI=Iz) 945 


plains it on the ground of ellipsis of the copula as is so common 
with adjectives (cf. Mt. 5: 3-11). He passes the poets by (often 
the truest index of the vernacular) and admits “the Byzantine 
use of participles simply for finite verbs.” T. 8. Green! says: 
“The absolute use of the participle as an imperative is a marked 
feature of the language of the N. T.” He explains it as an “ Ara- 
maism.” ‘To this W. F. Moulton? expresses surprise and admits 
only ‘the participial anacoluthon,”’ which, by the way, is very 
much the same thing. But J. H. Moulton’ has found a number 
of examples in the papyri where the participle is fairly common 
for the indicative. The instances in the papyri of the participle 
in the sense of the imperative are not numerous, but one of them 
seems very clear. Thus Tb. 59 (i/B.c.) é ots éayv mpoadénobé pov 
émitaocovrTés or tpoOvuorepov. It is preceded by a genitive abso- 
lute. Moulton gives another equally so: G. 35 (i/B.c.) érpedduevor 
ww’ byaiynte. Moulton?’ cites also the Latin form sequimini (= 
érouevor) for the second middle plural present indicative. The 
similar looking form sequimini imperative has an_ infinitive 
origin, as already shown. See chapter XX, Verbal Nouns, for 
other examples and further discussion. On the whole, therefore, 
we must admit that there is no reason per se why the N. T. 
writers should not use the participle in leu of the imperative. 
It is, of course, a loose construction, as ellipsis is and anaco- 
luthon is, but it is not the mark of an uneducated person. In the 
papyrus example (Tb. 59) given above Grenfell and Hunt call the 
writer ‘‘an official of some importance.”? Moulton® also trans- 
lates Thumb® concerning the ‘‘hanging nominative” (common in 
classical and xown Greek) as saying that the usage “is the pre- 
cursor of the process which ends in modern Greek with the dis- 
appearance of the old participial construction, only an absolute 
form in —ovras being left.’’ In the ellipsis of the copula it is not 
always clear whether the indicative or the imperative is to be 
supplied. Cf. ebdoyntés 6 beds (2 Cor. 1:3). Shall we supply 
éotw or Hrw (éoTw) as we have it in 1 Cor. 16:22? In a case like 
1 Pet. 3:8f. it is plain that the unexpressed éo7ve would be im- 
perative, but Moulton notes the curious fact that éore (impera- 
tive) does not appear in the N. T. at all, though we have ich five 
times, éorw or #7w fourteen, and éctwoay twice.’ There are in- 


1 Gr., p. 180. - 8 Prol., p.223. 5 Ib., p. 225. 

2 W.-Moulton, p. 732, n. 5. JP abey, 6 Hellen., p. 131. 

7 Mr. H. Scott notes the absence of éore in the H. R. Conc. of the LXX, 
in Veitch, in Kihner-Bl., Mayser, Helbing, Thackeray. In Goodspeed’s 


946 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


stances more or less doubtful, as érupipavres (1 Pet. 5: 7), which is 
naturally taken with rarevwnre as Moulton! now admits. He 
evidently reacted too strongly against Winer. This use of the 
participle should not be appealed to if the principal verb is pres- 
ent in the immediate context. Sometimes it is a matter of punc- 
tuation as in Lu. 24:47, where W. H. give in the margin 
aptdpevor ard "lepovoadip byuets uaptupes ToUTwr, instead of ’Iepovcadjp’ 
tuets. The marginal punctuation takes the participle as an im- 
perative. The MSS. sometimes vary, as when NC give évéeiéaobe 
in 2 Cor. 8: 24, while B, ete., have évéexvipero.2 But a num- 
ber of unmistakable examples appear both in Paul and Peter, 
though “Paul was not so fond of this construction as his brother 
apostle.”’* Thus éyovres (1 Pet. 2: 12) must be so explained or 
taken as anacoluthon (cf. aréxecbar). So troraccouevor (1 Pet. 2: 
18; 3:1) reminds one of Eph. 5:22, an “echo” according to 
Moulton. Other examples occur in 1 Pet. 3:7, 9, possibly 16 
also; 4:8 ff. Besides évexouevor and orovdafovres (Eph. 4: 2 f.) and 
iroraccouevor. (5:2) in Paul the most outstanding example is in 
Ro. 12:9f., 16f. These participles occur in the midst of impera- 
tives or infinitives as imperatives (12 : 15). The asyndeton makes 
it impossible to connect with any verb. In verse 6 éxovres ap- 
pears as a practical indicative. Moulton* adds to these 2 Cor. 
9:11f. and Col. 3:16. See also Heb. 18:5. But Lightfoot? 
put in a word of caution when he said: “The absolute participle, 
being (so far as regards mood) neutral in itself, takes its colour 
from the general complexion of the sentence.” The participle is 
not technically either indicative, subjunctive, optative or im- 
perative. The context must decide. In itself the participle is 
non-finite (non-modal) like the infinitive, though it was some- 
times drawn out into the modal sphere. 

5. Uses oF THE IMPERATIVE. 

(a) Command or Exhortation. In general the imperative keeps 
within the same limits observed in the classical language, but 
that is not a narrow groove.’ It is the mood of the assertion of 
one’s will over another or the call of one to exert his will. Thus 


Index Pat. he finds it only in 1 Clem. 45:1, and the accent is doubtful here. 
He finds it also in Test. XII Pat. Reub. 6:1. It could have been used in 
Napht. 3: 2 and in Ign. Eph. 10: 2. 


1 Prol., p. 181, against his former view in Expositor, VI, x. 450. 
2<Ib; 

*sIb. 5 On Col. 3: 16f. 

<a, 6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 221. 


MODE: (EIKAIZI2) 947 


ayarare Tovs ExOpovs tuav (Mt. 5:44); eicedOe els 7d Tapetdv cov Kal 
mpocevéa (6:6); mavrore xaipere (1 Th. 5:16). Moulton! finds 
the imperatives “normal in royal edicts, in letters to inferiors, 
and among equals when the tone is urgent, or the writer indis- 
posed to multiply words.” The imperatives in Rev. 22:11 are 
probably hortatory. 

(b) Prohibition. This is just a negative command and differs 
in no respect save the presence of the negative uj. Thus pu} xpl- 
vere (Mt. 7:1), un doBetabe (Jo. 6 : 20). Often the presence of the 
imperative in the midst of indicatives is shown by yf as in pA 
mAravacbe (1 Cor. 6:9). We do, indeed, have od with the impera- 
tive in marked contrast, where the force of the negative is given 
to that rather than to the mode. Thus in 1 Pet. 3:3, écrw odx 6 
— Koopos, aA’ 6 KpuTTOs THs Kapdias avOpwros. ‘The same explana- 
tion applies to od uovov — adda xai in 1 Pet. 2:18, but pu) pdvoy 
is regular in Jas. 1:22, etc., because of yiveo6e understood. In 
cases of contrast with oi — adda (with participles and impera- 
tives) the reason for od is thus apparent (H. Seott). In Mt. 
5 : 37 od od (like vai vai) is the predicate (like a substantive), not 
the negative of éorw. In 2 Tim. 2:14 én’ ovdé& yphomor (a 
parenthetical expression of 7) Noyouaxetv used as an imperative), 
the negative goes specifically with the single word ypjomorv. Cf. 
also 1 Cor. 5:10. The upshot is that uw) remains the negative 
of the imperative. Cf. uy por korous tapexe (Lu. 11: 7). 

(c) Entreaty. A command easily shades off into petition in 
certain circumstances. The tone of the demand is softened to 
pleading.2 Moulton® notes that the imperative has a decided 
tone about it. ‘The grammarian Hermogenes asserted harsh- 
ness to be a feature of the imperative; and the sophist Protagoras 
even blamed Homer for addressing the Muse at the beginning 
of the Jad with an imperative.”* The N. T. shows a sharp de- 
parture in the use of the imperative in petitions (rare in the older 
Greek and in the xown). The prophet pleads with the imperative, 
not with potential optative or future indicative. Jesus spoke 
with authority and not as the scribes.® ‘‘ Moreover, even in the 
language of prayer the imperative is at home, and that in its 
most urgent form, the aorist. Gildersleeve observes (on Justin 
Martyr, p. 1387), ‘As in the Lord’s Prayer, so in the ancient Greek 
liturgies the aorist imper. is almost exclusively used. It is the 

1. Prol.epalia: 4 Ib. 


2 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 158. 5 Mt. 7: 29. 
S35 Rrolepel ees 


948 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


true term for instant prayer.’ ’’! Gildersleeve? denies that the 
N. T. shows “the absolute indifference that some scholars have 
considered to be characteristic of Hellenistic Greek’”’ in the use 
of the imperative. He credits Mr. Mozley with the observation 
that ‘the aorist imperative is regularly used in biblical Greek 
when the deity is addressed; and following out this generalization 
Herr Krieckers, a pupil of Thumb’s, has made a statistical study 
of the occurrences of the two tenses in Homer, Hesiod, Sappho, 
Aischylos, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, with the result 
that in prayers addressed by men to men both present and aorist 
are often used, whereas in prayers addressed by men to gods the 
aorist largely predominates.’’ Examples’? of the imperative in 
petitions appear in Mk. 9 : 22, BonOyoov nuty, (Lu. 17: 5) mpdcdes 
nucy ior, (Jo. 17:11) thpyncov adrods &y TB ovouaTi cov. 

(d) Permission. All this is in strict line with the ancient Greek.‘ 
A good illustration is seen in Mt. 26:45, xadevdere ourov Kal ava- 
mavecbe. This is not a question nor necessarily irony. It is too 
late to do Christ any good by keeping awake. He withdraws his 
plea for watchfulness. There is irony in 7Anpwoare (Mt. 23 : 32), 
though it is the permissive use of the imperative. The note of 
permission is struck in é\arw and ércorpadntw (Mt. 10:13). Cf. 
the fut. ind. in Lu. 10:6. See further ywprrécOw (1 Cor. 7: 15); 
dyvocitw (14:38, W. H. marg.). In 2 Cor. 12:16 écrw 6é is like 
_ our ‘Let it be so’ or ‘Granted.’ In Mt. 8:31 amocredov is en- 
treaty, brayere (32) is permissive. In 1 Cor. 11:6 xecpdcOw is 
probably hortatory. 

(e) Concession or Condition. It is an easy step from permis- 
sion to concession. This also is classical.5 Take Jo. 2 : 19, \boare 
Tov vaoyv TovTOV, Kal év TpLoly Huepas Evyep@ a’tov. ‘This is much the 
same as éay AUonre. It is not a strict command. We have para- 
taxis with xai, but it is equivalent in idea to hypotaxis with édv. 
So with dvriornte 7TH SiaBdrAw, Kal hevEerar ad’ budv (Jas. 4:7 f.); 
avaota éx Tay vexpav (LXX), kal émidatoe cor 6 Xpioros (Eph. 5 : 14). 
See also pu) xpivere, kal ov wn KpiOre’ Kal pr KaTadiKafere, Kal ob ph 
KatadikacOyre’ amodveTe, Kal amo\vOnoeobe didoTe, Kal doOnoetar duty 
(Lu. 6:37 f.). Then again paxpoBiunoor ex’ éuol, kal ravra arodwow 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 173. 

2 Am. Jour. of Philol., Apr., 1909, p. 235. 

3 Cf Burton Ne DL Misends paso. 

4 Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 158; Miller, The Limitation of the Imperative 
in the Attic Onion, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1892, PP. 399- 436. 

5 Cf. K-Ge Bdalips 236: 


MODE (EIKAISIS) 949 


co (Mt. 18: 26). So also rodro rote: cal non (Lu. 10 : 28); epyvecde 
kal OWeobe (Jo. 1:39). Cf. detve kat rounow (Mt. 4:19). Sometimes 
two imperatives are connected by xai when the first suggests con- 
cession. Thus Eph. 4 : 26, dpyifecbe kai ui duapravere. So also 
épatynoov kat ide (Jo. 7:52). Cf. epxov kal ide (Jo. 1:46). This 
seems simple enough. | 

(f) In Asyndeton. It is a regular classic idiom! to have aye, 
gépe With another imperative. "Aye with xdatcare (Jas. 5:1) is 
an interjection like dedpo axodovder wor (Mt. 19 : 21) and dedre idee 
(Mt. 28:6). See also Jo. 4:29; 21:12; Rev. 19:17. More 
common is traye and brayere with another imperative. So izaye 
mparov duadrdayni. (Mt. 5 : 24); brayere amayyetdare (28:10). See 
further Mt. 8:4; 18.:15;°21 : 28; 27:65; Mk. 1 : 44; 6: 38, ete. 
In Mt. 16:6 we have dpdre xal mpocéxere. Cf. also Lu. 12:15. 
But asyndeton occurs in Mt. 24:6, épare ui Opoeiche. So dpare 
Bderere (Mk. 8:15). In Mt. 9:30 the persons and numbers are 
different, dpare undels yuvwoxerw. In Rev. 19:10, dpa un, the verb 
with uy is not expressed. For dpa ronoes see also Heb. 8:5 
(LXX). The simplest form of asyndeton is seen in Ph. 3:2, 
Prémere, BEweTe, BErreTE. 

(g) In Subordinate Clauses. The reason for treating this sub- 
ject here is that it is so rare that one may not catch it in the dis- 
cussion of subordinate clauses. It is well established, though 
rare, in Demosthenes, Lysias, Plato, Thucydides and the tragic 
poets.2, The case of adore at the beginning of a clause is not perti- 
nent, for there it is a mere inferential conjunction, as, for in- 
stance, 1 Cor. 3:21, &ore punéeis kavxacOw. Here wore is not a 
hypotactic conjunction. Neither is the recitative 67: in point, as 
in 2 Th. 3:10, rotro rapnyyeddAouev bytv, Ste ei Tis ov OeXEL Epyace- 
oOo, unde éoférw. In 1 Cor. 1:31 there is probably an ellipsis of 
yevntat after iva, and the imperative kavxac6w is in the direct quo- 
tation after yéyparrar. In 1 Pet. 1:6, & @ ayadXtdobe (probably 
imperative), W. H. begin a new sentence, but @ points back di- 
rectly to xaipS as its antecedent. The same situation occurs 
in 1 Pet. 3:3 with év écrw. In both examples the imperative 
appears with the relative. Two other instances of this construc- 
tion are found in 1 Peter (a peculiarity of this Epistle). They 
are @ avtiornre (5:9) and els fv orfre (5:12). We see it also in 
Heb. 18:7, av — umetobe, and in 2 Tim. 4:15, dv kai od dudacoov. 
Cf. O. P. 1125, 19 (ji/a.p.), dv Oéua Kabapov aro TavTwY avadoTw. 


1 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 162. 
20D DmLO.. 


950 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Aw at the beginning of the sentence was hardly felt as a rela- 
tive (inferential particle), but see 1 Cor. 14 : 18, 616 mpocevxécOw.! 

(h) The Tenses. This matter received adequate discussion 
under Tenses. It may simply be noted here that in positive 
sentences the aorist imperative is naturally common, especially 
frequent in the N. T. Cf. eicee — rpdcevéa (Mt. 6:6). The 
distinction between the present and the aorist is well seen in dpov 
Tov KpaBarrov cov kal mepirate. (Jo. 5:8). See also Jo. 2:16 and 
Ac. 12:8. As an example of the periphrastic present note ic@ 
éxwv (Lu. 19:17). The perfect is almost non-existent, but note 
mrepiuwoo (Mk. 4:39). The present imper. second person alone 
occurs in prohibitions which are forbidden as in course of action 
or as a present fact (‘quit doing it’).2 Cf. Ro. 6:13 for sharp 
differences in idea between i) tapioravere (course of action) and 
rapacthoate (at once and for all). In the third person a prohibi- 
tion may be either in the aorist imperative or the aorist subj. 
See the subj. mode for further remarks concerning the failure of 
the second person imperative aorist in prohibitions. 

(1) In Indirect Discourse. This subject will receive adequate 
treatment under this head (see below). All that is attempted 
here is to indicate that, when the imperative is not quoted 
directly (cf. 2 Th. 3:10), it may be expressed in an indirect 
command either by the infinitive (cf. \eywv pw) meprréuverv pnde 
mepiratety in Ac. 21:21) or by a conjunction like wa as in Mk. 
6:8, or thrown into a deliberative question as in bzodeléw Tiva 
poBnOqre (Lu. 12: 5). 


B. DEPENDENT OR HYPOTACTIC SENTENCES (YIOTAKTIKA 
"ABIOMATA) 

Introductory. 

(a) Use of Modes in Subordinate Sentences. There is no essen- 
tial difference in the meaning of the modes in subordinate clauses 
from the significance in independent sentences. The division is 
not made on the basis of the modes at all. Leaving out the 
imperative because of its rarity in subordinate sentences, the other 
three modes occur in almost all the subordinate clauses. The 
same mode-ideas are to be sought here as there. The subor- 
dinate clauses make no change in the meaning of mode, voice or 
tense. Burton® does say: “Others, however, give to the mood or 

1 Cf. Brug., Griech: Gr., p. 511. 


* Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 164. See also Thompson, Synt., p. 190 f. 
oN; TM and Die pacl. 


MODE (EPKAISI) 951 


tense a force different from that which they usually have in prin- 
cipal clauses. Hence arises the necessity for special treatment of 
the moods and tenses in subordinate clauses.”’ I cannot agree to 
this as the reason for the separate treatment. Sometimes in in- 
direct discourse after secondary tenses there may be a sequence 
of modes (true also in ancient Greek with final clauses after sec- 
ondary tenses), but that is so slight a matter that it bears no 
sort of proportion to the subordinate clauses as a whole. Gilder- 
sleeve (A. J. of Phil., XX XIII, 4, p. 489) regards the subordinate 
sentence as ‘the Ararat in the flood of change”’ and parataxis and 
hypotaxis as largely a matter of style. Some of the modal uses 
have survived better in the subordinate clauses, as, for instance, 
the futuristic aorist sub]. (ef. doris apynonrac in Mt. 10:33), but 
the subordinate clause did not create the idiom. Originally 
there were no subordinate sentences.' ‘In dependent clauses the 
choice of the mood is determined by the nature of each individual 
case’’? as is true also of independent sentences. The qualifica- 
tion made above about the sequence of modes was always op- 
tional and is absent from the N. T. except a few examples in 
Luke. The great wealth of subordinate clauses in Greek with 
various nuances demand separate discussion. But we approach 
the matter with views of the modes already attained. 

(b) The Use of Conjunctions in Subordinate Clauses. In chap- 
ter X XI, Particles, full space will be given to the conjunctions 
(co-ordinating, disjunctive, inferential, subordinating). Here it is 
only pertinent to note the large part played in the Greek language 
by the subordinating conjunctions. It must be admitted that 
the line of cleavage is not absolute. The paratactic conjunctions 
were first on the field. Popular speech has always had a fondness 
for parataxis.4’ In the modern Greek vernacular “the propensity 
for parataxis has considerably reduced the ancient Greek wealth 
of dependent constructions” (Thumb, Handb., p. 185). Hence 
long periods are rare. So the Hebrew used 1 both as paratactic 
and hypotactic. In the Greek xai we see a partial parallel.> In 
Mt. 26 : 15, ri OéXeTE wor Sodvar Kayw buty rapadwow, the xai is almost 
equivalent to éav. So often in Luke, as in 9: 51, éyevero 6é— kai, the 
xat clause is (like dr) the logical subject of eyevero. The common 
use of the recitative 6dr: illustrates well the close connection be- 
tween subordinate and independent sentences. The 67: shows 

1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 552. 4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 451. 


2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 452. 5 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 194. 
3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 552. 


952 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


that the clause is the object of the preceding verb, but the clause 
is preserved in the direct (co-ordinate) form. Cf. Néyere 671 BXa- 
ogdnuets (Jo. 10:36). Thus again a subordinate clause may be so 
loosely connected with the principal clause as to be virtually in- 
dependent.! Thus the relative, as in Latin, often introduces a 
principal sentence, a paragraph, forsooth, as év ois (Lu. 12:1) 
and avé’ dv (12:3). But, on the whole, we can draw a pretty 
clear line between the independent and the dependent clause by 
means of the conjunctions. The case of asyndeton, treated else- 
where (cf. The Sentence), concerns chiefly parataxis, but some 
examples occur in hypotaxis, as in kal éyevero—eirév tis (Lu. 
11:1) where the efzév 71s clause is the logical subject of éyévero. 

(c) Logical Varieties of Subordinate Clauses. Each subordinate 
clause sustains a syntactical relation to the principal clause after 
the analogy of the case-relations. The normal complete sen- 
tence has subject, predicate, object. Each of these may receive 
further amplification (see chapter X, The Sentence). The pred- 
icate may have a substantive (as subject or object). This sub- 
stantive may be described by an adjective. An adverb may be 
used with predicate, adjective or substantive. Thus the sen- 
tence is built up around the predicate. In the same way each 
subordinate sentence is either a substantive (subject or object 
like an 6rc clause), an adjective like dors or an adverb like ézov. 
This is therefore a point to note about each subordinate clause 
in order to get its exact syntactical relation to the principal 
clause. It may be related to the predicate as subject or object, 
or to the subject or object as adjective, or to either as adverb. 
A relative clause may be now substantive, now adjective and 
now adverb. In simple truth most of the conjunctions have their 
origin as relative or demonstrative pronouns. In Kihner-Gerth? 
the subordinate clauses are all discussed from this standpoint 
alone. Thumb (Handb., pp. 186 ff.) follows this plan. One 
questions the wisdom of this method, though in itself scientific 
enough. Burton® has carefully worked out all the subordinate 
clauses from this standpoint, though he does not adopt it. Then, 
again, one may divide these clauses according to their form or 
their meaning.*’ Viteau® combines both ideas and the result is 
rather confusion than clarification. There may be a series of 
subordinate clauses, one dependent on the other. So in 1 Cor. 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 194. SON. cE. Myandgie pase 
2 TI. IT,.2. Bd., pp. 354-459: 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 194 f. 
5 Le Verbe: Syntaxe des Propositions, pp. 41-144. 


MODE (ErKAIzI>) 953 


1:14, ebxapiotd bre obdeva budv EBarrica ei uw Kpiorov kal Taiov, iva 
Mn Tis ery Ore eis TO Euov Svoua EBarticOnre. See also Mk. 6:55 
and section 10 in this chapter. The infinitive and the participle 
are used also in subordinate clauses, but they do not directly con- 
cern the problem of the modes save in indirect discourse. They 
are so important and partake of the functions of both noun and 
verb to such an extent that they demand a separate chapter 
— XX. | 

1. RELATIVE SENTENCES. 

(a) Relative Sentences Originally Paratactic. The relative és, 
as is well known, was first an anaphoric substantive pronoun.! At 
first the relative clause was paratactic, a principal sentence like 
the other.? Cf. ds yap in Homer, where 6s may be taken® as de- 
monstrative or relative. In its simplest form the relative was 
unnecessary and was not even a connective. It was just a rep- 
etition of the substantive. ‘‘The relative force arises where 
ds (and its congeners) connects and complements.’”’® Indeed, the 
relative sentence is probably the oldest form of parataxis.° It is 
only by degrees that the relative clause came to be regarded as a 
subordinate clause.’ As a matter of fact, that was not always 
the case, as has been seen in such examples as éy ots, av0’ dy (Lu. 
12:1,3). But it is not true that this subordination is due to the 
use of the subjunctive mode.’ The effect of case-assimilation (cf. 
gender and number) and of incorporation of the antecedent was 
to link the relative clause very close to the principal sentence.?° 
GtoHeb.13 211: 

(b) Most Subordinate Clauses Relative in Origin. This is true 
not merely of 7c and ére which are accusative forms! of 6, but 
also of other adverbs, like the ablative ws, drws, éws. These sub- 
ordinating conjunctions therefore are mostly of relative origin." 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 556. 2 Ib., p. 559. 

$ Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 186. Stahl, Hist.-krit. Synt., p. 523, points out that 
the relative sentence is either “synthetic or parathetic.”’ 

4 Schmitt, Uber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Relativpartik. im 
Griech., 1889, p. 12. 

5 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 383. 

6 Frenzel, Die Entwick. des relat. Satzb. im Griech., 1889, p. 4. 

7 Thompson, Synt., p. 383. 

8 Baron, Le Pronom Relat. et la Conj. en Grec, 1892, p. 61. 

® Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 557. It was not always done (attraction) either in 
Herod. or Thuc. Cf. Reisert, Zur Attraktion der Relativsitze in der griech. 
Prosa, p. 30 f. 

10 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 561. 11 Thompson, Synt., p. 384. 


954 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cf. va, orore and perhaps ei. Tpiv, eel, axpt, wexpe are not relative. 
Thus the subordinate clauses overlap. Burton,! indeed, includes 
éws under relative sentences. That is not necessary, since thus 
nearly all the subordinate clauses would properly be treated as 
relative sentences. See the relative origin of various conjunctions 
well worked out by Schmitt,? Weber? and Christ.4 These clauses 
are mainly adverbial, though objective (and subject-clause also) 
dre (indirect discourse) is substantive simply. The word ws occurs 
in Homer with the three values of demonstrative, relative and 
conjunction (cf. English “that’’).6 But here we pass by these 
conjunctions from relative or demonstrative roots.’ The relative 
pronoun alone, apart from the adverbial uses, introduces the 
most, frequent subordinate clause, probably almost equal in some 
authors to all the other classes put together. In 1 Peter the rela- 
tive construction is very common. Cf. 1 Pet. 1 : 6-12; 2 : 21-24. 
At any rate it is the chief means of periodic structure.’ Take as 
an instance the period in Ac. 1 :1—2. Note av, aype js jyepas, ois, 
ois, all the subordinate clauses in the sentence except infinitive 
and participles. See also 1 Cor. 15: 1-2, where four relatives . 
occur and tiv Aoyw is almost like a relative. Cf. further Ro. 9: 
4f. The relative sentence may be repeated indefinitely with or 
without xai. 

(c) Relative Clauses Usually Adjectival. They are so classed 
by Kihner-Gerth.2 The descriptive use followed the original 
substantive idiom just as the relative itself was preceded by the 
demonstrative. Thus the use of the relative clause as subject 
or object like 6 and the participle is perfectly consistent. So 
ds ay eue deEnrar d€xeTat TOV arooTeiNavTa me (LU. 9:48). Cf. also 
Mk. 9:37; Ac. 16:12. The descriptive character of the relative 
clause is well shown in tiv paxatpay Tod mvebpatos 6 Eat phua Oeod 
(Eph. 6:17). Cf. 6s in 1 Tim. 3:16. The adjectival use of the 
relative sentence is accented by the use of the article with it in 
Ro. 16:17, cxoretv rods tas dtXooTacias Kal Ta oKavdada Tapa THY 
ddaxny jv vets EudOere movodvtas. Here the relative clause is ad- 
jectival, but in itself a mere incident between rovs and zovodyras. 
N. T.-M. and T.,-pp. 12683 4 
Uber den Ursprung des Substantivsatzes mit Relativpartik. im Griech. 
Entwickelungsgesch. der Absichtsitze. 

Der Substantivs. und das Rel. as. 
Baron, Le Pronom Rel. et la Conjonction en Gree, p. 130. 
Frenzel, Die Entw. des rel. Satzb. im Griech., p. 4. 


J. Classen, Beob. iiber den homerischen Sprachgeb., 1867, p. 6. 
Bd. II, pp. 420 ff. 


ona nt > Se Sle 


MODE (EPKAIZIZ) 955 


The clause is simply adjectival with was és in Lu. 12:8. That 
comes to be its most usual character. So with 6’ %s in Heb. 
12 : 28. 

(d) Modes in Relative Sentences. There is nothing in the rela- 
tive pronoun or the construction of the clause per se to have any 
effect on the use of the mode.! The relative, as a matter of fact, 
has no construction of its own.? In general in dependent clauses 
the choice of the mode is determined by the nature of the indi- 
vidual case.? Outside of relative clauses the choice in the N. T. 
is practically confined to the indicative and the subjunctive. 
The optative holds on in one or two examples. With the relative 
some examples of the imperative occur, as has already been shown. 
Siemon lterlo lite ieulos 2elimy 4:.15''1 Pet./5°:9: Heb. 
13:7. Cf. d0ev xaravonoare (Heb. 3:1). But the mode is not due 
at all to the relative. In a word, the relative occurs with all the 
constructions possible to an independent sentence. The indica- 
tive is, of course, the natural mood to use if one wishes to make 
a direct and clear-cut assertion. Thus ovdels tori ds adixey rHv 
oixiay (Mk. 10: 29). Cf. Jo. 10:12. The various uses of the sub- 
junctive occur with the relative. The deliberative subj. is seen 
in mod éorly TO kaTadvud pou Smov TO Tacxa pETA THY yalnTav pov 
payw; (Mk. 14:14; Lu. 22:11).6 Prof. Earle, in a fine paper 
on “The Subj. of Purpose in Relative Clauses in Greek” (Class. 
Papers, 1912, pp. 213 ff.) shows how Xenophon, Soph., Eurip., 
Plato and other Attic writers use the idiom. Cf. Xen., Anab., I, 
4, 20, obx e£ovow éexetvor dor diywow. See also Tarbell, Class. Re- 
view, July, 1892, ‘The Deliberative Subj. in Relative Clauses in 
Greek.’”’? The subj. may be volitive as in Ac. 21: 16, &yovres rap’ 
@ tevicOGuev Mvaowri tur, and in Heb. 8:3, d6ev avayxatov Exew Te 
kal TodTov 6 mpoceveyxn (cf. 6 tpocdeper in Heb. 9:7). In Heb. 12: 
28, bu’ is Aarpebwuev, the subj. may be conceived as either volitive 
(hortatory) or merely futuristic, more probably volitive like éxw- 
pev. Clearly futuristic is the subj. in Mt. 16 : 28, otvies ov un 
yebowvrat Oavarov. These examples appear isolated. Cf. subj. 
with ore (not relative) as in 1 Cor. 5:8, wore éoprafwuer (de- 
liberative). But the futuristic subj., so rare in the independent 
sentence after Homer, is very common in the relative clause with 


1 See, per contra, Baron, Le Pronom Rel. et la Conjonction en Gree, pp. 61 ff. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 189. 

3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 452. 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 383. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 217, explains this subj. as due to a “final mean- 
ing.’ D in Mk. reads ¢ayopat. 


956 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


av and sometimes without év. It is not the év that determines the 
subj., but the subj..usually has av. Thus és yap édv 6é\n and ds 6? 
dv amodéon Rec. (Mk. 8:35). Cf. do71s rnpnon (Jas. 2:10), though 
AKLP read rypjoe'(itacism). Cf. Mt. 10:33 and 38. In such 
relative sentences the future indicative is also very common, the 
two forms being closely allied in form and sense. Cf. és ay 6dyo- 
Noynoe (Lu. 12:8). See also doris duortoynoes and datis apynonrar 
(Mti 10%: 32 f.): 

(e) Definite and Indefinite Relative Sentences. Goodwin! has 
made popular the custom of calling some relative sentences ‘con- 
ditional relatives.’”’ He has been followed by Burton.2 Jannaris* 
considers conditional relative clauses “virtually condensed clauses 
capable of being changed into conditional protases.’”’ Almost any 
sentence is capable of being changed into some other form as a 
practical equivalent. The relative clause may indeed have the 
resultant effect of cause, condition, purpose or result, but in it- 
self it expresses none of these things. It is like the participle in 
this respect. One must not read into it more than is there. Cf. 
ds éxee @ta (Mk. 4:9) and 6 exw ara (Mt. 18:9). Cf. & rus in 
Mk. 4:23. One might as well say that 6 AauBavwy (Jo. 13: 20) is 
the same thing as és AauBave (cf. Mt. 10:38). There is a change 
from participle to relative clause in Mt.10:37f., 41 f. Cf. Mt. 12: 
30, 32; Lu. 9:50. So then ay twa réupyw (Jo. 13 : 20) is a condi- 
tional clause.t It is true that év twa does not occur in the N. T., 
but et rvs and dors differ in conception after all, though the point 
is a fine one. The MSS. sometimes vary between e ris and doris 
as we see in Mk. 8:34;1-Cor. 7:13. “In Jo. 14: 13f. note 
dre av aitnonre and éay te aitnonte. Note the distinction between 
5 kexapiouac and ef re kexapiouar in 2 Cor. 2:10. In Mk. 8: 34f. 
note et tis Béher — ds Edy OEAn. What is true is that the relative 
sentences are either definite or indefinite. It is not a question of 
mode nor of the use of av, but merely whether the relative de- 
scribes a definite antecedent or is used in an indefinite sense. 
The definite relative is well illustrated by 2 Th. 3:3, muords 6é 
éoTw 6 KUptos Os ornpiga, or Mk. 1: 2, tov ayyedov pou bs KaTacKevacel 
Thv Odov pov. So also xapu de’ js Natpebwuev (Heb. 12:28). Cf. 6 
mpoceveyxn (Heb. 8:3). But indefinite is és Exe, do0ncerar aiTa 
(Mk. 4: 25). In the same verse kal ds ovx éxet is indefinite, but xal 


A Leer 


5 éxe is definite. Indefinite also is dco HavTo (Mt. 14: 36) and 


1 Moods and Tenses, p. 197. 
2eN. Ty Mian Tp. 119: 3 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 470. 
4 Cf. Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 169. 


MODE (EIKAIZI>) | 957 


boo. dv iavto (Mk. 6:56). So also with ras ds épe? (Lu. 12 : 10) 
and mas ds dv duodoynoe (12:8). Cf. ds éorar (17:31) with ds éav 
éntnon (17:33) and és 6’ av drodéoe. Cf. Ac. 7:3, 7; Gal. 5:17. 
That it is not a question of mode is thus clear. Cf. ds éav én 
with és dv drodéce (Mk. 8:35). Thus note in Mk. 4:25 ds yap 
Exel doOncerar ai7G, but in Lu. 8:18 bs av yap evn dobhoerar airg.t 
So in Lu. 12:8 we have qés és ay ouodoyhoe ev euoi, but in Mt. 
10 : 32 mas doris duoroyjoe ev euoi. The use of doris is pertinent. 
It is either indefinite, as here, from the sense of ris=‘any one’ or 
definite from the sense of 71s = ‘somebody in particular,’ as in Lu. 
9:30, dvdpes dbo cuvedddovy a’t@ oltwes joay Mwiofs kal ’H)elas. 
Examples of the definite use of 071s may be seen ‘in Mt. 7: 26; 
- 16 : 28; 22 : 2; 27: 55, 62, etc. The indefinite use is seen in és 
boris axover (Mt. 7:24), doris exer (Mt. 13:12), doris tYwoe (Mt. 
23:12), but apparently no instance of égo7.s &v and the future ind. 
occurs. The indefinite use of dors with the subj. and & is uni- 
form (11 examples), as in dors éav 7 (Gal. 5:10), So71s av rouqon 
(Mt. 12:50). Cf. Col.3:17. We also find darts dpyponrar (Mt. 10: 
33), doris tTnpnon (Jas. 2: 10), but the definite use in Mk. 9:1. In 
2 Cor. 8:12, e&  mpoPupia rpdxertar, Kab éav exn, ebrpdadextos, ov 
Kalo ovk éxe, there is a pointed distinction between the subjunc- 
tive and the indicative modes.2. Thus the indicative occurs 
with either the definite or the indefinite and the subjunctive 
with the indefinite 122 times, the definite only Mk. 9:1=Mt. 
16:28. One may make a positive statement about either a 
definite or an indefinite relative or a doubtful assertion about 
either. The lines thus cross, but the matter can be kept distinct. 
The distinction is clearly perceived by Dawson Walker. The 
subjunctive with the indefinite relative, like that with érav and 
éav, 1S futuristic (cf. also future indicative). Moulton (Prol., p. 
186) argues that, since this subj. is futuristic and the aorist 
describes completed action, the aorist subj. here is really a fu- 
ture perfect. ‘“‘Thus Mt. 5:21, és av dovetoyn, ‘the man who has 
committed murder.’’”’ But this seems rather like an effort to in- 
troduce the Latin idiom into the Greek and is very questionable. 
(f) The Use of av in Relative Clauses. This is the place for 
more discussion of av, though, sooth to say, the matter is not 
perfectly clear. See also Conditions. It is probably kin to the 
Latin an and the Gothic an, and had apparently two meanings, 
1 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 139. 


CLAW = Thy p. 307: 
3 Hlem. Gk. Synt., 1897, p. 7. Cf. Biumlein, Unters. etc., p. 315. 


958 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


‘else’ and ‘in that case rather.’ Monro! argues that the pri- 
mary use of ay and xev is with particular and definite examples. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 166) translates Homeric éya 6€ kev a’ros €Xwpar 
by the Scotch ‘TI’ll jist tak her mysel’.’ There was thus a limi- 
tation by circumstance or condition. The use of av with relative, 
temporal and conditional clauses “ties them up to particular 
occurrences”? (Moulton, Prol., p. 186). It is not always quite so 
easy as that. This use of modal ay appears rarely in modern 
Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 188). “It is a kind of leaven in a 
Greek sentence; itself untranslatable, it may transform the 
meaning of a clause in which it is inserted’? (Moulton, Prol., p. 
165). That is putting it a bit strong. I should rather say that it 
was an interpreter of the sentence, not a transformer. Moulton. 
counts 172 instances of modal ay (éav) in the N. T. (p. 166). Mat- 
thew leads with 55, then Mark 30, Gospel of Luke 28 and Acts 
only 10, Paul’s Epistles 27, the Johannine writings only 20, He- 
brews 1, James 1. Mr. H. Scott fears that these figures are not 
correct, but they are approximately so. The MSS. vary very 
much. ‘These examples occur with ind. or subj. Moulton finds 
739 cases of modal av in the LXX (Hatch and Redpath). Of 
these 40 are with opt. (26 aorist), 56 with ind. (41 aorist, 6 
imp., 1 plup., 1 pres., 7 fut. ind.), the rest with subj. Rader- 
macher (NV. JT. Gr., p. 165) finds modal a in the xown decreas- 
ing and unessential with ind., subj. or opt. in relative, temporal, 
final or conditional clauses. The use with indefinite or general 
statements was rare in Homer, but gradually came to be more 
frequent. But in the N. T. some examples of the definite use 
of ay survive especially in temporal clauses. So in Rev. 8:1, 
drav jvokev. But drav ornxere (Mk. 11:25) may be general. 
There is doubt also about édzay owe eyevero (11:19). But in Mk. 
6:56, dco av jAYavro, the construction is rendered more definite 
by av, though Omou ay eloeropevero in the same verse is indefinite. 
In Mt. 14:36 we have dco jYavro, which is not more definite 
than Mark’s construction.2, In Rey. 14:4, dou av traye, the 
construction is indefinite. In Ac. 2:45 and 4:35, xafore ay tis 
etxev, we have repetition and so a general statement to that ex- 
tent. In Mk. 3:11, 67av abrov @ewpovy, it is general. In most in- 
stances in the N. T., therefore, the use of av is clearly in indefinite 
relative clauses whether with the indicative or subjunctive.? It 


1“ Hom’ Gr, pe 263.4: * Per contra see W.-Th., p. 306. 
3 Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 217) quotes as av ovvre\éoovow from an inser. in 
Viereck’s Sermo Graecus, p. 38. 





MODE (EIKAIZI2>) 959 


cannot be said that ay is necessary with the indefinite relative 
and the indicative. It does not occur in the N. T. with ée7.s and 
the future ind., but we have both ée7ts duoroynoe (Mt. 10 : 32) 
and ds dv duodoynoe (Lu. 12:8); ds €orac (Lu. 17:31) and ds ay 
amodéces (Mk. 8:35). For és &v and fut. ind. see Compernass, De 
Sermone Pis., p. 38. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 145) cites ds 
6’ ay aduxnoe, Inscr. Petersen-Luschan, Reisen, p. 174, N. 223, 
21. As already seen, the relative with the subj. usually has ay, 
as eis iv av wodw eloépxnobe (Lu. 10:8); drt dy rpocdaravfons (10: 
35). Cf. @ dv BovAnrac (10:22). In a few examples the best 
MSS. do not have &y, as in doris apyvnonrac (Mt. 10:33); do7ts 
Tnpnon — wraton 6€ (Jas. 2:10). The use of éav like &v has been 
shown (cf. Orthography) to be very common with relatives at 
this period. It is immaterial which is found. So és éav bon and 
ds av ronon (Mt. 5:19). The MSS. often vary between éy and 
av, as in Mt. 10:14; Ac. 7:7. So also dca éav OeAnte (Mt. 7: 12) 
and éca dv airnonre (Mt. 21:22). But in the N. T., as in the 
papyri, av is twice as common in relative clauses. Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 145) quotes dco. — éyXirwor, Inscr. Perg. 249, 26, 
and 6s avacrapaén (or av aor.) I. Gr. XII, 1, 671. Moulton (Prol., 
p. 169) cites C.P.R. 237 (ii/A.D.), dca att rpooréxnrar. He (ib., 
p. 168) quotes dc’ dy macxere F.P. 136 (iv/a.pD.), dca édv rape- 
AaBounv B.M. 331 (ii/a.p.). The a@ is not repeated with the 
second verb. So ds av roinon xat 6vdaén (Mt. 5:19). There is no 
instance of ay in a relative clause with an optative in the N. T. 
But in Gen. 33:10 the LXX has ws ay tis i601 rpdcwrov beod. So 
ois éav tixo, F.P. (see Moulton, Cl. Rev., 1901, p. 32). Rader- 
macher (N. T7'., Gr., p. 131) cites xad’ 6 adv pépos orpedorro from 
Philo. There is one instance of ay with the infinitive in the 
N. T. (2 Cor. 10:9), tva un d0Ew ws av ExpoBety buds, but av is here 
probably the same as éav and ws a4v=‘as if.’ The upshot of it all 
is that av has no peculiar construction of its own. It is more 
frequent with the subjunctive than with the indicative in rela- 
tive sentences, but is not absolutely essential with either mode.! 
In the Attic the subj. is invariable with ay, but ‘in the less cul- 
tured Hellenistic writers’? (Moulton, Prol., p. 166) it occurs with 
the ind. also. Curiously in the Gospel of John ay occurs with 
dotts Only in the neuter (Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 304). 
Always in the N. T. 67e éay=érr dy unless in Mk. 6: 23 the correct 
text is dr 6 éay as in margin of W. H. The text is probably correct 
(ef; Lu. 10:35; Ac. 3: 23, etc.). 
1 Cf. K.-G., Bd. II, pp. 421, 424. 


960 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(g) Special Uses of Relative Clauses. As in Latin,! the relative 
clause may imply cause, purpose, result, concession or condition, 
though the sentence itself does not say this much. This is due 
to the logical. relation in the sentence. The sense glides from 
mere explanation to ground or reason, as in 6 kal éorotdaca aito 
rovro moqoat (Gal. 2:10).. In 1 Cor. 3:17, 6 vads rod bod a&yuds 
éaTw oitwes éoTe buets, there is an argument in oirwes. This is 
clearly true? in Ro. 6:2, otrwes areOavouey TH auapTia, mas Ere 
tnoouev & atta; Cf. also Ac. 10:41, otrwes cuvedayouer Kal cvve- 
miouey att. See Gal. 5:4; otrwes &v vouw duxacodobe. Cf. Latin 
qui, quippe qui. A good example is seen in Ro. 8 : 32, és ye rod 
idtov viod oik éfetcato. Cf. also & éueddov (Rev. 3 : 2) and the com- 
mon év0° or (LuY1'?20)% -Cihr Ac 10's477RO 1 259325 eee 
20; Col. 3:5. Only the ind. mode occurs in the N. T. in this 
construction.? Purpose is also found in relative clauses (cf. Latin 
qui=ut vs). Either the future ind. or the subj. is used for this 
construction. When the subj. occurs it is probably volitive.t| So 
Burton? would explain all the cases of subj. of purpose with rela- 
tives, but wrongly. The use in Mk. 14:14 is analogous to the 
retention of the subj. of deliberation in an indirect question. 
Cf. the subj. of purpose with relative clause in Attic Greek.® 
But the subj. construction is Homeric (like Latin also). The Attic 
idiom is the future ind., and the future ind. also appears in the 
N. T. So és. xaracxevace (Mk. 1:2=Mt. 11:10=Luy 7:27), 
ds buas avauvnoe (1 Cor. 4:17) which may be contrasted with 
the merely explanatory relative 6s éoriv wou réxvov in the same 
sentence. So oities arodwaovew aitg@ (Mt. 21:41); of mpomopet- 
covra (Ac. 7:40; Ex. 32:1); ovx éxw 6 rapabjow (Lu. 11:6) where 
the Attic Greek would’ have 67. Sometimes iva occurs where a 
relative might have been used. So 2 Cor. 12:7 €660n pou oxddop 
— iva we Kodadifn, (Jo. 5:7) ok exw avOpwrov iva Bary we, (9: 36) 
iva muotevow eis avtov. Cf. Gal. 4:5; Rev. 19:15. Viteau® stri- 
kingly compares Mt. 10 : 26, 6 otk aroxadudOnoerar and 6 ob yrwo8n- 
cerar, With Mk. 4: 22, éav uu va davepwOf and iva €dOn els havepor. 
The variety of construction with és is illustrated by Mt. 24 :2 
(Lu. 21:6), ds ob xatadvOnoerar, and Mk. 13: 2, ds ob uh Karadv67. 


1 Draeger, Hist. Synt., Bd. II, p. 527. 

2 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and.-T., p. 118. 

3 Cf. K.-G., Bd. II, p. 421. BN. 'T. M.-and#ls po 126: 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 185. 6 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 217. 
™ Cr Blass; Gr; ofeNneetatiee eps ale: 

8 See Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 135. 


MODE (EIKAIZIzZ) . i ee al 


The classic idiom preferred the fut. ind. for purpose with the 
relative (Schmid, Atticismus, IV, p. 621), but Isocrates (IV, 44) 
has é¢’ ots ¢udotiunOSow. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 138) cites 
for the xown Diod. XI, 21, 3, 6’ ob tpdmou — avédn; XIV, 8, 3, 60’ 
av éféeXwow; Ach. Tatius, IV, 16, 13, dcov — dAaBn, ete. 

Purpose is often contemplated result so that the consecutive 
idea follows naturally that of design. Only the ind. future is used 
in the N. T., unless one follows Blass! in taking 6 rpocevéyxn (Heb. 
8:3) as result. A good instance of the future ind..is in Lu. 7: 4, 
divs éorw @ wapé~n, which may be profitably compared? with the 
non-final use of tva in Jo. 1:27, aéios iva AVow. Burton® prefers 
to call this a “complementary limitation of the principal clause,” 
a sort of secondary purpose. But the notion is rather that of 
contemplated result. The relative denotes a kind of consequence 
from a particular quality or state. See also Ph. 2: 20 ovédeva 
éxw icdpuxov daotis — wepiuvnoe, Mk. 10:29 ovdels Eorw Os adjjxev 
thy oixiav, Lu. 7:49 ris odds éotw Os kal duaptias adinow; Cf. 2 Th. 
3:3 motos 6s With 1 Jo. 1:9 miaros iva. | | 

An example® of the concessive use of ofrwes is seen in Jas. 4 : 14, 
oitives ovK Eriotacbe THs avpLoy Tota 7 Cw buav. 

The conditional use of the relative clause is only true in a 
modified sense, as already shown. The relative és and doris, 
whether with or without ay, does not mean ei rs or édv tus, though 
the two constructions are very much alike. There is a similarity 
between ef ris béXe0 (Mk. 9:35) and és dy Ody (10:48). But I 
do not agree to the notion of Goodwin’ and Burton’ that in the 
relative clauses we have a full-fledged set of conditional sentences 
on a par with the scheme with the conditional particles. That 
procedure is entirely too forced and artificial for the Greek free- 
dom and for the facts. There is a general sort of parallel at some 
points, but it is confusion in syntax to try to overdo it with care- 
ful detail as Viteau® does. “Av is not confined to the relative and 
conditional sentences, but occurs with éws, mpiv, ws, and dws 
(temporal and final clauses). The indefinite relative like és éay 
6é\n (Mk. 8:35) or darts duortoynoe (Mt. 10 : 32) is quite similar 
in idea to a conditional clause with éév 71s or el tus. But, after 
all, it is not a sonenatonel sentence any more than the so-called 


= teas. of N. T. Gk.,‘p. 218; 

2 Blass, ib., cites lon? ixavds ADoae in Mk. 1: r€ 

: N.T. M. and T., p. 126. 6 M. and T:, pp. 195 ff- 
4-Cf: K:=G., Bd. IL, Dr422 ee ete INP, M. and’T.; pp. 119 ff. 
‘Burton, Ne le Meander pelis. 8 Le Verbe, pp. 136 ff. 


962 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


causal, final, consecutive relative clauses are really so. It is only 
by the context that one inferentially gets any of these ideas out 
of the relative. All that is true about the indefinite relative 
clauses has already been explained under that discussion. I there- 
fore pass by any treatment of the kinds of conditional sentences 
in connection with the relative clauses. 

(h) Negatives in Relative Clauses. When the subj. occurs the 
negative is wn, as in és ay wy Exn (Lu. 8: 18), but od wn is found in 
Mk. 13:2, és od wy xaradv07. So in Mk. 9:1=Mt. 16:28 we 
have ov uy. With the indicative the negative is ov, as in és ob 
AauBave. (Mt. 10 : 38); ds yap otk Eore kad’ duav (Lu. 9:50). Oc- 
casionally when the relative is indefinite the subjective negative 
un occurs with the indicative. So@ wu) rapeoriw tratra (2 Pet. 1: 
9); 6 uy duodroye? (1 Jo. 4:3); & uy det (Tit. 1:11). So also D in Ac. 
15:29. Moulton (Prol., p. 171) calls this use of un a survival of 
literary construction. He gives also some papyri examples (7b., p. 
239) of uy in relative clauses: B.U. 114 (ii/A.D.) qv arodédwxev aire 
unre dtvara AaBetv, C.P.R. 19 (iv/A.D.) & un cvvepwvnoa. The use of 
un in relative clauses is more common in the xow.v7 than in the clas- 
sic Greek (Radermacher, NV. 7.Gr., p. 171). He cites examples 
from late Greek writers. There is nothing gained by explaining 
ov in relative clauses after the fashion of ei od in conditional sen- 
tences as is done by Burton.! 

2. CAUSAL SENTENCES. 

(a) Paratactic Causal Sentences. These do not properly be- 
long here, but there are so many of them that they compel 
notice. The common inferential particle yap introduces an in- 
dependent, not a dependent, sentence. Paul uses it usually to 
introduce a separate sentence as in Ro. 2:28; 1 Cor. 15:9. In 
1 Cor. 10:17 both 67 and yap occur. It will be treated in the 
chapter on Particles. Phrases like av@’ ay (Lu. 12:3), 66 (Mt. 
27:8), duorep (1 Cor. 8:13), dev (Ac. 26:19), bu’ qv airiay (2 
Tim. 1:6, 12), ob xapw (Lu. 7:47) are not always regarded as 
formally causal. The construction is sometimes paratactic. In- 
deed, the subordination of the é7e and é.drr clauses is often rather 
loose.2 Thus there is very little difference between é7 (begins 
the sentence with W. H.) in 1 Cor. 1:25 and ydp in 1:26. Cf. 
also éredn in 1:22. See further 67 in 2 Cor. 4:6; 7:8, 14, and 
dort in Ro. 3:20; 8:7. The causal sentence is primarily para- 

LN. T.-Meand T..ep2180: 


? Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 274. Cf. also Burton, N. T. M. and T., 
p. 98. 


MODE (EIKAIZI=) 963 


tactic. See Mt. 6:5; Lu. 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:29; Heb. 10:2. 
The subordinate relative is a later development.! 

(b) With Subordinating Conjunctions. One may say at once 
that in the N. T. the mode is always the indicative. There is no 
complication that arises save with éwei when the apodosis of a 
condition of the second class is used without the protasis as in 
Heb. 10:2, ézei otx av ératoavro. Here the construction is not 
due at all to érei. In the same way we explain eel ée. in Heb. 
9 : 26 and ézel wdeidere Gpa in 1 Cor. 5:10. There is ellipsis also 
in the rhetorical question in 1 Cor. 15 : 29, érel ri rouncovow; But 
in Ac. 5:38 f. two complete conditional sentences (é4y and éi, 
protasis and apodosis) occur with 67. In a word, it may be said 
that the indicative is used precisely as in the paratactic sentences. 
Cf. Jo. 14:19, dre eye £G Kal bets SHoere. 

The negative is usually od as in 1 Jo.2:16. Once in the N. T., 
Jo. 3:18, dre py) reriorevxey, we have yy, but ov is seen in 1 Jo. 
5:10, dre ob aweriorevxer. “The former states the charge, quod 
non crediderit, the latter the simple fact, quod non credidit”’ 
(Moulton, Prol., p. 171). Cf. dre wn in Epictetus IV, 4, 11; IV, 
5, 8-9. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 162, 535. The distinction is 
subtle, un being more subjective and ideal. In Heb. 9:17, ére 
uu) Tote (Or un Tote) ioxver, we likewise meet uy. In B. G. U. 530 
(i/A.D.), érl wh avreypawas ai’t#— Ore ovk Ereupas tpds ce, note Et (el) 
pn and 6rc odk with true distinction. With od we have the objec- 
tive fact, with un the element of blame (uéuderar) appears. ‘The 
comparison of Plutarch with the N. T. shows a great advance in 
the use of 67c un’? (Moulton, Prol., p. 239). Cf. also EK. L. Green, 
Gildersleeve Studies, pp. 471 ff.; Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 171. 
He cites 67 uw exes, Epictetus IV, 10, 34. It is making inroads on 
OTe ov. 

We sometimes have avé’ oy in a truly causal sense as in Lu. 1: 
20, and that is true also of de in Mt.14:7. In Heb. 2:18&@ 
is practically causal. So also é¢’ @ is causal in Ro. 5: 12; 2 
Cor. 5:4; Ph. 4:10. Cf. xada= ‘if right,’ P. Oxy. 38 (a.p. 49). The 
classical éd’ ére does not occur in the N. T. See éd’ @ dace, ‘on 
condition that he give,’ P. Oxy. 275 (A.p. 66). 

Then os may have almost the force of a causal particle as in 
Jo. 19: 338;°Mt. 6:12, (cf, Lu. 11:4, xat yap); -2 Tim, 1:3. ‘The 
same thing is true of xa#ws in Jo. 17:2. Kaé’ dcov is causal in 
Heb. 7:20 (9 : 27) and é@’ écov in Mt. 25:40, 45. So xa@ére in 
Lu. 19:9 (cf. 1:7). In Ac. 17:31 HLP. read 61671. None of these 


1 Cf. Nilsson, Die Kausalsiitze im Griech. bis Arist. I, Die Poesie. 


964 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


particles are strictly causal, but they come to be so used in cer- 
tain contexts in the later Greek. We have as ér in 2 Cor. 5: 19; 
ws Ore beds fv & Xpior@ Kocyov Katad\dA\acowv éavTd (cf. our “since 
that’’). Here the Vulgate has quoniam. But in 2 Cor. 11:21 the 
Vulgate renders ws 671 by quasi, as in 2 Th. 2:2, ws d71 evéornkev. 
Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 321 f. It is found also in Esther 
4:14 and is post-classical. 

Avr is found in the Lucan writings, the Pauline Epistles, 
Hebrews, James and 1 Peter. In the modern Greek? it takes the 
form yari. Once (Ro. 8:21) some MSS. (W. H. read 67) have 
duore in the sense of objective é7 (‘that’) as in later Greek (cf. 
late Latin quia =quod). Instances of causal 6.67. may be seen in 
Lu. 1:13; Ro. 1:19, etc. It is compounded of 6a and drt (cf. 
English “for that’”’).- In Ph. 2 : 26 6:67. is causal and érc is de- 
clarative. In modern Greek é.ore survives in 7 Kafapebovoa. The 
vernacular has ad¢od, érevdn, yeatt (Thumb, Handb., p. 194). 

- But all other causal particles are insignificant beside 67. which 
grew steadily in use.’ It was originally merely relative and para- 
tactic. In 1 Jo. 4:3 note 6— 67 and 6m 6 in Ro. 4:21. It is 
accusative neuter rel. d7c (cf. d7c av rpocdaravjons, Lu. 10:35) and 
is more common as the objective particle in indirect discourse 
(subject or object clause) than as a causal conjunction. In 1 
Jo. 5:9 ér occurs twice, once as causal and once as_ objec- 
tive particle. In 2 Th. 3:7 f. exegesis alone can determine the 
nature of 67. In Jo. 3:19 Chrysostom takes dri =‘ because.’ 
Cf. also Jo. 16 : 8-11 (see Abbott, Johannine Gr., p. 158). The 
English ‘‘the reason that”’ (vernacular ‘‘the reason why”’) is simi- 
lar. It is very common in 1 John in both senses. In Jo. 1:15 ff. 
causal 67: occurs three times in succession. In Lu. 9:49, éw- 
ALouev abrov Ste ovK akodovbe? yeh’ judy, the present is used because 
of a sort of implied indirect discourse. In Mk. 9:38 W. H. 
read 671 otk jkoNover. A good example of causal 67: is seen in Ro. 
5:8. The precise idea conveyed by érc varies greatly. In Jo. 
9:17, ri ob Nevers rept adrod, b7t Hvewkev cov Tods dPOadpyobs; the use 
of 67. wavers between objective and causal. Cf. also Mk. 6: 17. 
But we need not appeal to the Hebrew® for a justification of 
this balancing of two ideas by dé. So in Jo. 2:18, ri onuetov de- 
Kvves Hutv, Ste TadTa wovets; Akin to this construction is that in 


{ R 
_4 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 98. Alles 

?-Jann., HistiGk: Grip, 404, 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 189. 

5 As Viteau does in Le Verbe, p. 100. The LXX does show the idiom, as in 


1 Ki. 1:8, ri €o7e cor rt Krales; 


MODE (EPKAIZIZ) 965 


Jo. 14: 22, ri yéyovey 571, which is shortened into ri 67u in Ac. 5: 
4,9. There is a correspondence sometimes between 6.4 rodro and 
drt (Jo. 10:17); dk ri and dr (Ro. 9:31 f.).. Ovx dre may be 
either objective or causal as in Ph. 4: 11, 17;2 Th. 3:9. In 
the ancient Greek it meant ‘not only do I say that, but I also 
say.’ But in the N. T. it either means ‘I say this not because’ 
or ‘I do not mean to say that,’ and usually the latter according 
to Abbott.! 

We must have a word about érei, éevdy, érevdnrep. AS a matter 
of fact éze-dn-rep (note the composition) appears in the N. T. 
only in Lu. 1:1 (Luke’s classical introduction). This is un- 
doubtedly a literary touch2 ’Ezedéy is read by W. H. in Lu. 7:1 
and Ac. 13:46, but ével 6€ is put in the margin. Eight other 
examples remain, all in Luke (Gospel and Acts) and Paul (1 Co- 
rinthians and Philippians). Cf. Lu. 11:6; 1 Cor. 1:21 f. ’Evet, 
obsolescent in the late Greek,’ is almost confined to Luke, Paul, 
the author of Hebrews. Elsewhere in Matthew, Mark and John. 
Two of these are examples of the temporal use (Mk. 15:42; Lu. 
7:1W.H.marg.). The ordinary causal sense is well illustrated in 
Mt. 21:46, eel eis rpodnrnv efxov. The classical idiom of the el- 
lipsis with ézei has already been mentioned and is relatively fre- 
gquentiin the N. ‘I. Ci, Ro. 37; 6; 11: 22;:1-Cor. 14::16;:15 : 29; 
Heb. 9:26; 10:2. It occurs in the simplest form in ézel rds 
(Ro. 3 : 6) and érei ri (1 Cor. 15: 29). In 1 Cor. 14:16, éel éay, 
it is equivalent to ‘otherwise’ and in Ro. 11:22 to ‘else,’ eel kal 
av exxornon. The apodosis of a condition of the second class oc- 
curs in 1 Cor. 5: 10; Heb: 9 : 263-10 : 2. 

Verbs of emotion in classical Greek sometimes used ei (con- 
ceived as an hypothesis) rather than 67: (a direct reason). The 
N. T. shows examples of davuatw ei in this sense (Mk. 15 : 44; 1 Jo. 
3:13), though davuatw dre is found also* (Lu. 11:38; Gal. 1: 
' 6). “Ore is the N. T. construction® with dyavaxréw (Lu. 13 : 14); 
éEouoroyeouar (Mt. 11 : 25); ebxapioréw (Lu. 18: 11); were (Mk. 4: 
38); xaiow (Lu. 10 : 20); yodaw (Jo. 7 : 23). Cf. 670 and é¢’ g in 
Ph. 4:10. On the possible causal use of ére and é7av see article 
by Sheppard, The Cl. Rev., Sept., 1913. 

(c) Relative Clauses. This matter received sufficient discussion 
under Relative Clauses. For examples of és take Ro. 8:32; 


1 Joh. Gr. p. 162. 2 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 101. 
3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 454. 

LO baley 

5 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 101. 


966 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Heb. 12:6. For éc7s note Mt. 7:15; Ro. 6:2. See also of 
xapw (Lu. 7:47) and 6’ qv airiay (8 : 47). 

(d) Aca 76 and the Infinitive. The construction is common in 
the N. T., occurring thirty-two times according to Votaw! as 
compared with thirty-five for the O. T. and twenty-six for the 
Apocrypha. It is particularly frequent in Luke.? Cf. Lu. 2:4; 
18:5; Ac. 4:2; 8:11, etc. It is not in John except in 2: 24, dra 
To abrov yuwwoxev. Blass? rejects it here because the Lewis MS. 
and Nonnus do not have the passage. Here note that éru is 
used side by side with 6a 76. So in Jas. 4:2 f. we have 6a 76 p17 
airetobar buds and dite Kaxds airetoOe on a parity. Cf. Ph. 1:7, 
kadws and 6a 76. In Mk. 5:4, dca 76 dbedéo8ar Kal drearacbar Kal 
ovvterpipbar, note the perfect tense and the repetition of the in- 
finitive. Burton*® thinks that here 6.4 gives rather the evidence 
than the reason. Why not both? There is one example of the 
instrumental use of the infinitive to express cause, 7@ mu ebpety pe 
(2 Cor. 2:18). The text of B has six examples in the LXX4 
(cf. 2 Chron. 28 : 22, 73 OdcBAvat airov). No examples of ézi 76 
occur.® 

(e) The Participle. We do not have are, otov, ota, as in classical 
Greek, to give the real reason. That is given simply by the parti- 
ciple as in dixatos dv Kal wy OedXwv adtiy Sevywatioa (Mt. 1:19). It 
is “exceedingly common” (Moulton, Prol., p. 230). Cf. Jas. 2: 
25; Ac. 4:21. But os occurs with the participle to give the al- 
leged reason, which may be the real one or mere assumption. 
Thus in Mt. 7 : 28 f., ws e£ovciav éxwv kal ovx ws of ypayparets, the 
first ws gives the ostensible (and true ground) of the astonishment 
of-the people. Cf. also Lu. 16:1; Ac-2:2. Butin Lu. 23; 14; 
ws aroatpepovta Tov Aadv, Pilate does not believe the charge against 
Jesus to be true. So also with ws weddNOvTwy in Ac. 27: 30. 

3. COMPARATIVE CuLausEs. The discussion in my Short Gram- 
mar® forms the basis of this section. The conjunctions employed 
are all of relative origin, but the construction deserves separate 
treatment. 

(a) The Relative dcos. This is a classic idiom and occurs only 
in Hebrews, except once in Mark. In Heb. 1:4 the correlative 
is expressed and the comparative form of the adjective is found 


1 The Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. Mr. H. Scott notes pres. 24, 
aor. 1 (Mt. 24: 12), perf. 7 times. 

2’ Blass, Gr. of NT. GR po 236. eS Nve Meade Lane 16) 

4 Votaw, The Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 29. 

5 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 101. 6 Chapter XXVIII. 


MODE (EIKAI2=I>) 967 


in both clauses. Both correlative and relative are here in the 
instrumental case, tocoltw KpeitTwy yevouevos THY ayyedwy bow d.a- 
dopwtepov tap’ avtobs KexAnpovounkey dvowa. ‘The same phenomena 
are present in 8 : 6, save that the correlative is absent. In 10 : 25 
there is no comparative in the relative clause. The others are 
examples of xa@’ édcov. In 3:3 there is no correlative, but the 
comparative appears in both clauses. In 7: 20 f. the correlative 
is kata TooovTo, but there is no comparative in the relative clause. 
This is probably causal in idea, as is true of xa0’ dcov in 9: 27, 
where there is no comparative, though we have the correlative 
ovTws kai. The example in Mk. 7:36, dcov 6é atrots duecréddXeTO 
avTol uaAdov teptaadTepov Exnpvocov, lacks the correlative and has no 
comparative with the relative, but has a double comparison in 
the principal clause. In Jo. 6:11 and Rev. 21 : 16, écov is simply 
relative, not a conjunction. The causal and temporal uses of 
dcov are discussed elsewhere. | 

(b) Relative 6s with xara. The singular xa#6 is found only in 
Ro. 8 : 26 xao det, 1 Pet. 4:13 xaOd xowwvetre, and 2 Cor. 8:12 
Kalo éav Exn evmpoadexTos, ot Kad otk éxet, Where a good distinction 
is drawn between the subjunctive and the indicative. Cf. O. P. 
1125, 14 (ii/A.D.) xa00 pico? pepos. The construction with éay is 
like that of the indefinite relative with éay (av) and the subj. The 
plural xa#a is found only once in the N. T. (Mt. 27:10). Kaazep, 
however, is found seventeen times (three doubtful as compared 
with xafws, Ro. 9:13; 10:15; 2 Cor. 3:18) and all in Paul’s 
writings save in Heb. 4:2 (without verb). It is thoroughly 
Attic and a slight literary touch. Cf. 1 Cor. 10:10. The mode 
is always indicative, but cf. xa@a apeoxyn in Gen. 19:8. In Ro. 
12 :4 the correlative is otrws. 

(c) Kafore in a Comparative Sense. It occurs only twice (Ac. 
2:45; 4:35) and the same idiom precisely each time, xaOore ay tis 
xpetav eixev. Here av seems to particularize each case from time 
’ to time (note imperfect tense), the iterative use of év (Moulton, 
Prol., p. 167). This usage approaches the temporal in idea. The 
classic idiom of the aorist ind. with av no longer appears with 
these conjunctions. 

(d) ‘Qs and its Compounds. These are the most common com- 
parative particles. The most frequent of all is ws itself which has 
various other uses as exclamatory (as wpator of rédes in Ro. 10: 
15), declarative like é7: (Ac. 10 : 28), causal (Mt. 6 : 12), temporal 
(Lu. 12 : 58), with the infinitive (Lu. 9 : 52; Heb. 7:9), as a final 
particle (ws redewow, Ac, 20:24, W. H. text), with superlative 


968 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


adverbs (as raxiora, Ac. 17:15), with the sense of ‘about,’ as as 
Sucxitvo. (Mk. 5:13) and with participles (ws medrAwy, Ac. 23: 
20). The richness of this particle is thus illustrated. But the 
comparative relative adverb is the origin of them all. In Heb. 
3.:11;4:3 ws may be consecutive ‘so,’ but ws is more often com- 
parative than anything else. Usually as has a correlative. Thus 
olrws — ws (1 Cor. 4:1); ws — obrws (Ac. 8 : 32); ws — otrws Kat (2 
Cor. 7:14); ws — cai (Gal. 1:9); tcos — as xai (Ac. 11:17); kat — 
as kat (Mt. 18:33). But often no correlative is expressed (cf. 
Mt. 8:13).1. The verb is not always expressed. Thus as of troxpt- 
rat (Mt. 6:5). This predicate use of ws is very extensive. Cf. 
ws kat (1 Cor. 7:7). The mode is usually the indicative, as in 
Mk. 10:1, but the subj. occurs in Mk. 4: 26, ds dvOpwmros Barn 
(cf. ws ovk otdev). Blass? considers this ‘quite impossible,”’ but it is 
read by NBD. Some late MSS. add éav and others read é7av, but 
surely éav (4v) is not “indispensable” to the subj. (cf. Mt. 10 : 33). 
In Gal. 6:10, as Karpov Exwuev, the temporal ws is likewise minus 
av. See Relative Clauses and discussion of adv which is by no 
means necessary in these subj. clauses. Cf. Radermacher, N. 7. 
Gr., p. 164. In 1 Th. 2:7, as éav rpodds Oadryn Ta éauTis Téxva, 
we do have éav, but the construction in Mark is not lawless. Kafws 
comes next to ws in frequency (chiefly with Luke and Paul). It 
sometimes has the correlative. So o¥rws xafws (Lu. 24 : 24); 
kabws — ottws (Jo. 3:14); Kadws — odrws cai (2 Cor. 8:6); Kaas 
Kai — ovtws Kal (Col. 3 : 18); Kai — cabs cai (Ro. 1:18); xadws — xat 
(Jo. 15:9); duoiws xabws (Lu. 17: 28), and note xara ra a’rad In verse 
30. The correlative is not always expressed (Mt. 21:6). So in 
Col. 1:6, xafas cai. Sometimes the principal clause is unex- 
pressed as in 1 Tim. 1:3, or only ov occurs, as ov xabws (1 Jo. 3: 
12; Jo. 6:58). It is a late word but is abundant in the papyri. 
In the N. T. it occurs only with the indicative. The word, as 
already noted,‘sometimes has a causal sense (Ro. 1:28). It may 
have a temporal signification in Ac. 7:17. It occurs in indirect 
question in Ac. 15 : 14, and is epexegetical in 3 Jo. 3. Kadwo7ep is 
read only once in the N. T. (Heb. 5:4), though W. H. put it in 
the margin in 2 Cor. 3:18 (text xafamep). ‘Qoet is classical, but 
has no verb (cf. Mt. 3:16; Mk. 9 : 26, etc.) in the N. T., though 
it occurs with the participle wael rpdBata pw exovta oiuéva (Mt. 
9:36). Cf. also Ro. 6:13. It is used in the sense of ‘about’ as 
in Lu 9: 14, 28, etc. It is commonest in the Gospels and Acts. 


1 In general correlatives are rare in the LXX. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 142. 
GT OLIN a eae ale 


MODE (EFKAISI2z) | 9 969 


In 2 Cor. 10:9 we have as ay éxdoBety (here alone in the N. T. 
with infinitive) =‘as if to frighten.’ “Qoep occurs with the in- 
dicative as in Mt.6:2. In Mt. 25:14 a parable is thus intro- 
duced, but with no correlative. But we have the correlative in 
Ro. 5:19 (6:4), @orep — ottws cat. So Jo. 5:21. So aamrep — 
woaltws (Mt. 25 : 14-18); dorep — ot tws (13 : 40). We find dozep 
also with the participle (cf. Ac. 2:2). Often the verb is wholly 
wanting as in Mt.6:7. We meet wozepet only once (1 Cor. 15 : 8) 
and that without a verb. 

4, Loca Cuausss. These are all relative adverbial sentences 
and are usually treated with relative sentences, but they are 
worthy of a separate note. The adverbs (conjunctions) used are 
dlev, ov, drov. With 66ev only the indicative is found as in Lu. 
11:24, d0ev €&f\Oov. More common than dey is ot as in Mt. 2: 
9, ot Hv TO ratdiov. Cf. past perfect in Ac. 20:8. It occurs mainly 
in Luke’s writings and always with the indicative save once in 
1 Cor. 16:6, ob éay ropebwuar. Here the indefinite relative natu- 
rally has av and the subjunctive. Od is used with verbs of motion 
as well as with those of rest as this passage shows. Cf. also Lu. 
10:1, 08 juedXev adros EpxecOar. But dzov is the usual local con- 
junction in the N. T., particularly in Matthew, Mark and John 
(Gospel and Revelation). It occurs with verbs of rest as in Mk. 
2:4, drov wv, and of motion as in Jo. 7:34, drov trayw. The 
indicative is the usual mode. Once, Mk. 6:56, dou dy eicero- 
pevero, we find av to emphasize the notion of repetition in the im- 
perfect tense, but this is not necessary. Cf. dou HOedes (Jo. 21: 
18). Note the emphatic negative in ézov od dedevs (2b.). Cf. also 
drov ay braye (Rev. 14:4) where ay occurs with the present ind. 
(indefinite relative). In érov dayw (Mk. 14:14; Lu. 22:11), as 
noted on p. 964, the subj. is probably deliberative, answering to 
mov dayw in the direct question. Cf. odk eve: rod tiv Kepadjy KrLvn 
(Lu. 9:58). But the subj. with édy in ézov éay arépyy (Lu. 9: 
57) is the common futuristic subj. So in the parallel passage in 
Mt. 8:19. See further Mt. 24:28; 26:13; Mk. 6:10; 9:18; 
14:9, 14. Curiously enough all the N. T. instances of é7ov with 
the subj. are found in the Synoptic Gospels. There is ellipsis of 
the copula in Rev. 2:18, as is not infrequent with relatives. 
“Orov is used also in metaphorical relations, as in Heb. 9: 16. The 
correlative adverb éxe? occasionally appears with é7ov as in Lu. 
12% 34; 17:37; Jo. 12:26. Kat is-a®correlative in, Jo. 17: 24. 
The use of ézov in classical Greek is confined to indefinite sen- 
tences, but the N. T. shows a frequent use (especially in John) 


970 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


where there is a definite antecedent.!. Cf. Jo. 1:28; 4:46; 7: 
42; 10:40; 12:1, ete. 

5. TEMPORAL CLAUSES. 

(a) Kin to Relative Clauses in Origin and Idiom. Blass? 
bluntly says that temporal clauses introduced by 67e and déray 
“are generally only a special class of relative sentence, and ex- 
hibit the same constructions.” The same thing is true of local 
sentences. Burton® carries this conception to such a point that 
he has no separate treatment of temporal sentences at all. This 
is surely going too far. Thompson‘ sees the matter rightly when 
he says: “The vague original relative import becomes specialized.” 
Hence we expect to find both definite and indefinite temporal 
clauses as with other relative (and local) clauses. Definite tem- 
poral clauses may be illustrated by Mt. 7:28, dre éréXecev 6 “In- | 
govs tovs \oyous TovTous, éLerAnaoovTo of dxAo. ‘The indefinite is 
shown in Jo. 15 : 26, d67av €\On 6 wapaxAntos. ‘The temporal clause 
may be indefinite in its futurity, frequency and duration.’ In- 
definite futurity is the most common, indefinite duration the least 
common. The modes used in temporal clauses in the N. T. are 
the indicative and the subjunctive. These uses conform to the 
‘historical development of the two modes. . There is one example 
of the optative in a temporal clause (Ac. 25 : 16, apdés ods amexpi- 
Onv Ott ovK EoTiv Cos ‘Pwuators xapifecOat Tiva avOpwrov rplv 7} 6 KaTn- 
yopovmevos KaTa mWpocwmrov Exo. TOS. KaTnNYyOpous TOTOY TE aToXOYias 
AaBou rept Tod é€yxAnuatos). Here, asis evident, the optative is due 
to indirect discourse, not to the temporal clause. The subjunc- 
tive with dy (apiv 4 av éxn — dGGn) occurs rather than the opta- 
tive according to sequence of modes. This sequence was optional 
and a classic idiom, and so is found m the N. T. only in Luke’s 
writings. Observe that éo7. is retained in the indicative. This 
sentence is a fine illustration of the Greek subordinate clauses. 
In the context in Acts it is seen that four dependent clauses pre- 
cede the rptv 7 clause in the long sentence. The use of ay or éav 
in temporal clauses has very much the same history as in other 
relative clauses. The usage varies with different conjunctions 
and will be noted in each instance. The point of time in the 
temporal clause may be either past, present. or future. It is a 
rather complicated matter, the Greek temporal clause, but not 
so much so as the Latin cum clause, “in which the Latin lan- 


1 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 152 f. 4 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 329.' 


2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 218. 5 Ib., p. 328. 
3.N. T. M. and T., pp. 118, 126 ff. : 


MODE (EIKAISIz) 971 


guage is without a parallel.”! The different constructions may 
be conveniently grouped for discussion. Just as the optative 
with temporal clauses vanished, so there came a retreat of va- 
rious temporal conjunctions. As a result in the later Greek the 
construction is much simpler.’ 

(b) Conjunctions Meaning ‘When.’ The classic use of the op- 
tative for repetition with such clauses has been effectually side- 
tracked in the vernacular xowy (Radermacher, NV. T. Gr., p. 130). 
Only the ind. and subj. modes occur in these clauses. ’Ezet has 
vanished? in this.sense, save in Lu. 7: 1 where it is a variant (mar- 
gin in W. H. and Nestle) for ézeidy, the correct text. Curiously 
enough this is also the only instance of the temporal use of éze.éy 
in the N. T., éaevd) érAnpwoev. It is a definite point of time in 
the past and naturally the indicative occurs. There are three 
examples of érav, all with the subjunctive (Mt. 2:8, éray etipnre; 
Lu. 11:22, érav mxjon; 11:34, érav 7 where it is parallel with 
drav 7). There are only two instances of jvixa (2 Cor. 3:15, 
16, Hvika av dvaywewoknra, Hvika édy Excotpeyy). It is the indefi- 
nite idea as the subjunctive shows. Note. ay and éay (indefi- 
nite also and with notion of repetition). Nestle (AEH) reads 
oroTre éreivacey In Lu. 6:3, but W. H. and Souter (NBCD) 
have 67e. ‘Omdray does not occur in the N.T. “Ove and dérav 
are both common and in all parts of the N. T. The connec- 
tion between dre (cf. 6-Oev, Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 254) and 
Homeric 67e and és re (Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 191) is. disputed.‘ 
Cf. the conjunction 6 from és and 67 from éo71s. Homer used 
dre aS a causal conjunction like 67. Only the indicative (see be- 
low) mode appears with dre in the N. T., but it occurs with past, 
present and future. Usually the events are definite, as in Mt. 
21:1, d7€ Hyyicay eis “Iepocd\vpa. ‘The present time is rare, as in 
dre yeyova avnp in 1 Cor. 18:11; 67e 7 in Heb. 9:17. In Mk. 
11:1 eyyifovcw is the historic present. The great bulk of the 
examples are in the past with the aorist indicative, though the. 
imperfect occurs for custom or repetition, as in Jo. 21:18; Col. 
3:7. The future indicative is naturally indefinite even when 
dre is preceded by a word like wpa (Jo. 4 : 21, 23) or juépa (Ro. 2: 
16. Incorporated in W. H.). .Souter’s Rev. Text (so W. H.) has 


1 W. G. Hale, Stud. in Class. Philol., The Cum Constructions, 1887, p. 259. 

2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., .p..466. 

3 *Ewei was rare in Homer. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 226. 

4 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 189 ff.; Brug., a thae Gr., p. 561; Riem, and 
Goelzer, Synt., p. 444 f. 


972 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


éws elanre in Lu. 13:35, but Nestle still reads éws je dre eirnre. 
The text is in much confusion, but-at any rate here is manuscript 
evidence for the subjunctive with 67e without av. This is in har- 
mony with what we saw was true of 6s and éo7is. It is also a 
well-known Homeric idiom.! Radermacher (NV. 7. Gr., p. 164) 
cites bre apénrar (Vettius, pp. 106, 36). “Oray naturally occurs 
more frequently with the subjunctive for indefinite future time. 
It is usually the aorist tense, as in Mt. 24 : 33, dray iénte. The 
present subj. does occur when the notion of repetition is implied, 
as in Mt. 15: 2, drav aprov éobiwow. Cf. Mt. 6:2. Once the idea 
of duration seems manifest (Jo. 9:5, drav & 7G Koop @), but usu- 
ally it is future uncertainty simply. It is not necessary to take 
the common aorist subj. here as the Latin futurwm exactum.? 
Cf. érav wapadot in Mk. 4:29. The ay (dre av) is always present 
save in the doubtful d7e elrnre of Lu. 13:35. “Ore with the subj. 
is found in poetry and in the Byzantine writers. So Test. XII 
Pat. Levi 2:10 dre avédOns Exe?t. On the other hand a number of 
examples occur of 67av with the indicative (cf. é4y and émov ap 
with the indicative). Homer, Iliad, 20, 335, has ére xev EvuBAF- 
cea. ait@. So in Rev. 4:9 we find érav dwcovow. The close affin- 
ity in form and meaning of the aorist subj. with the future 
indicative should cause no surprise at this idiom. In Lu. 13: 
28 BD read oérav dyeobe, though W. H. put édynobe in the text. 
A good many manuscripts likewise have érav with the future 
ind. in Mt. 10:19 and 1 Tim. 5:11. Cf. é7av éora in Clem., 
Cor. 2, 12, 1. Moulton (Prol., p. 168) notes in the papyri only 
a small number of examples of av with temporal clauses and the’ 
ind. Thus érav €Bnuev in Par. P. 26 (ii/B.c.); éray érvOduny in- 
B. U. 424 (ii/ili A.D.); éadray avacpodyra in B. U. 607 (ii/a.p.). It 
is common in the LXX, Polybius, Strabo, ete. See Jannaris, 
Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 463; Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 164. Ramsay 
(Cit. and B., ii, p. 477, no. 348) gives érav wv eyo a “curious 
anti-Christian inscription” (Moulton, Prol., p. 239). A few in- 
stances occur of éray with the present indicative. So érav orf- 
cere in Mk. 11:25. Here* some MSS. have the subj., as in Ro. 
2:14 some read é7av roe?. Cf. also various readings in Mk. 
13:4, 7.. This construction is not unknown in earlier writers, 
though more common in the xown. Cf. Ex. 1:16; Ps. 101:3; 


1 Cf. Mutzbauer, Konjunktiv und Optativ, p. 97. 

2 W.-M., p. 387. 

3 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 125. Cf, Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 463. 
4 Cf. W.-M., p. 388, 


MODE (EIKAIzI=z) 973 


Prov. 1:22; Josephus, Anté., xii, 2, 3; Strabo, I, 1, 7; Act. Apocr., 
126. In2 Cor. 12:10, érav dc0ev4, we probably have the present 
subj. Cf.1 Th. 3:8, éav ornxere. The examples of 67av with the 
aorist or imperfect indicative are more numerous. In Thucyd- 
ides ére was always definite and ozore indefinite! “Orav with 
the optative appears in Xenophon.? The Atticists have éreday 
and o7éray (sic) with the opt. (Radermacher, N. 7’. Gr., p. 165). 
In the xow7 the field of 67av is widened, as already shown. Aga- 
thias uses 67avy with the aorist indicative. It is common in the 
Septuagint to have dray with past tenses (Gen. 38:11; 1 Sam. 
17:34, drav hpxero; Ps. 119:7, drav EXddovv; Num. 11:9; Ps. 
118 :32; Dan. 3:7).4 The usual notion is that of indefinite re- 
petition. Thus we note it in Polybius 4, 32, 5, d7av yey otro joay, 
éyevero 70 deov. Strabo I, 1, 7 has 67av dyoiv. Cf. also 138, 7, 10. 
In Tobit 7:11 observe érore éavy. In Mk. 3:11 we have drap 
avrov ewpovv, mpocéemimtov alta. Cf. drov av and dco av in Mk. 6: 
56. But the xow7n writers used 67av with the aorist indicative for 
a definite occurrence. This is common in the Byzantine® writers. 
In the modern Greek érayv is freely used with the indicative. See 
Philo II, 112, 23, drav eis Gora 7AOev. Blass’ calls this quite in- 
correct, though the LXX has as day é&p\Mev “IaxwB (Gen. 27: 30; 
cf. 6:4) of “a single definite past action.’’”’ There are two ex- 
amples in the N. T., Mk. 11:19, drav dpe eyevero, tEeropebovTo EEw 
Ths TONews (possible to understand it as repetition), and Rev. 8: 
1, drav jvorkev thy odhpayida tiv EBdounv. But, as Moulton (Prol., 
p. 248) observes, it is possible to regard é£eropevovro in Mk. 11 : 
19 as pictorial rather than iterative and the papyri examples of 
drav, as seen above, allow either usage. Simcox® explains this 
“lapse” on the ground that Mark and the author of the Apoca- 
lypse are the least correct of the N. T. writers. But the idiom 
belonged to the vernacular xown. See Ex. 16:3, dedov amrebavo- 
pev — brav éxabioaper ert Tv AEBHTwWY Kal HaOiouev ApTovs. ‘Ocdkts 18 
only used with the notion of indefinite repetition. It occurs 


1 Winifred Warren, A Study of Conjunctional Temp. Clauses in Thucydides, 
1897, p. 73. ‘Ove is found twice in1 Thuc. with the optative, but Miss Warren 
reads émére. 

2 Baumlein, Unters. tiber die griech. Modi und die Partik. xév und ay, 1846, 
p. 322. 

3 Reffel, Uber den Sprachgebr. des Agathias, p. 24. 

4 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 123; W.-M., p. 388 f. 

5 W.-M., p. 389. 

6 Ib.; Mullach, Vulg., p. 368. 8 W.-M., p. 389. 

SGT OLN el ka pee ls. ® Lang. of the N. T., p. 111. 


974 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


four times in the N. T. (1 Cor. 11:25 f.; Rev. 11:6), each time 
with é4v and the subjunctive. These points are all obvious. 

‘Qs is rather common in the N. T. as a temporal conjunction. 
It is originally a relative adverb from és and occurs in a variety 
of constructions. The temporal use is closely allied to the com- 
parative. Cf. ws dade quty & 7H 664 (Lu. 24:32). So Jo. 12: 
36. The temporal aspect is sharp in Mk. 9:21 where ws means 
‘since.’ The examples in the N. T. are usually in the aorist 
or imperfect indicative as in Jo. 6: 12, 16; Ac. 8:36 and chiefly 
refer to definite incidents. In 1 Cor. 12:2, ws av jyeobe, we have 
the imperfect ind. with av for the notion of repetition (cf. 67av). 
So in Aristeas 7, 34, as dv niéavto. In modern Greek oay (from 


ws av) is used for ‘when’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 192). The use of: 
as av=‘as if’ is that of conditional, not modal, av, and is very 


common in the papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 167). See Conditions. 
As early as 1/B.c. the papyri show examples of ws aév= éray (orig- 
inally ws év=‘as soon as’). Cf. Radermacher, NV. T. Gr., p. 164; 
Rhein. Mus., 1901, p. 206; Hib. P. I, 44, 45. Radermacher (N. T. 
Gr., p. 164) gives ws av otua, Dion. Hal. and Dio Chrys., as av 
amevvov edogev, Luc. Alex. 22. But as is used a few times with the 
subjunctive, thrice with av (Ro. 15:24; 1 Cor. 11:34; Ph. 2: 
23), once without av (Gal. 6:10), as Karpov éxwuev... In classical 
Greek this futuristic subj. would have av (Moulton, Prol., p. 
248 f.). With the last construction compare Mk. 4:26. In the 
temporal use ws av.is not common in Attic. In Mk. 9:21 note 
moaos xpovos —ws. In Ac. 17:15 we have ws raxucra, a remnant 
of the rather frequent use of ws with superlative adverbs. It is 
possible that. xa$ws has a temporal sense in Ac. 7:17 (cf. 2 Mace. 
Lees i | 

(c) The Group Meaning ‘Until’ (‘While’). The words in this 
list have a more complex history than those in the preceding one. 
They are axpu, péxpt, ews and piv. “Axpe (twice in the N. T., 
axpis, Gal. 3:19 and Heb. 3:18) is more frequently a preposi- 
tion (cf. &xpe Kkatpod, Lu. 4:13) than a conjunction. It is rare in 
Greek prose and adxpu &v only in poetry.!. But Philo (1, 166, 20) 
has axpis av — oBecee. But the simple conjunction is less fre- 
quent than the compound form (preposition and relative), as axpu 


ob (Lu. 21:24) and dypu js juépas (Mt. 24:38). Sometimes the 


MSS. vary between a@xpu, wexpr, and éws, as in Mt. 13:30 (prepo- 

sition). Cf. Ac. 1:22. Past tenses of the indicative are used of 

an actual historical event. No example: of the simple éxpu ap- 
_1 Meisterh.-Schwyzer, Gr. d. attisch. Inschr., p. 251. 


————_-—- —- 


MODE (EPKAIZSI=) : 975 


pears in this construction in the N. T., but we have axpr od avéorn 
(Ac. 7:18) and adype js juepas elofdOev (Lu. 17:27). The only 
instance of the present ind. is in Heb. 3:13, a@ypis ob TO onpepov 
kadettat. Here the meaning is ‘so long’ (linear) or ‘while’ (cf. 
éws).. The more common use is with reference to the indefinite 
future. In two instances (Rev. 17:17, dxpe rerecOnoovra, and 
2:25, axpt ov av HEw. This latter could be aorist subj.) the future 
indicative is read. Elsewhere we meet the subjunctive, either 
without av (dxpe odpayiowuey In Rev. 7:3 and dypu redecOF in 
20:3, 5; dxpe od €XMy in 1 Cor. 11: 26; dxpe Fs fuépas yernrac in 
Lu. 1:20) or with ay (axpis av 26 in Gal. 3:19, though W. H. 
put just dxpcs ob in the margin). Here the time is relatively fu- 
ture to the principal verb. rpoceréOn, though it is secondary. The 
subj. is retained instead of the optative on the principle of indi- 
rect discourse. As amatter of fact av occurs only twice, the other 
instance being Rev. 2:25 above. Cf. dxpis érav rrAnpwhf, O. P. 
1107, 3 (v/a.D.). Mexprs (so twice, Mk. 13:30; Gal. 4:19, and 
once pexpt, Eph. 4:18) occurs only three times as a conjunc- 
tion. In Eph. 4:13 it is pexypec simply, in the other examples 
mexpis ov. In all three instances the aorist subj. is used without 
av for the indefinite future. The use as a preposition is more 
frequent. Cf. expe "Iwavov (Lu. 16:16) and pwéxprs atwaros (Heb. 
12:4). It means ‘up to the point of.’!_ The xow# writers show 
a rather varied use of pwexpe (cf. Diodorus, Strabo, Polybius, 
Josephus, Justin Martyr). They, like the papyri, have yeéxpe 
and péxpis ov with and without ay (Radermacher, N. T’. Gr., 
p- 140). ’Ews is much more frequent in the N. T. both as 
preposition (cf. éws obpavod, Mt. 11:23) and as conjunction. The 
prepositional use is illustrated also in éws rod édety (Ac. 8 : 40). 
The prepositional use (more frequent than the conjunctional) 
goes back as far as Aristotle and denotes the terminus ad quem. 
"Ews is Attic for Homeric jos and Doric ds.2~ As with axype and 
péxpt, we find éws alone as a conjunction (Mt. 2: 9), éws ob (Mt. 
14:22) and és dérov (5:25). It is used both with the in- 
dicative and the subjunctive. When an actual event is re- 
corded in the past only the aorist indicative is used. This is the 
usual classic idiom.2 So éws #Mev (Mt. 24:39), ews ob erexey (1: 
25), ws drov ébwvncay (Jo. 9:18). When the present ind. appears 
with éws the notion is ‘while,’ not ‘until,’ and it is either a con- 
temporaneous event, as in éws aids amodver Tov bxAov (Mk. 6 : 45. 


-1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 563. 
2 Th.,-p. 200. § Goodwin, M. and T., p. 235. 


976 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Note dependence on jvayxacer, like indirect discourse), or a lively 
proleptic future in terms of the present, as in éws €pxowar mpdcexe 
7H avayvwce (1 Tim. 4:18) and in Jo. 21: 22f. It is possible to 
take Mk. 6:45 as this proleptic future. Indeed some MSS. 
here give also aroAvon and —e. In Mt. 14: 22 the reading (in the 
parallel passage) is éws od arodtvon. Cf. the construction with the 
Latin dum. In Lu. 19:13 W. H. read & & épxoua instead of 
éws Epxouat. Instead of ews juepa éoriv (Jo. 9:4) W. H. have as 
in the margin, though keeping éws in text (as does Nestle). If 
éws is genuine, it is clearly ‘while,’ not ‘until.’ In Jo. 12: 35f. 
W. H. read in the text ws, not éws. We have, besides, éws d7ou ef 
in Mt. 5:25. Most of the examples of éws deal with the future 
and have only the subj. after the classic idiom.? The future, be- 
ing identical in form with the aorist subj., is possible in the cases 
of éws od avareupw (Ac. 25 : 21) and éws drov cxayw (Lu. 13 : 8), but 
the regular subj. is the probable idiom. In Lu. 13:35 some 
MSS. have éws #£e (see (b)), but W. H. reject wf dre. Both 
éws ov and éws drov are used, but always without av. So éws od 
avehwow (Ac. 23:21) and éws drov rAnpwO7 (Lu. 22:16). With 
simple éws it is more common to have av. So éws av arodgs (Mt. 
5 : 26), but note éws €4y (10:23). “Av is not essential in this 
construction. Cf. Lu. 12:59; 15:4; 22:34. In Mk. 14: 82, és 
tpocevéwpat, the notion is rather ‘while’ than ‘until.’ Cf. Mt. 
14:22; 26:36; Lu. 17:8. But the note of expectancy suits the 
subjunctive. In Mt. 18:30, €Barev abrov els pudaxyy ews a70d@ TO 
opehouevoy, the subj. is retained after secondary tense of the in- 
dicative as in indirect discourse. “Ews occurs after negative verbs 
also (cf. piv), as in Lu. 22:34. Moulton (Prol., p. 169) quotes 
Th. 6 (ii/B.c.) éws pevwow, G. H. 88 (i/B.c.) éws xataBjs. In the 
papyri av, as in the N. T., is often absent from these conjunctions 
meaning ‘until.’ Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 140) finds éws and 
the subj. common in the papyri, the inscrs. and the xo.vy writers. 
Blass’ thinks he sees a certain affinity with final sentences in the 
sub]. with these conjunctions for the future indefinite. At any 
rate it is good Attic and should cause no trouble. The xow7 fully 
agrees with the ancient idiom. It is, of course, a matter of taste 
with the writer whether he will regard a future event as a present 
reality or a future uncertainty to be hoped for and attained. 
IIpiv is a comparative form (cf. superlative rp&-ros) like the Latin 


1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 128. But the proper sense of the indice. is 
better as an expression of the fact. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 140. 
2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 235. ** Groot NaeloGk ps 219. 


MODE (EPKAIZI=) 977 


prius. It is the neuter accusative singular. It is really the same 
in idea as rpérepor, ‘before,’ ‘formerly.’ Pindar uses it as a prep- 
osition with the ablative ply Spas=mpo dpas. The original con- 
struction with zpiv was the infinitive, though the subj. and the 
optative occur with it in Homer.2 Homer has it 81 times with the 
infinitive, 6 with the subj., once with the opt. and not at all with 
the indicative.2 The word developed so much importance in the 
later Greek that Goodwin in his Moods and Tenses gives it a 
separate extensive discussion (pp. 240-254). In the N. T. there 
are only fourteen examples of it and all of them in the Gospels 
and Acts. Eleven of the fourteen are with the infinitive (cf. 
Homer). Cf. piv arofavety (Jo. 4:49), rplv ’ABpadu yevecOar (8 : 58). 
Six times we have zpiv 7, as in Mt. 1:18. Luke alone uses the 
classic idiom of zpiv with the subj. or opt. after negative sentences. 
In both instances it is only relative future after secondary tenses, 
but in Lu. 2:26, uA idety Oavarov piv [7] av by Tov Xpiorov Kupiov, 
the subj. is retained according to the usual rule in indirect dis- 
course in the xow# (so often in the Attic). In Ac. 25:16, as 
already explained (p. 970), mplv 4 €xor — AdBou after amexpiOnv sre 
ovx éotw is changed from the subj. to the opt. as is possible in 
indirect discourse, a neat classic idiom found in Luke alone in the 
N.T. Some of the MSS. do not have av in Lu. 2 : 26 and & reads 
éws dv here. A few MSS. have rpiv 7 in Lu. 22 : 34.4. The papyri 
writers do not show the same consistency as Luke in the use of 
mpi. But note pre 6ddTw — ply aitG émoteddAnTta, O. P. 34 
(ii/A.D.). For ‘until’ éws kept the field. Indeed in Lu. 22: 34, ov 
pwvnce. onuepov aEKTWP ews Tpls aTapynon, We See ews where rpiv 
would usually come (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 164). Very early 
apo Tod and inf. also began to displace zpiv (see Verbal Nouns). In 
the modern Greek zpiv holds its place (also zpi va, dc0, mporod) 
with ind. and subj. (Thumb, Handb., p. 193). The N. T. does 
not have éore, but the papyri show it. Cf. éo7’ av, Amh. P. II, 
81, 11 (iii/a.p.). See also Job 13 : 22 NX. 

(d) Some Nominal and Prepositional Phrases. We have al- 
ready seen in the case of a&ypr, wéexpe and éws how they occur with 
relative pronouns as conjunctional phrases. The same thing oc- 
curs with a number of temporal phrases. Thus 4¢’ od. In Lu. 
13:7 ad’ od is preceded by rpia érn as the terminus a quo. It 


1 Cf. Sturm, Geschichtl. Entw. der Konstr. mit mpiv, 1882, p. 4; Frenzel, 
Die Entw. der Sitze mit piv, 1896, p. 12. 

2 Sturm, ib., p. 145. 4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 219. 

Selb. D> 0. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 169 note. 


978 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


means ‘since.’ Cf. rpirnv rabrnv juepay aye ad’ od in Lu. 24: 21. 
In Rey. 16:18 it is the simple equivalent of amo rotrov é7€ as in 
the Attic Greek and Herodotus. In these examples the indica- 
tive occurs, but in Lu. 13:25, a’ od av éyep67, the construction of 
éws is used for the uncertain future, the subj. with av. The con- 
ception of amo roirov bre has to be appealed to, ‘from that mo- 
ment when,’ ‘when once’ the master arises. In like manner we 
see ad’ fs used for ‘since’ in Lu. 7:45; Ac. 24:11; 2 Pet: 3:4. 
In Col. 1:6, 9 we have the form ad’ js juepas. ’Ev @ is not 
always temporal. It may be merely local (Ro. 2:1), instrumen- 
tal (Ro. 14:21) or causal (Ro. 8:3). The temporal use is much 
like éws in the sense of ‘while,’ as in Mk. 2:19 (Lu. 5:34) wo 6 
vupplos mer’ altav éeotiv. Cf. Jo. 5:7, & & Epxouae with ews Epxouar 
in. Jo. 21:22. In Lu: 19:18 the Text. :‘Rec. has dws épxopat, 
but & @ is the true reading. In 1 Pet.1:6 é& @ has its antece- 
dent expressed in the preceding sentence and means ‘wherein.’ 
In Mk. 2:19 we see édcov xpdvoy for duration of time. In Mt. 9: 
15 the shorter é¢’ dcov occurs, while in Heb. 10 : 37 note écov dcop 
(a Hebraism from the LX X, though paralleled in the papyri). In 
Ro. 7:1 we read é¢’ écov xpovor, the fullest form of all. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 169) cites C.P.R. 24, 25 (i/a.p.) éd’ dv 7 xpovov (note ab- 
sence of ay). 

(e) The Temporal Use of the Infinitive. There are nine examples 
of zpo rod and the infinitive. In the LX X there are 35 examples 
(Votaw, The Infinitive in Bibl. Gk., p. 20). These examples all have 
the accusative with the infinitive, as in pod Tod buds aitfoae a’tov 
(Mt.6<8i9 \Cf. Lies 22a ale) Gaal (AS feel cee mee 
15; Gal. 2:12; 3:28), except Jo. 18:19, xpd rod yevéoOar, but 
even here it is implied. ‘The tense is aorist except a present in 
Jo. 17:5. The sense is quite like zpiv (see before). The in- 
scriptions (Moulton, Prol., p. 214) show scattered examples of zpé 
rod and inf. The use of & 7G as ‘when’ or ‘while’ is much more 
common. It occurs only 6 times in Thucydides, Plato 26 times, 
Xenophon 16 times.t. But it is very common in the Septuagint 
as a translation of the Hebrew 3 and the infinitive construct. 
Moulton? admits a Hebraism here in the sense of ‘during,’ a 
meaning not found in the vernacular xow7 so far. The construc- 
tion is, however, very common in Luke, the most literary of the 
N.T. writers, and in all parts of his Gospel. It is found both in 
the sense of ‘while’ and ‘when.’ Usually it is the present tense 
that has the notion of ‘while’ and the aorist that of ‘when.’ So 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 215. 2 Tb., p. 249. 


MODE’ (EFKAIZIZ) 979 


in Lu. 1:8 note & 76 teparebew abréov, (2 : 27) & 7G eicayayety Tobs 
yovets TO tatdiov “Incoty. ‘The examples are numerous (55 in the 
N. T.), but the’ LXX shows 500 instances,! undoubted proof of 
the influence of the Hebrew there, where it is nearly as common 
as all other prepositions with the infinitive. This use of & 76 
and the infinitive is not always temporal. In Lu. 12:15 it is 
rather the content than the time that is meant. In Lu. 1: 21 it 
may be causal. Mera 76 and the infinitive we find fifteen times 
in the N. T. In the LXX the construction appears 108 times 
according to Votaw.? It has the resultant meaning of ‘after’ 
and always has the aorist infinitive except the perfect in Heb. 
10:15. It is found in Luke, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Hebrews, 
and chiefly in Luke.. A good example is found in pera 76 dro- 
xretvac (Lu. 12:5). See also Ac. 7:4; 10:41. Mention should 
also be made of éws rod édetv in Ac. 8:40, as in the LXX 
(Judith 1:10; 11:19). It occurs 52 times in the O. T. and 16 
in the Apocrypha. But note pexpe rob rXetv, P. B. M. 854 (i/a.p.). 
On prepositions and inf. see Verbal Nouns. 

(f) Temporal Use of the Participle. This subject will demand 
more extended treatment under the head of the Participle (Verbal 
Nouns). Here it may be noted that the participle does not of it- 
self express time. We may in translation render the participle by a 
temporal clause with ‘as,’ ‘while,’ ‘since,’ ‘when,’ ‘after,’ etc., like 
the Latin cum. As a rule the unadorned participle in English is 
enough to bring out the idea. The participle may be co-ordinated 
in translation with the principal verb by the use of ‘and.’ The 
present participle is merely descriptive and contemporaneous, as 
arobvncxwv (Heb. 11:21). The aorist participle has either simul- 
taneous action, as aoracauevor (Ac. 25 : 13), or antecedent, as éu- 
Bavra (Mt. 13:2). The wealth of participles gave the Greek a 
great advantage over the Latin in this matter. In the flourishing 
period of the language the temporal participle vied with the con- 
junctions in the expression of temporal relations. In the xow7 
this use of the participle is still quite live, as almost any page of 
the N. T. shows, though it has manifestly in places shrunk before 
the analytic tendency to use conjunctions and finite verbs. This 
tendency to use conjunctions is still more noticeable in modern 


Greek. 


1 Votaw, The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 2 Tb. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 230. “We should not usually put. a temporal clause 
to represent these, as it would overdo the emphasis.” 

4 Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 333. 


980 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


6. FINAL AND CONSECUTIVE CLAUSES. 

(a) Kinship. It is a difficult matter to correlate properly these 
subordinate clauses. They nearly all have relative adverbs as 
conjunctions. Often the same conjunction is used indifferently 
in a number of different kinds of clauses. So ws in comparative, 
declarative, causal, temporal, final, consecutive, indirect inter- 
rogative, exclamatory. In like manner é7ws has a varied use. 
Cf. the Latin wt, which is comparative, final, apprehensive, 
consecutive. The English that and German daf have a like his- 
tory. Goodwin,! therefore, treats ‘‘final and object-clauses”’ to- 
gether as pure final clauses, object-clauses with verbs of care and 
effort, clauses with verbs of fearing. He gives a separate discus- 
sion of consecutive clauses.2. Burton® practically follows Good- 
win. Viteau* blends them all into one. Winer practically ignores 
consecutive clauses. Jannaris® pointedly says that the popular 
speech ‘‘avoids the consecutive construction”? and uses dore and 
the infinitive for either final or consecutive (cf. Latin wt and Eng- 
lish that) “thus confounding consecutive with final clauses.” It 
was not quite that. As a matter of fact the various points of 
view shade off into one another very easily and sometimes quite 
imperceptibly. It is not always easy to distinguish purpose and 
result in the mind of the writer or speaker. The very word finis 
may be the end aimed at (purpose) or attained (result). My 
colleague, Prof. W. O. Carver, D.D., has suggested grouping 
these ideas all under result, either contemplated, feared or at- 
tained. Some such idea is near the true analysis and synthesis. 
The later Greek showed a tendency to gather most of these 
ideas under iva.® 

(b) Origin in Parataxis. It seems clear that these final clauses 
had their origin in parataxis, not hypotaxis. The conjunctions, 
when used, were an after-development. The step from parataxis 
to hypotaxis has already been taken when we meet the Greek of 
Homer,’ though the paratactic construction continued side by 
side in isolated instances. Examples like ages é«Gadw (Lu. 6 : 42), 
Bobdr\e00€ arodbow; (Jo. 18:39), OédXes Erorudowuey (Mk. 14 : 12) are 
probably instances of this original idiom rather than of a mere 
ellipsis of tva.8 Cf. also the possible origin of ob uA as ob wn. This 


1 M. and T., pp. 105-137. 

2 Ib., pp. 217-233. 4 Le Verbe, pp. 71-95. 

3 N. T. M. and T., pp. 83-100. 5. Hist.- Gk. Gr., p. 455. 

6 Ib., p. 458. Thus é7ws and as gradually disappear. 

 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 555. § Goodwin, M. and T., p. 109. 


MODE (EIPKAIZI=) 981 


disconnected idiom was felt to be especially bare in the positive 
form, but the negative paratactic construction with yu with 
verbs of fearing is present in Homer.' Gildersleeve? quaintly 
says: ‘‘Parataxis, which used to be thrust into the background, 
has come forward and claimed its rights.’ This grammatical 
sage, barring the infinitive and participle, adds: “Nihil est in 
hypotaxi quod non prius fuerit- in parataxi.”” The subjunctive, 
therefore, in final clauses is merely the volitive subj. of parataxis.’ 
It was natural that the parataxis should be plainer in negative 
sentences, for alongside of un (originally the mere negative in para- 
taxis and the negative conjunction in hypotaxis) there came iva 
un, ows un.* The whole matter is carefully worked out by Weber® 
with careful discussion of each construction in the various writers 
during the long course of Greek linguistic history from Homer 
through the Attic writers. 

(c) Pure Final Clauses. Here conscious purpose is expressed. 
This class constitutes the bulk of the examples and they are the 
easiest to understand. The Greek is rich in variety of con- 
struction for this idea. We can deal only with the idioms in the 
N.T. "Od¢pa is not in the N. T. or LXX, nor is the idiom of dws 
with the future indicative after verbs of striving. 

(a) “Iva. The etymology of iva is not certain. A fragment® of 
Hesiod has tw at7rg. Perhaps w-a is derived from this form. 
But at any rate in Homer tva=ée? in Iliad, 10, 127. After 
Homer, especially in the poets, it has the meaning ‘where,’ 
‘in what place,’ ‘whither.’” The exact connection between this 
local demonstrative and relative sense and the final ‘that’ 
(ut) is not clear. But we have a similar transition in the 
Latin wt, English that, German dal}. Sophocles in his Lexicon 
of the Roman and Byzantine Periods gives nineteen uses of 
iva for the Greek of that era. They may all be whittled down 
to three, viz. the pure final, the object-clauses or sub-final, the 
consecutive. There is no doubt that iva came to be used in all 
these ways in the Byzantine period. In the xow7n of the N. T. 
time the first two are abundantly shown. The ecbatic or con- 
secutive use is debatable in the N. T. But each in its order. 
Curiously enough the Attic inscriptions make a very sparing use 


TLD De LOS: 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 185. 

2 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1883, p. 419. 4 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 107. 
5 Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtsitze (1884, 1885). 

6 Dyroff, Gesch. des Pronomen reflexivum, 1892, p. 71. 

7 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 566. 8 Tb. 


982 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of iva, much preferring ézws and drws dy.1. So in epic and lyric 
poetry iva is overshadowed by é¢pa and in tragedy by ws, though 
Aristophanes uses it in three-fourths of his final sentences and 
Plato and the Attic orators use it almost exclusively (Goodwin, 
Moods and Tenses, p. 109). ‘The original use of iva, after the 
demonstrative and the relative stage, was the pure final. It is so 
in Homer, though Monro admits one instance of the object-clause.? 
Only the subj. occurs with it in Homer in this construction. This 
is the natural mode for the expectant note in clauses of purpose.’ 
But it must not be overlooked that ta in no way controls the 
mode, for the idiom is at bottom paratactic in origin.t But the 
indicative had a use also as well as the optative, as will presently 
be shown. A word further is needed concerning the tremendous 
development in the use of iva. Thucydides used 67ws three times 
as often as iva, and ws as a final particle only twice. Xenophon in 
the first three books of the Anabasis has. érws one and a half times 
as often as iva, and ws nearly as often as tva. But Polybius 
(books I-V) uses tva exclusively, and the N. T. has tva about 
twelve times as often as dzws, and ws perhaps once. It is thus 
not simply that tva displaced érws and @s, but it gradually 
usurped the final use of the infinitive also. It comes to be almost 
the exclusive means of expressing purpose, and in the modern 
Greek vernacular every phase of the subj. and the old future 
ind. can be expressed by va (iva) and the subj.o Na is used 
also with the ind. The intention in modern Greek is brought out 
a bit more sharply by ya va (Thumb, Handb., p. 197). But the 
distinction is sometimes faint. All in all it is one of the most 
remarkable developments in the Greek tongue. The eight and a 
half pages of examples in Moulton and Geden’s Concordance bear 
eloquent testimony to the triumph of ta in the N. T. Nearly a 
page and a half of these examples are in the Gospel of John. But 
we are now specifically concerned with the pure final use of iva. 
Here iva is in the accusative case of general reference. Thus in 
édnAvOa iva wadw (cf. vent ut discam, ‘I am come that I may learn’) 
iva is really a demonstrative. ‘I am come as to this,’ viz. ‘I may 
learn.’ The conjunction is supplied to avoid the asyndeton and 
is in apposition with wadw. As already explained, the subj. is the 
predominant mode, as in rodro 6€ doy yeyovey va Anpwhh (Mt. 1: 


1 Meisterh.-Schw., p. 253 f. a) Horie Gr pec. 

® Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 479; Mutzbauer, Konj. und Opt., p. 76.’ 
4 Goodwin, M, and T., p. 107; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 211. 

5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 416 f.; Jebb in V. and D., pp. 319-323. 


~ MODE. (EPKAISI2) 983 


22). Cf. Ph. 3:8. The negative with ta is uh, as in ta ph 
kpi0jre (Mt. 7:1). The aorist subj. is the normal tense, of course, 
asin. wa weradd (Ro. 1:11), though the present occurs to denote 
a continuous action, as in iva muorebnre (Jo. 13:19). Cf. va yrdre 
kal ywwoknre (Jo. 10:38). The perfect subj. occurs in €63, as iva 
eldjs (1 Tim. 3:15); ta eiéGuev (1 Cor. 2:12); iva eldfjre (1 Jo. 
orelo jr Cteenlcon Omit Oe 2o7l) Corgi elOs 2>Con'l? 9 (iva 
My Teroores Guev); Wa Tapeckevacuevor Are (2 Cor. 9:3). The 
sub]. is regularly retained after a secondary tense of the indica- 
tive. as In aveByn Wa tén (Lu. 19:4); Everiunoe va pndert elrwow 
(Mt. 16:20). Cf. Mk. 8:6. There is no instance in the N. T: 
of the optative used with tva after a secondary tense of the indica- 
tive. It is true that W. H. read ta 6én in the text of Eph. 1:17 
(iva d@n or 66 in the margin), but this is after a primary tense, od 
mavouat. It is the volitive use of the optative and is not due to 
wa. It is like the optative in a future wish.! This use of the 
opt. with wa after a wish is not unknown to classic Greek.2 It 
is the subj., not the opt., that is seen in iva rAnpots (Col. 4 : 17), 
tva mapadot (Mk. 14:10) and in the sub-final iva yvot (Mk. 9 : 30).3 
In Homer and the early writers generally the rule was to use the 
opt. with the final clauses after secondary tenses, but in the Attic 
orators the two modes (subj. and opt.) are on a par in such a con- 
struction, while Thucydides prefers the subj., though Xenophon is 
just the reverse.* In the N. T. the optative in final clauses after 
secondary tenses is non-existent. In 2 Tim. 2:25 wh ore dwn 
is after a primary tense as in Eph. 1:17, and here again the text 
is uncertain (cf. 67 in margin and dvarvnYwow in text.) The Atti- 
cists (Arrian, Appian, Herodian, 4th Macc., Plutarch) made a 
point of the opt. with wa as “the hall-mark of a pretty Attic 
style’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 197). ‘The N. T. writers, more like 
Diodorus and Polybius, fail “to rival the littérateurs in the use 
of this resuscitated elegance.’”’ Moulton speaks also of ‘the 


1 Cf. W.-H., vol. II, App., p. 168. 2 W.-M., p. 363. 

3 On the sparing use of the opt. with final sentences in late Gk. see the tables 
in Diel, De enuntiatis finalibus apud Graecarum rerum scriptores posterioris 
aetatis, 1894, pp: 20 ff. See also Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p.132. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 197) notes how the Atticists revelled in the opt. with ta, dzws, ws. 
Josephus has 32 per cent. opts., Plut. 49 (Lives), Arrian 82, Appian 87! Polyb. 
has only 7, Diodorus 5. These are true xowwy literati. Moulton finds only one 
pap. of this period with opt. with iva, O.P. 237 (late 11/A.D.), va — duvnfeinv. In 
iii/A.D. he notes L.Pw., iv’—ein in primary sequence. Tb. 1 (1i/B.c.) actually 
has }Elwoa ypnuaticbjoo.ro. 

4 Weber, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Absichtsitze, p. 243. 


984 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


riot of optatives”’ in the artificial Byzantine writers. On the 
whole subject of final clauses see Gildersleeve on ‘‘The Final 
Sentence in Greek,” 1883, p. 419, A. J. of Philol., IV, pp. 416 ff., 
VI, pp. 53 ff. There is no trouble to find in the papyri, inscr. and 
xow? writers generally abundant examples of iva and the subj. in 
pure design (Radermacher, N.7'.Gr., p. 138). But while the subj. is 
the normal construction, the indicative is also present. In clas- 
sical Greek iva was not used with the future ind.! It was not com- 
mon even with érws, as and uw. The similarity in form and 
sense (not to mention itacism of —p7 and —e.) made the change very 
easy and, indeed, the text is not always certain as between the 
aorist subj. and the future ind. Thus in 1 Cor. 13:3 ta xavy7- 
owuat is supported by NAB, tva xavOqowuar by CK and iva xav67- 
gouat by late documents. In Gal. 2:4 the best documents have 
iva KatadovAwoovo.y instead of —cwow. In Jo. 17:2 the MSS. vary 
between iva dwoe and dwcn. So in Jo. 15:8 note iva déepyte kal 
vevnobe (yevnoecbe in margin of W. H.); Eph. 6:3, tva yernrar kal 
éon. But the idiom is well established in the N. T., especially in 
the Apocalypse. Thus tva Oewpnoovow (Jo. 7:3); wa Evpyoovrar 
(Ac. 21:24); ta eve? (Lu. 14:10); tva Onow (1 Cor. 9:18); tva 
dwcovow (Lu. 20:10); tva cevpooe (1 Cor. 9:15); ta xepdnOjoor- 
tat (1 Pet. 3:1); ta cdatovow (Rev. 6:4); twa dace (8:3); iva 
hEovaw — yvdouw (3:9); va Eorar Kal eloeNMwowv (22 : 14), ete. This 
last example may be non-final. In some of these examples the 
subj. and ind. future occur side by side. In Mk. 6:56 and 
Ac. 5:15 note tva xav (only instances of ay with iva in the N. T.). 
This is not modal ay, but xav as ‘even’ =xai (Jannaris, Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 165;, Moulton, Prol., p. 167). “Ine Rev, 13°2/15 =the 
MSS. vary between tva rouon and —-e, and in 16 between iva 
dow and dwce (rove? iva sub-final). The usage is thus on a 
firm foundation in the N. T. It is in the LXX also. See iva 
éorac in Lev. 10:6 and in other writers of the xow7 (Iren., 584 A, 
wa éon).2 But wa occurs also with the present ind. This is 
a rare construction in the N. T. and is not a classic idiom. It 
occurs only three times in the N. T. Thayer calls it “‘a solecism 
frequent in the eccl. and Byzantine writers.” It is so common 
in late writers as not to surprise us in the N. T.A. Thus 1 Cor. 
4:6 wa py dvowdtcbe, Gal. 4:17 ta fknrotdre and 1 Jo. 5: 20 
iva ywwoxouer. The first two are possible subjunctives. W. H. 
read iva wntis dbvarac in the margin of Rev. 13:17, and various 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 115. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 35. 
2 Approved by Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 212. 4 W.-M., p. 362. 


MODE (EIKAIZIz) 985 


MSS. support the present ind. with wa in Jo. 4:15; 5:20; 17: 
Oya OL le ees lo, bite. 4 2 Pet, 1:10; Rev..12:63 
In the earlier Greek writers we do find iva used with past tenses 
of the indicative.2 The idea was to show that the purpose was 
dependent on an unfulfilled wish or unattained action. But this 
refinement does not appear in the N. T. except in two examples 
with un mws. With all the wide extension of tva in Western Hel- 
lenistic,? at the heart of it there is the pure telic idiom. “Iva with 
the imperative in 1 Cor. 1 : 31 is due, of course, to the quotation. 
“Iva is repeated three times in 2 Cor.12:7. In Jo. 11:37, rovjoa 
iva Kal ovtos pi) arofavy, One is reminded of the Latin facere ut 
(sub-final). Westcott (Hebrews, p. 342 f.) gives a list of all the 
examples of iva in the Epistle (20). Only two of ézws. 

(8) “Orws.. It is compounded of the neuter accusative rela- 
tive 6 and the indefinite adverb zws.4 It occurs in indirect 
questions as in Lu. 24 : 20 in the sense of ‘how,’ the usual interrog- 
ative sense, and note article also as in 76 rs (Lu. 22:2). "Orws 
in a sense is the connecting link between the various kinds 
of final sentences.» Thucydides and Xenophon preferred. ézws 
to iva, and: Aristotle has tva only a few times (W. Schmid, Atti- 
cismus, III, p. 87). Polybius does not use ézws at all in books 
I-V. The N. T. has iva 493 times, 6ézws 52 (Jannaris, p. 417) 
as far as Colossians. Scott counts iva 746 times in text of W. H. 
(not including 6 of tva ri-) and 58 of érws. Thumb does not 
give ows as a final particle in modern Greek (Handb., p. 197). 
Even in later Greek érws was a sign of literary affectation.® 
As already noted, in the fourth and fifth centuries B.c. dws 
was quite the rule in the Attic inscriptions.’ It is rare in Homer 
and never has xé or ay in pure final clauses in the Homeric 
language.’ This idiom with ay first appears in A®schylus. In 
the great Attic writers and the Attic inscriptions the subjunc- 
tive, the future indicative and the optative after secondary tenses, 
all are found. The future indicative occurred chiefly with verbs of 
striving, though sometimes in pure final clauses.? The negative 
with this future indicative was un (érws un), though no example 

1 Cf. W.-H., App., pp. 167, 169, 171. See further Meyer on 1 Cor. 4:6. 

2 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 120. The Mod. Gk. has va with past tenses 
of the ind. (Thumb, Handb., p. 198). 

3 Moulton, Prol., pp. 41, 205, 211. 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 565; Delbriick, Konj. und Opt., p. 61. 

5 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 348. 


6 Jann., ‘Hist: Gk. Gr., p.-417. 8 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 111. 
7 Meisterh:-Schw., p. 253 f. onlie De 1 Lok 


986 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


occurs in. the N. T. Moulton (Prol.,.p. 177 note) finds in the 
papyri a few survivals of ézws uf and the fut. ind., though mostly 
ousted by ta wh. Cf. Hb. P. 45, 60, 168 heb ton Tb, Po 414 
Gi/a.p.). Stahl (Syntax, p. 360) calls éaws wy and fut. ind. Attic. 
In the N. T. the optative does not occur in this construction. In 
the Atticists it is revived as with ta. The fut. ind. with dws 
in pure final clauses has practically vanished from the N. T. The 
one example in Ro. 3:4, ézws av dixawOfs Kal vixnoes, is a quo- 
tation from the LX X (Ps. 51:6), but changed from subj. there. 
But é7ws Pavarwoovow is a variant reading in Mt. 26:59, and 
the future ind. is possible in Mt. 2:8, érws rpockxvyjcw, though 
it is. probably the aorist subj. Other variant readings where the 
future ind. is supported with é7ws are 1 Cor. 1:29, xavxnoerat, 
and Mk. 5: 23, éaws ¢noerar (here W. H. read tva fyon). But at 
any rate the use of the future ind. with 6ézws in pure final clauses 
is not quite dead in the N. T. period, though surely dying. Else- 
where the aorist subj. alone occurs save in Lu. 16:26 (bis), 28 
and Mt. 6:4. “Omws no longer? has ay in final clauses save in 
the quotation from Ps. 51:6 (Ro. 3:4) and three passages in 
Luke’s writings (Lu. 2:35 érws dv droxadtvdbdcw Ac. 3:19 f. 
Orws av €Mwow — kal amoatetAn, 15:17 drws av exfnrnowow from 
Amos (so A, but B without é&v) 9:12). “Av is a variant reading 
in Mt. 6:5 and is found very often in the LXX. Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 158) finds 6ézws 4vy in Diodorus XIV, 80, 8, Aris- 
teas, § 239, inser. of Halicarnassus (iii/B.c.), Jahrb. d. Ost. Inst. 
XI, 56. But it is rare and ézws steps into the background be- 
fore wa. The revival of 6zws in the third and fourth cent. A.p. 
was Atticistic and did not affect the vernacular. The inscriptions 
and the papyri for the first century A.D. show the prevalence of 
iva Over 6rws (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p.157 note). The nega- 
tive is, of course, always un, as in Ac. 20:16, dzws wh yernrar. The 
subj. is used indifferently after primary tenses (Mt. 6 : 2, zovodouw 
drws dofacAow) and secondary tenses (Ac. 9:24, wapernpotyto 
Orws altov avedkwow). Cf. Ro.9: ies ae ae interesting to note that 
in the N. T. 6ézws is almost confined to Matthew and Luke’s 
writings. The literary flavour of Luke explains his use of the 
idiom, but we do not look for literary ear-marks in Matthew. 
The one example in John (11:57) occurs side by side with iva 
(iva unvion, drws midowow) and may be used for the sake of variety 
as in iva yernrat drws yevnrar (2 Cor.8:14). Cf. also Lu. 16: 28; 
1 Moulton, Prol., p. 197; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 417. 
* Blass, Gr. of N. Pak ps O11. 


MODE (EPKAIZzI=) 2 7 987 


1 Cor. 1: 29; 2 Th. 1: 12, though. tva — iva appear in 1 Cor. 
AO aie yee Le Org Lely. note iva wn and érws un in 1: 
29. But iva has “invaded the territory of érws, as with dpovri¢ev 
and ozovdafev’’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 206). In modern Greek ézws 
has lost all telic force (Thumb, Handb., p. 198). Sometimes 
drws represents the main purpose and the infinitive the subor- 
dinate purpose, a construction amply illustrated in the papyri2? 
So then, though é7ws as a pure final conjunction is disappearing 
in the N. T., it yet occurs with the same concept on the whole. 

(y) ‘Qs. It was not a favourite final particle with Thucydides 
(only twice), though Xenophon used it nearly as much as iva. It 
is not surprising to find only one instance of it in the N. T. and 
that one not certain. NB read as reXewow in Ac. 20 : 24 instead of 
ws TeNecoar (cf. Lu. 9:52). W.H. and Nestle read recewow, but 
Souter (Rev. V.) gives reXedoar. It is the last leaf on the tree 
and a fluttering one at that. The form could be the future ind. 
or aorist subj. Radermacher (N. 7’. Gr., p. 158) finds final: as 
merely a reminiscence in the xo.wn, but it is needless to cite Mk. 
4:26 f., ws avOpwros Badn, since this is not final at all, but com- 
parison. On as ay in final sentences see Schmidt, Joseph. eloc., 
p. 409, for statistics. Radermacher quotes F. P. 118 (110 a.p.), 
jTopevou— éws Tov Exel EXaLGVa ToTions, Where éws is used as final ws. 
Per contra in modern Greek, Moulton (Prol., p. 249) notes that 
ws takes the meaning of éws as well as its own. 

(6) Mn, un rote, un tws. Negative purpose is expressed by iva 
un, orws un also, but originally it was done merely by uy in a para- 
tactic sentence.2 In Homer and the early writers uy is far in 
excess of iva un, drws wn, but in Aristophanes and Herodotus the 
reverse is true, while in Plato and Xenophon wy as a final con- 
junction has about gone. It is rare in the Attic historians and 
orators generally. Originally a negative adverb (subjective nega- 
tive) it came to be used also as a conjunction. Cf. Latin ne. The 
idiom py} ov appears in Homer in a few final clauses, and after 
Homer py) od is used with verbs of fearing. In the N. T. tva pun 
(1 Cor. 1:17) and émws py (1:29) have the run over the con- 
junction py. Only the subj. is used, though in Ac. 27:42 uA tis 
duadbyo. is a variant reading, but diadiyn is correct after the 
secondary tense of the ind. In Mk. 13:36, 7 evpn, a primary tense 
occurs in the principal verb. In Col. 2:4 W. H. read iva pnéels 

ae boy 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 220. 


8 Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 107, 112. 
Cadre Fey lit Be Seibs p. 107. 


988 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mapadoyifnrar instead of wn ris (the variant reading). See also pA 
tis Noylonrat (2 Cor. 12:6). Both wy and yy ws are preserved as 
final conjunctions in the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 198). 
The use of yu} more and wh rus is practically the same. M7 zws ap- 
pears with the subj. (Paul) after secondary and primary tenses. 
So éreuva un mws xatacoxvvOdpev (2 Cor. 9:3f. Note also tva uy 
in 9:3, 4) and py rws yerwyar (1 Cor. 9:27). In Gal. 2:2 (un ros 
éSpayov) and 1 Th. 3:5 (un wws éreipacey) we have a difficult con- 
struction. One view is to take it as an indirect question. This 
is possible in Gal. 2:2, but not in 1 Th. 3:5. Even in Gal. 
2:2 there would be an ellipsis of a participle like ¢nrdv pabety. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 201) suggests that é6payov as an “after-thought”’ 
in Gal. 2:2 has plenty of classical parallels. Cf. Goodwin, Moods 
and Tenses, § 333. In 1 Th. 3:5 we have yun rus éxeipacey xal 
vyevnrar side by side. It is better therefore to take rpexw in Gal. 
2:2 as subj. also. Thus in both examples we have the subj. 
and the aorist ind. This is in accord with the ancient idiom 
where in pure final sentences a past tense of the ind. was used 
if it is distinctly implied that the purpose was not attained.) 
That is precisely the case here. Paul did not run in vain. The 
tempter did not succeed with the Thessalonians. It is thus un- 
fulfilled purpose that Paul neatly expresses in accord with the 
Attic diction. M7 zore loses the notion of time in zorve and has 
rather the idea of contingency, ‘but perchance’ rather than ‘lest at 
any time.’ Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 158) thinks that zoré and 
mows often distinguish deliberative (dubitative) from final uy. As 
a strictly final particle it occurs either with the subj. or the future 
ind., though the subj. is more common.? For the fut. ind. note 
Mt. 7:6 un more xatararnoovow (correct text, though the aorist 
subj. has support), Mk. 14:2 un wore éorar. In Lu. 12:58 note 
un mote Katacvpy Kal amrodwoe. Both subj. and fut. ind. likewise 
occur in Mt. 13:15 (Ac. 28: 27) un more téwoww — xal idcoua (LXX, 
Is.6:10). So also in Lu. 14:8 f., un more 7 KexAnuévos (note per- 
fect subj.) cal épe? (cf. iva épet in verse 10). The normal subj. is 
seen in Lu. 14:12, uy wore avtixadXéowow. The opt. in the N. T. 
is wanting in final sentences as in cases of repetition (Rader- 
macher, N. 7. Gr., p. 131). W. H. read un ore den (opt.) in 2 
Tim. 2:25. But even so, if true, it is not a pure final clause but a 
kind of indirect question as in Lu. 3:15, only in 2 Tim. 2: 25 
the opt. occurs after a primary tense. It is hardly just to say 


! Goodwin, M. and T., p. 120 f. 
2 Burton, N: T. M. and T.; p. 86. 


MODE (EPKAI=I=) 989 


with Moulton! that here Paul ‘misused an obsolete idiom,” 
since the opt. after primary tenses occurs occasionally with wa 
in the papyri.2 Cf. un wore abt&v xpeia yevorto, ebOews aitovs &£€da- 
gov, P. Oxy. I, 118, 38. But it is more than likely, as Moulton 
argues, that in 2 Tim. 2: 25 we should read subj. day, since avav7- 
Ywow undoubtedly is subj. The epic day is supported by éav 
yven, Clem., Paed., III, 1. (Moulton, Prol., p. 193.) 

(ec) Relative Clauses. This construction in the earlier Greek, 
like the Latin, had either the subj. or the opt. The Attic added 
the future ind. which largely displaced the subj. and the opt.’ 
The N. T. follows the Attic use of the fut. ind. Cf. otrwes azo- 
dwcovow (Mt. 21:41); ods katacrncouey (Ac. 6:3). See 1 Cor. 4: 
17, ds dvayyvnoe. Blass* explains the occasional return to the 
subj. as due to wa. See drov dayw (Mk. 14 : 14); rap’ & EericbGpev 
(Ac. 21:16); 6 rpoceveyxn (Heb. 8:3); 6c’ 7s Natpebwuev (12 : 28). 
Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 188) quotes B. U. III, 822 (ji/a.p.) 
evpov yeopyov tis (=ds) a’ra édxbon, Diodorus, XIV, 8, 3, 6c’ ay 
éEEXwou Ta Tetxn. The N. T. hardly uses the relative clause of 
purpose as freely as the Attic Greek. 

(¢) The Infinitive. <A brief statement is alone necessary here, 
since the infinitive receives full discussion in the next chapter. 
Suffice it to say that the infinitive is exceedingly common in the 
N. T. for the notion of pure purpose. Votaw® counts some 1,285 
such instances of the simple infinitive of purpose in “biblical 
Greek.” He gives the figures for the N. T. alone as 211. He 
notes that ‘‘this use of the infinitive is second only to that of 
general object in order of relative frequency of occurrence.” 
Moulton (Prol., p. 205) notes that the inf. of purpose is more 
common in the N. T. than in Attic, and he agrees with Thumb 
(Theol. Lit., 1903, p. 421) in the theory that this frequency of the 
inf. of purpose in the xow7 is due to the Ionic dialect. It has sur- 
vived in the Pontic dialect of modern Greek, though elsewhere 
displaced by va and the subj. Cf. éro.udowyev hayety (Mt. 26 : 17) 
and éro.udowpev tva dayns (Mk. 14:12). The telic inf. is common 
in the xowy writers generally (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 152). 
Cf. Xenophon of Eph., 393, 28, nde tpocebéacOa. It is com- 
monest with verbs of movement (Moulton, Prol., p. 205), as in 
éay avaBd kaya mpooxuvyica, Par. P. 49 (1i/B.c.). This infinitive may 
be resolved easily into the original dative (or locative), as in Jo. 

1 Prol., p. 194. SGraotiNol. Gk pool ¢: 


eID Delos 5 The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 10. 
§ Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 216 ff. 


990 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


21:3, brayw adteverv, ‘I go a-fishing’; Mt. 2:2, 7Mowev rpockvrijcat, 
‘we went up for worshipping.’! It is easy to see the purpose 
in the dative form of zpockvyjca, but less clear in the locative 
adevev (probably due to syncretism). Moulton? suggests that 
the locative was originally a sort of designed result and gradually 
the line of cleavage vanished between the two forms as was true 
of iva (and wt). ‘“‘The burden of making purpose clear is in all 
these cases thrown on the context; and it cannot be said that any 
difficulty results, except in a minimum of places.” This idiom 
has a much wider range in Homer than in Attic writers and is 
again more prevalent in the N. T. than in the Attic. A few ex- 
amples must suffice: otk #Oov katadboar, GANG TANPaocar (Mt. 5:17); 
6 ’Inaods avnxOn — repacbjvar bd Tod diaBddov (4:1); otk AOov Ka- 
Néoar dexaiovs (Mk. 2:17); wapecuev axodoa (Ac. 10:33). Cf. Lu. 
18:10; Ac. 11: 25; 12:13; 18 : 44, ete. Less frequent is the inf. 
with rod for the idea of purpose. Votaw‘ notes but 34 such exam- 
ples of direct purpose in the N. T., though the O. T. shows 734. 
These 34 are almost confined to Matthew, Luke and Acts. Cf. 
rod arovéoa (Mt. 2:13); rod oretpar (Lu. 8: 5); 708 airety (Ac. 3: 2). 
See both together in Lu. 1: 76 f., 79; 2:22, 24, rapacrijoar — xal 
rod dodvat. For a full discussion see “‘Articular Infinitive’ (Verbal 
Nouns). Paul seems to avoid it asarule. But see Ro. 6:6; Ph. 
3:10. The use of Sore and the inf. for pure purpose is rare in 
the N. T., some half-dozen instances.’ Only probable examples 
should be claimed (p. 1089). Thus adore exBadrev (Mt. 10:1). 
Cf. Mt. 15 : 33; 24:24; 27:1; Lu. 4:29; 20:20. Radermacher 
(NV. T.Gr., p. 160) cites P. Oxy. I, 52, 7 (325 a.p.), érucradevtos bore 
THY OLabeow Eyypadov rpocdwrjca. For further examples of telic 
gore in the inscriptions and writers of the xowf see Koch, Obser- 
vationes grammaticae, p. 20. It is more frequent in the LXX. 
Radermacher even cites a case of final dare with the subj. in a 
late papyrus, B.G.U. III, 874, yeypadnna bytv Sore réupynre. There 
are two examples of ws in W. H., as érouudoar (Lu. 9 : 52, other 
editors wore) and ws eros eirety (Heb. 7:9). In Ac. 20:24 most 
editors have ws reXecoar, but not W. H. The articular infinitive 
with prepositions is very common in the N. T. as in the LXX, 
about one-half of all the examples of the articular infinitive.’ For 
a discussion of prepositions with the inf. see Verbal Nouns. Both 
eis 76 and mpds 76 Occur with the inf. in the papyri, the latter 
1 Moulton, Prol., p. 204. ‘ Inf. in BiblaGk, p21; 


2! Tbatp. 20a celier ye, 10) 
3 Blass, Gr. of N. T, Gk., p. 228. Selb. pelo: 


en ae, f 


MODE (EIPKAIZI>) 991 


more frequently. They both seem “to carry the thought of a 
remoter purpose.’? (Moulton, Prol., p. 220.) Moulton. cites 
B. U. 226 (i/A.D.) drws €i69 mapécectar (= Oar) — mpds 76 Tvxiv, O. P. 
237 (11/A.D.) drws portions — mpds TO un — evTvyxavev. The pa- 
pyri have eis ro & unéevi peudOjvac as a “recurrent formula.” Cf. 
P. Fi. 2 (iii/a.p.) 4 times. Moulton gives numerous papyri ref- 
erences for telic eis 76. The examples with eis 76 are the most 
common of all in the N. T. (72 instances). As a rule these 
indicate purpose more or less strong, though not always. It is 
particularly common in Paul (50 exx., H. Scott). So eis 76 orn- 
pexOfvac (Ro. 1:11), eis 7d efvar (8:29). Cf. 1 Th. 3:5; Eph.-1: 
12; Ph. 1:10). The instances of wpdés 76 are few (12) and chiefly 
in Matt. and Paul. Cf. rpdos 76 Oeabjivar (Mt. 6 : 1); mpds 76 dbvacbat 
(Hibs Oreliye 

(n) The Participle. The future participle, so common in this 
construction in the Attic Greek, has nearly vanished from the 
N. T. as from the rest of the cow. A few remnants survive like 
épxetar “HXelas cwowv (Mt. 27:49), aveBnv rpockvyncwy and rounowy 
(Ac. 24:11, 17). Cf. Ac. 8:27. So also the present participle 
occasionally occurs where purpose is implied. Thus dzeord\xa- 
mev amayyeddovtas (Ac. 15:27). Cf. éreufav ayyedAdovtas (Thue. 
VII, 26; 9)2 Cf. also Mk. 3:31. .A good example is Ac. 3: 
26, améore\ev airov evdoyobdvTa. See Participle (Verbal Nouns) and 
Tense for further remarks. 

(dq) Sub-Final Clauses (really object or subject clauses like 6rt 
clauses ). There are a considerable number of clauses which are 
not pure purpose and yet are not result. They are the bridge, 
in a sense, between the two extremes. They are found with verbs 
of striving, beseeching, commanding, fearing. In some instances 
the clause is hardly more than an object-clause. The same con- 
junctions are here used in general, and this shows that no hard 
and fast line was drawn in the matter. Various divisions are 
made of these verbs.2 Burton‘ calls them object-clauses of ex- 
horting, of striving, of fearing, of subject and predicate, of com- 
plementary and epexegetic clauses, of conceived result. But even 
so they overlap and run into one another. | 

(a) “Iva. Here again the main conjunction is ta. All these 
varieties noted by Burton are seen with iva save with verbs of 


1 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161 f. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. 

3 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 122 ff. 

So Ne ie Nima Di 50. 


992 A GRAMMAR OF THE: GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


fearing. As we have seen,! there were two tendencies in the 
xown. One was the spread of the Ionic use of the inf. of purpose, 
the other was the wide extension of iva in Western Hellenistic. 
So the iva in the non-final or sub-final sense, once rare,? now comes 
to be exceedingly common. The development came on soon 
after the close of the classical age. But Thackeray (Gr., pp. 24, 
194) finds it rare in the LXX. It came to be used in almost 
any sense that the infinitive bore and finally displaced it. This 
weakened use of iva is one of the characteristics of the xow7 and 
is richly illustrated in the N. T., particularly in the writings of 


John. Thus in Mt. 5:29, cuudéper va arodnta, the iva clause is 


the subject of cvudepe and is a subject-clause in the nominative 
case. There is a great variety of phrases* which thus use iva. So 
dpkerov iva yevnrac (Mt. 10:25; 18:6). Cf. 1 Pet. 4:3 (inf.). 
See also tkavos tva (Mt. 8:8), though elsewhere inf.; a&os iva (Jo. 
1:27), but inf. in 1 Cor. 16:4, as often; cvrvnfea tyty va (Jo. 
18 : 39); edndrdvdev Spa wa (Jo. 12 : 23); Euol eis EXaxrorov éoTw iva 
(1 Cor. 4:3); €uov Bpdua éorw wa (Jo. 4 : 34); AvotTeNe? — tva (Lu. 
17:2); rodro, iva On (Lu. 1:48); Enretrar va (1 Cor. 4: 2); xapav iva 
(Ph. 2:2). Thus the ta clause is seen to be either nom. or acc., 
simply, or in apposition with a substantive. In John® the appo- 
sitional use is very frequent. So airy iva (Jo. 17:38); peifova rav- 
ts, wa (15:18, ablative); & rottw, iva (15 : 8, locative); xapu, iva 
(8. John A; accusative)) Cie Jon6 739; i Jomo alee tees ee 
2.Jo. 6; 1 Cor. 9185 Reve 25:21) In Jo. 15s 12 %valayarare 
(subj.) is in apposition with év7oAn. Some of these are comple- 
mentary or epexegetic clauses. In the subject and object (or 
appositive) clauses the subjunctive is usually found, though occa- 
sionally the fut. ind., as in éppé0n iva dédixnoovow (Rev. 9:4). See 
further examples of the fut. ind. in Rev. 3:9; 6:11; 13:12; 
14:13 (especially common in the Apocalypse). In Rev. 9:5 
we have €600n iva wu amoxteivwow abtots, adr’ tva BacavicOjoovrat. 
In Jo. 17:3 some MSS. read tva yuwoxovow (read by Treg. and 
Tisch.). Object-clauses with tva after verbs of striving, beseech- 
ing, etc., largely displace érws. Many of these verbs use also the 
infinitive and a few retain ézws.6 Blass’ gives a careful list of 
the construction in the N. T. with each of these verbs. See also 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 205. 

2 It is seen as early as Demosthenes (IV, 28). 

8 Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 320. 

4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N; DGks pr228; 8° Blass;GroofN, 1.Gk. pr co fh 
5’ W.-Th., p. 338 f, alt, 





MODE (EIKAI=I2) 993 


Thayer under iva (2). Cf. Acta Pauli et Theclae, 29, rpdcevéa 
imép Tod Téexvov pou, tva Snoerac. With these verbs iva gives the 
purport or object rather than the purpose. This use of iva is very 
rare! in classic Greek, though in itself not out of harmony with 
the Greek genius. The parallel between iva in this sense and ért 
is seen in Jo. 11:50; 1.Jo. 5:3, 9, 11. Per contra see 1 Jo. 5: 
13 for distinction. Cf. also 67s in Mt. 13:13 with ta in Lu. 
8:10. It is worth repeating that in the modern Greek (except 
in the Pontic dialect) it is universal (va) to the exclusion of the 
inf. and érws. It is common after verbs of saying (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 189). The examples in the N. T. are too numerous 
to give a complete list. But note iva after ayyapebw (Mt. 27: 
32); ayaddrdouae (Jo. 8 : 56); aywrifouar (Jo. 18 : 36); airéouae (Col. 
1:9); amayyeddAw (Mt. 28:10. So mapayyéed\dkw, Mk. 6:8); ao- | 
aTeddw (Ac. 16 : 36); adinue (Mk. 11:16); Bovdrebouar (Jo. 12 : 10); 
and ocupB. (Mt. 26 : 4); Bdréxw (1 Cor. 16:10); ypadw (Mk. 9 : 12); 
diacTéAAouae (many MSS. in Mt. 16 : 20); déouac (Lu. 9 : 40); didwue 
(Mk. 10:37); &rodjy didwue (AauBavw), as in Jo. 11:57 (13:34; 
15:12); évréd\Nouae (Mk. 18 : 34); émiteuaw (Mt. 12:16; 16: 20, 
W. H.); é£opxitw (Mt. 26 : 63); eowraw (Mk. 7: 26); efrov (Mt. 4: 
3); and Aeyw (Ac. 19:4); O€\w (Mk. 6:25); Eoriv OedAnua (Mt. 18: 
14); (now (1 Cor. 14 : 1); Enréw (1 Cor. 4 : 2); knpboow (Mk. 6 : 12); 
pepiuvaw (1 Cor. 7:34); mapaxadkew (Mt. 14 : 36); reifw (Mt. 27: 
20); wovew (Jo. 11:37); rpocebyouar (Mk. 14 : 35); cuvrideuar (Jo. 
9:22 and inf.); ri€nuc (Jo. 15:16); duvddccoua (2 Pet. 3:17). 
This is a most interesting list. Kéalker (Questiones de elocutione 
Polybiana, 1880. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 20) has shown how 
Polybius favours tva with verbs of commanding like airéoua, za- 
payyeddw, etc. No real distinction in sense can here be drawn 
between the inf. and ta. The later xow7 (and so the N. T.) car- 
ried this use of tva much further than did Polybius, who had more 
affinity with the old literary Greek. There is no need to appeal 
to Latin influence for this sub-final use of tva, as Moulton (p. 208) 
abundantly shows from the papyri. So O. P. 744 (i/B.c.) épwr& ce 
wa wh aywraons, N. P. 7 (i/A.D.) €ypava iva cou dvdaxbdor, B. U. 
531 (ii/A.D.) mapaxad® oe iva Kataoxys, O. P. 121 (ili/A.D.) ela cou 
eva dwawow. Moulton (Prol., pp. 177, 208) recalls the old jussive 
subj. as sufficient explanation of this use of iva. Radermacher 
(Rh. M., LVI, 203) and Thumb (Hellen., p. 159) support Moulton 
against the Latin influence theory. Per contra see Goetzeler, - 
De Polybii El., pp. 17 ff.; Kalker, Quest.; Viereck, Sermo Grae- 
1 It is found in Hom. Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 128. 


994 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


cus, p. 67. Moulton scores his point and observes also that the 
inf. was not driven out by iva in the papyri, see (6). Cf. A. P. 135 
(ii/A.D.), €owT® oe pry ayedety pov. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p 
155 f.) gives numerous other examples of non-final tva in papyri 
and inscriptions. The subj. is the usual mode employed even 
after secondary tenses. Thus €GovdretoavTo iva aroxreivwow (JO. 
12:10). In Mk. 9:30, otk 7OeXev va Tis yvot, we have still the 
subj., not the opt. As already noted, tva én in Eph. 1:17 is 
an optative of wish after a primary tense. It is here also the 
subfinal wa. Cf. Phil. 14; Col.4:12. Moulton! points out how 
closely akin are rpocebxecbe iva uh E\Onte (Mk. 14:38) and dpare 
kal duddooeobe (Lu. 12:15). The paratactic origin of the iva con- 
struction is thus well illustrated. ‘An innovation in Hellenistic 
is iva c. subj]. In commands, which takes the place of the classic 
drws ec. fut. indic.’”’? Moulton cites a moderate number of ex- 
amples of this abrupt use of a in the papyri. So F. P. 112 (99 
A.D.) éréxov (=av) Zawidar kal elva adtov pn dvowrnjons, letter of 
Cicero (Att. 6:5) radra otv, rp&rov yer, va ravTa ow@tnra’ devTEpov 
dé, tva pndé Tv ToKwy OdN-ywpnoyns, B. U. 48 (ii/ili A.D.) ta dpdce 
yevoueda. There is a doubtful ex. of this sense of tva in Soph., 
Oed. C. 155, though é7ws was so used.? It appears in Arrian and 
Epictetus. In the modern Greek the va clause sometimes ‘“ap- 
proaches the nature of a principal sentence”? (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 198). But this elliptical imperative is undoubted in the N. T. 
Cf. Mk..'5 : 23; ta @Oav eriffs.: So also Mt. 20:32; 1 Cor. 7: 
29; 2 Cor.8:7; Eph. 4:29; 5:33. With this construction com- 
pare the asyndeton without twa in Mk. 10: 36, ri Oédere rornow 
iutv; As already explained (p. 430), this may be parataxis (two 
questions). Cf. vain Mk. 10:35 and Gal. 5: 17.4 

(8) “Orws. It is much rarer in the N. T. in these constructions. 
It no longer occurs with the future ind. after verbs of striving. 
The papyri show érws occasionally in this sense also. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 208) cites B. M. 21 (ii/B.c.) n£lwod oe brws a706007, while 
“a& c. infin. occurs in the same papyrus.”’ Radermacher (N. 7. 
Gr., p. 141 f.) quotes Theoph. ad Autolycum, 2, 34 éotw cor éepev- 
vay Ta TOV Oeod brws duvyjoe, inscr. from Magn., 90, 12 (ii/B.c.) 
eppovticev bTwWs — aroxatactaow. The few examples in the N. T. 
are all in the subj. Burton notes only three (Mt. 12:14; 22:15; 
Mk. 3:6), and all three after cupBotdov aor (éidovr). The 
clause thus partakes of the nature of an indirect deliberative 


i ProLepelis. 2 Ib. 3 W.-M., p. 396. 
4 See art. by Jann., Expositor, ser. V, vol. IX, p. 296. 


MODE (EIKAIZ=I=) 995 


question (cf. Mk. 11:18, 7és). They are all after secondary 
tenses. There are some instances in the N. T. of dws after verbs 
of beseeching, though many verbs that in Attic had this idiom no 
longer have it. Thus érws and the subj. occur with deoua (Mt. 
9 : 38), aitéouac (Ac. 25:3), éowraw (Lu. 7:3), tapaxarew (Mt. 8: 
34), mpocebxoua (Ac. 8 : 15). 

(y) Mn, wh rws, wn wore. The usual construction in the nega- 
tive sub-final clauses is va yn, but a small list of verbs commonly 
have uy as the conjunction. This is true of verbs meaning ‘to 
take heed,’ ‘to care for,’ ‘fear.’! It is a much narrower range 
than the sub-final use of a. In the N. T. the subj. always oc- 
curs with un except in Col. 2:8 BXérere wn Tis Eotar. Thus Brdézere 
un tis buas tAavnoyn (Mt. 24:4). Treg. and Tisch. read the fut. ind. 
in 2 Cor. 12 : 21, but W. H. and Nestle rightly have rarewacn (cf. 
verse 20). The pres. subj. occurs in Heb. 12:15 émicxorobytes 
un evox}. Elsewhere we have only the aor. subj. Thus after 
Brérw (Mk. 13:5); dpaw (Mt. 18:10); cxorew (Gal. 6:1); doéo- 
pac (Ac. 27:17). In Ac. 23:10 some MSS. have edAaBéouar, but 
goBéoua is correct. This construction with doSéouar is rare in 
the N. T. (Luke, Paul and Hebrews) and is apparently a literary 
touch. Cf. Ac. 27:29. In Ac. 5:26, edoBodvro yap rov adv py? 
AGacbGow (note subj. after secondary tense), there is a prolepsis 
of rov Nadv.2, M7 zws is found after BAerw with the aor. subj. (1 Cor. 
8:9) and doBéouar (2 Cor. 11:3; 12:20). Cf. Gal. 2.: 2 in.6, (c), 
(6) Pure Final Clauses. If the fear is about an object in the 
present or past, the ind. is used. Cf. p. 1045. Thus in Lu. 11:35, 
oxérer py — éoriv, and in Gal. 4:11, doPoduar buds wn Tus elkp 
xexoriaxa eis buds. This is in strict accord with Attic idiom.’ 
The papyri show it also (Moulton, Prol., p. 193). So Par. P. 49 
(ii/B.c.) dyad wh more dppworet, N. P. 17 (ili/A.D.) bpwpotue wy 
dpa evOpwoxwv erabey tart. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 141) adds 
examples of fut. ind., as Enoch 6:3, doBoduar pr ob Oedqoere; Dio 
Chrys., xxxiv, 44, ob yap éore kivduvos, ut) Madd\wrav ecopevwy acbeve- 
otepo. dogere. The negative in such a clause is od. Thus ¢ofotpar 
uh mws odx olovs Oédw ebpw (2 Cor. 12 : 20). This is to show contrast 
to ph. Cf. Col. 2:8, uh tis ora — kal ob. Sometimes a verb of 
fearing is implied, though not expressed (cf. elliptical use of iva 
and iva ph). Thus Ac. 5:39, uh more bpeAfire. This is a possible 
explanation of uh wore ob pi) apxéon (or wn wore otk) in Mt. 25:9 

1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., pp. 88, 95 f. 


2 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 95. 
3. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 133. 


906 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(note negatives) and pA more dan (2 Tim. 2:25). M7 more is used 
with the aorist subj. after mpocéyw (Lu. 21:34; Heb. 2:1), with 
a present subj. after doBéouar (Heb. 4:1), with a pres. opt. after 
Svadoyitoua (Lu. 3:15, ind. question), with a fut. ind. after Brérw 
(Heb. 3:12). These clauses are of paratactic origin.! This 
paratactic construction survives in the use of dpa with the im- 
perative (Mt. 9:30; 24:6), but even so the clause may be de- 
pendent in actual use as in Mt. 18:10; 1 Th. 5:15. Some 
doubt? arises concerning the clauses with BAérw which have a 
paratactic origin, but are practically dependent. Those in the 
third person are clearly so (Mk. 13:5; Ac. 13:40, etc.). This 
argues for a like usage in Lu. 21:8; Gal. 5:15; Heb. 12 : 25. 

(5) The Relative Clause. It is a classic idiom for complemen- 
tary relative clauses to be used in a sub-final sense.2 As examples 
of this idiom in the N. T. note a&ds éorw @ mapéen (Lu. 7:4); ovk 
éxw 8 rapabnow (11: 6); obdeva Exw doris weptmyynoe (Ph. 2:20). Cf. 
ox Th ypdyw (Ac. 25:26) and ri ypayar otk exw (ib.). Rader- 
macher (N. 7. Gr., p. 188) quotes from Achilles Tatius, IV, 16, 3, 
aToyevcouat ToTOUTOV Goov KaKeElvyn AABN. 

(ce) The Infinitive. With verbs of exhorting, beseeching, etc., 
the infinitive was the normal idiom in the ancient Greek. In the 
N. T. it still occurs twice as often as iva and érws together.t Some 
of these verbs have only the inf. in the N. T., as aicxtvoua, a&rdw, 
aoKkew, BovAouat, dokéw, Edw, ErOvpéw, EmiToew, EmLTpETTW, ETLXELPEW, 
KeAEUW, OKVEW, Tapalvew, TELPAW, oToVvdatw, Taoow and compounds, 
dpovTitw, PoBéouat in the sense of ‘to be afraid to do’ (Mt. 2: 22). 
Many of the verbs that use sub-final iva may have the inf. also. 
Thus zroujow buds yeveobac (Mk. 1:17). So also Bovdebouat, aitéoua, 
mpocevxouat, Aeyw, ete. Cf. a£wos Adoar (Ac. 18:25) and aéwos tva 
Niow (Jo. 1:27). In 2 Cor. 9:5 the inf. is used after the tva 
clause to express an epexegetic or complementary purpose (tabrnv 
érolunv evar), a rather common usage. Cf. in 1 Cor. 9:15 both 
iva and the inf. in a broken sentence. Moulton® argues that 
in Paul the majority of cases of rod with the inf. are epexegetic 
(Ro. 01%.245°75:3358 12 ale@or, 10.13) corsadnominals home os 
23° 1 G@or.19410; 16 242 -Core8: 11 ePh aor 21) oretherabiative 
construction (Ro. 15 : 22; 2 Cor. 1:8). Certainly rod wu) edOety in 
Lu. 17:1 is not purpose, nor vot eiceNOetv in Ac. 10:25. Cf. also 
Mt. 21:32, rod mucredoar. Luke uses rod and the inf. more than 

1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 185, 248. 4 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 87. 


2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 89. ® Prol., p. 218 f. 
’ Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 217. 


MODE (EPKAISI=) : 997 


any other N. T. writer. The papyri show this non-final use of 703d 
and the inf. (Moulton, Prol., p. 219f.). So B. U. 1031 (ii/a.p.) 
B. M. 23 (ii/B.C.) rpocdeouévov pou rod repirorjoa. In Lu. 18:1, 
mpos ro dety is not final. Eis 76 and the inf. we find chiefly in 
Paul (44 examples, Moulton, Prol., p. 218. Mr. H. Scott makes 
50 by counting the verbs instead of the preposition). The con- 
struction is always final in the other N. T. writers. But Paul 
has non-final uses, as in 1 Th. 2:12; 4:9. A 

(¢) Ei and ér. In Lu. 17:2 we have dAvourere? ci Eppirrar 4 va 
oxavdadion, where ei and iva introduce subject-clauses. Cf. also 
ei= dre in Mk. 9:42. In Lu. 19:21, edoBobunv ce bri &vOpwros 
‘avornpos e, the rare use of ére with doBéouar may be causal. It is 
made easier by the proleptic use of ce. The usual object-clause 
with 67. belongs to indirect discourse. 

(e) Consecutive Clauses. 

(a) “Iva. It is debatable whether tva has the ecbatic use in the 
N.T. There is in itself no reason why it should not have it, since 
undoubtedly it was so used in the later Greek.! It occurs also in 
modern Greek, as eivar va xaon Kavels TO pvadd Tov, ‘that is for one 
to lose his reason’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 197). The parallel of the 
Latin wt may have had some influence on this late Greek. The 
development, however, was in the vernacular, and out of the sub- 
final use of iva, and the Latin influence was not needed. There is 
not space to follow the long debate in the grammars and com- 
mentaries on this subject. Kiihner? held that iva had the ecbatic 
sense, but Thayer*® boldly accepts the verdict of Fritzsche and 
Winer who “‘have clearly shown that in all the passages adduced 
from the N. T. to prove the usage the telic (or final) force pre- 
vails.””’ W. F. Moulton‘ agreed with Winer as against Fritzsche 
in the admission of the sub-final use of iva, but he balked at the 
consecutive idea. ‘But it does not follow that the weakened iva 
is generally equivalent to dare: this use of iva is rather, as we can 
still perceive in most cases, an extension of eo consilio ut.” Yes, 
in most cases, beyond a doubt. I once had just this feeling and 
stood against® the admission of the consecutive force of iva. J. 
H. Moulton® confesses to a similar development of opinion on 
this subject. He had once? committed himself against the ec- 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 455. 2 Gr., § 555, 2, Anm. 3. 
3 Lexicon, p. 304. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 114, holds to the strict use of iva. 
4 W.-M., p. 421. 6 Prol., p. 206. 


5 Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., pp. 153, 155.. ©? Intr. to N. T. Gr., p..217. 


998 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


batic iva, but now he confesses himself “troubled with unsettling 
doubts.’”’ He boldly advocates! the freedom of commentators to 
interpret iva as the context demands (final, sub-final, consecutive). 
Ellicott? had defended just this principle, and he is the most 
severely grammatical of commentators. The commentator must 
have grammar, but he needs the grammar of the author on whose 
work he is making comments. So also Sanday and Headlam on 
Ro. 11:11 (uy) érraccay va réowow;) pointedly interpret it thus: 
‘“‘iva expresses the contemplated result.” They appeal to Elli- 
cott, Lightfoot and Evans in support of this laxer use of iva as 
against Winer and the Germans. They also (p. 143) quote Chry- 
sostom’s exposition of iva in Ro. 5 : 20: 76 6€ tva évratOa otk aizto- 
Noylas wadw adr’ ExBacews Eotv. Lightfoot admits the consecutive 
force of tva in Gal. 5:17; 1 Th. 5:4. He is correct in both 
instances. See also Lu. 1:48. In Jo. 16:2, tpxerar cpa iva 5dEp, 
it is almost temporal. It is argued that, where tva seems to be 
used in a consecutive clause, it is the divine purpose that is to be 
considered. But certainly no such explanation is possible in Ro. 
11:11. There is such a thing as the divine purpose and it is 
- geen? in Lu. 9:45, Av mapakexaduppeéevov ar’ aitav tva ph alcOwvrar 
airo. Cf. also Mt. 1:22, tva rAnpw67. But surely no such pur- 
pose‘ appears in Jo. 6:7, otk apxodow abrots va exactos Bpaxd NaBp. 
Here we have contemplated result, it is true, but it is result just 
the same. It is probably just out of this idiom (conceived result) 
that the use of iva for actual result came. Burton>® admits this 
conceived result as in Heb. 10 : 36, and seeks to explain Jo. 9 : 2, 
Tis Huaptev — iva Tuddds yevvynb7; But the effort is not successful. 
He denies that there is a certain, “‘scarcely a probable, instance 
in the N. T. of a clause denoting actual result conceived as such.’’® 
He considers’ Rev. 13 : 13, rove? onueta yeyada, iva Kal rdp Torq éx- 
Tod ovpavod KataBaivey, as the most probable instance of iva de- 
noting actual result. But there are others just as plain, if not 
clearer. Thus 1 Jo. 1:9, miorés éorw kal Sixatos, va adj Tas auap- 
tias. Blass® places this beside aécxos émiAabécbar (Heb. 6: 10) and 
thinks that the consecutive use of iva grew out of the infinitive in 
that sense. With this Moulton® agrees. Cf. also Rev. 9 : 20, ov 


peTevonoay, iva wn mpookuynoovo, With ov perevonoay dodvar alte ddéav 


1 Prol., p. 209. 6 Ib., p. 94. 

22 On iphe leet sal. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 210. 8.Gr.. of N.-T.-GE,,. pa224. 
9 


4 Blass, Gr. of N. T: Gk., p. 228. 
PN AL PM ands barge oes 


Prola po210: 


MODE (EIKAI=I2z) 999 


in 16:9. Note in particular 1 Jo.3:1, where the clause kai éopuev 
accents the ecbatic force of tva. ‘This use is possible also in Jo. 
9:36; Mk.11:28. In Mk. 4: 22, éav un iva davepwhi, we have iva 
(cf. add’ iva) used like Gore and the inf. (cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. 
Gk.,; p. 218). In Mk. 2:10 ta we have real purpose. The 
consecutive iva appears outside of the N. T. as in Arrian (Diss. 
Enpict., I1, 2, 16) otrw pwpds jv, va pw) idép. Sophocles in his Lezi- 
con gives a quite extensive list of passages in the xowj writers 
where iva has the consecutive sense. He has probably claimed 
too many, but some of them are real instances. Even Josephus 
has ta in the sense of conceived result. Radermacher (N. T. 
Gr., p. 156) cites Epictetus, IV, 3, 9, eAetepos yap elu Kal didros rod 
Oeod tv’ éxav reiOwuar attd. Several other examples occur in Epic- 
tetus. So, then, we conclude that iva has in the N. T. all three 
uses (final, sub-final, consecutive), and thus runs a close parallel 
with the infinitive which it finally displaced.2 Sophocles cites 
several examples of consecutive iva from the LXX. One of these 
is certainly pertinent, Wisdom of Sol. 13:9, for va dbvwvrar fol- 
lows rocodrov and iva has the force of dare. 

(8) “Qore. This conjunction is merely as and re=‘and so.’ In 
Homer as is both a demonstrative and a relative. Either idea 
may appear in ore. It is really a comparative particle. In the 
early writers the inf. was more common than the ind. with dove. 
Thus in Euripides the inf. occurs 130 times to 20 indicatives. In 
Thucydides it is 144 to 82, but in Plato it 1s 253 to 240. The 
consecutive sentence began with the inf. and was extended to the 
finite verb.’ In late Greek it returned to the inf. construction. 
Cf. Green, Diodorus and the Peloponnesian War, 1899, p. 21. Of 
the 95 instances® of ore in the N. T. probably 30 do not come 
up for discussion under either final or consecutive clauses. The 
word in these examples is merely an introductory inferential -par- 
ticle like oty. The structure is wholly paratactic. In this sense 
of ‘therefore’ the particle occurs with the ind. nineteen times. 
Cf. Mt. 12:12, dore €eorw. Once the subj. appears, 1 Cor. 5: 
8, wore éopraCwuev. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 161) even quotes 
P. Oxy. IV, 743, 27 (ii/B.c.), 07’ dv robT6 ce OEAw Ywwwoxe, and there 
are other instances like it. The other eleven instances have the 


1 Blass; Gr. of N.. T. Gk.;p, 224. * 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 210. 

3 Cf. Gildersl., The Consec. Sent. in Gk., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1886, p. 167. 

4 Cf. Berdolt, Der Konsekutivsatz in der iiltern griech. Litteratur, 1896, 
pp. 21-27. 

5 Mr. H. Scott makes 95 times by counting the verbs, Geden 83. 


1000 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


imper. (pres.). Cf. dove BXererw (1 Cor. 10:12). See 1 Cor. 3: 21; 
11:33, ete. Of the hypotactic examples 62 have the infinitive 
and only two the indicative. In the Attic Greek actual result 
was expressed by wore and the indicative, while ®ove and the inf. 
(‘so as to’) denoted a result naturally or necessarily following the 
preceding cause. In the N. T. there are only two instances 
of the ind. with &ore (as a hypotactic conjunction). They are 
Jo. 3:16, ottws yap nyarnoev 6 Beds TOV KOTMOY WoTE TOV VioY TOV 
povoyevn edwxev, and Gal. 2:18, kat ouvurexpiOnoay ait of dovzrol 
"Tovéator ware kal BapvaBas cvvarnxon ab’tav rH broxpice. Here the 
actual result is distinctly accented. Blass? on the flimsiest grounds 
seeks to oust ware in Jo. 3:16 by dz and to put the inf. in Gal. 
2:13, so as to get rid of this construction entirely in the N. T. 
Moulton’ rightly shows small patience with such “summary” 
methods in textual criticism. The construction with the ind. is 
not quite obsolete in the vernacular xow7, but in the LXX it is 
almost absent. This classic idiom stands, therefore, in the N. T., 
but only to make the contrast sharper. Of the 62 instances of 
wore With the inf. in the N. T. they are nearly all consecutive, 
not final nor even sub-final. Even in the classical Greek the inf. 
with wore in the sense of actual result was displacing? the ind. 
and in the vernacular it grew rapidly. Cf. wore — amodedvobar, 
B. G. U. 27 (ji/a.p.). This is a distinct encroachment on the 
old idiom and has a wider range than in Attic® In Ac. 14:1 
note ottws wate. See Mt. 13:32 Gore eNety Ta weTeva Tod ovpavod 
kal Katacknvoty &v Tots KAdbots allrod, (Mk. 4:37) ore Hon yeuivecbar 
70 tAotov, (Ac. 15:39) adore aroxwpiaOnvar a’trods am’ ad\dAnrwv. Ta- 
tian took éore consecutive in Lu. 4 : 29 (Moulton, Prol., p. 249). 
Consecutive wore and inf. is too common in the inscriptions and 
papyri for Radermacher to mention (N. 7. Gr., p. 160). We do 
not have wore after a comparative (7 ore) in the N. T. There is 
no example of wore nor of éf’ are in the sense of ‘on condition 
that.’ In Gal. 2:9 iva has practically that idea. 

(y) ‘Qs. Thayer considers that in Heb. 3: 11 and 4:3 we have 
the consecutive use of ws. It is a quotation from the LXX (Ps. 
94:11) and is possible, though the simple ‘as’ is sufficient. But 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 223 ff. 

2 GrSoteN als Gk., p. 224. 4 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 99. 

* =Prol,-p.) 209; 5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 224. 
_ © In Xen. as rather than éore occurs both with the inf. and the modes. Cf. 
Wehmann, De core particulae usu Heroditeo Thucydideo Xenophonteo, 1891, 
p. 40. 


MODE (EIKAIZI2z) 1001 


ws has kept its place as a consecutive particle in the xow7 (Rader- 
macher, NV. 7. Gr., p. 160). 

(6) “Or. There is no doubt about the consecutive use of ére 
in the later Greek.!. We find it in the LXX, as in Ex. 3:11, ris 
elu €y@ OTL Topevcouar Tpos Papaw; Cf. also 2 Ki. 8:13. The in- 
stances in the N. T. are not numerous, but they are very clear. 
Thus Mk. 4:41, ris dpa otros éori Gre Kal 6 Gveuos Kai 7} Odd\ac0a 
traxover aitG; In Mt. 8:27 note roramds drt (cf. ottws wate). See 
also Heb. 2:6 (Ps. 8:5); Lu. 4:36. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p. 160) quotes Acta Christophori, 68, 18, rovotro. yap elow of Oeot 
bay Ore bad yuvakds éxevnOyoav. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) gives ri 
didots Tots duvots gov, STi CwHv aiwvov éxovow; Pelagia, 20. It occurs 
in Theocritus ix, 25 péyas — rocodrov bri — drexoWa, x, 14 és Toaod- 
tov ott. Abbott (Joh. Gr., p. 534) takes é7re as consecutive in 
Jo. 14:22, ri yéeyovey ore huiv weddes Eudavifew; Abbott finds no 
instance of consecutive 67. in the Egyptian papyri. The idiom 
is common in the late Greek. Akin to it is the modern Greek use 
of zod as consecutive (Thumb, Handb., p. 197). The same idea 
is found in Jo. 7: 35. 

(ec) The Relative. This is a common classic idiom. The mode 
is the ind. and the negative ov.2, In Latin the subj. is the mode 
with qui. The tense is usually the fut. ind., though the con- 
struction is rare® in the xowyn. But one may note in the N. T., 
Mt. 10: 26 and in particular 24 : 2, ot un adefA de NiMos Ext idov 
ds ov KatadvOncerar. See also Lu. 8:17; 1 Cor. 6:5; Ro. 8:32. 
In Jo. 5:7, avOpwrov otk Exw va Badyn, We see iva usurping this 
province of the relative. Cf. Rev. 19:15. See “ Relative” under 
Sub-final. 

(¢) The Infinitive. The inf. with &ore has been discussed, but 
we have left the simple inf., the articular (70d) inf., els ro and the 
inf. There are apparently examples of each construction in the 
N. T. Thus the simple inf. of result is seen in Lu. 1: 54, avreda- 
Beto "Iopand ratdos adtod prvnobjvar éd€ous; at any rate it is used here 
very freely. Blass‘ considers the infinitives in Lu. 1:72 used 
“quite incoherently.” But in Ac. 5:3 Weboaco. has a consecu- 
tive idea, as has ém-Aabécbat in Heb. 6:10. See also avotéar in Rev. 
5:5 and dotva in 16:9. Cf. Lu. 1:76, 78f. It is probable that 
originally the dative —a: in the inf., douevac as opposed to dduer, 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 455; Moulton, Prol., p. 249. Cf. Compernass, § 38. 
See Sophocles’ Lexicon. 

2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 218 f. 

$-Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p, 468. * Gr: of N.iT, Gk, p.. 224. 


1002 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


expressed ‘designed result’? (Moulton, Prol., pp. 204, 207), but 
this idea shrank into the background. This idiom is found in the 
papyri,! as in O. P. 526 (ii/A.D.), obk juny amrabys adoyws oe aronel- 
mev. Meyer on Ro. 7:3, rod uy efvar, argues that rod and the 
inf. never expresses result, a position which I once held? But the 
evidence is too strong to resist. See Infinitive for distinction be- 
tween actual and hypothetical result. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p. 154) quotes Acta Barnabae, 10, uy Bacon BapvaBav rod pH 7o- 
pevecOar, as consecutive. The idiom is not common in the papyri 
as is true of 7od and inf. (Moulton, Prol., p. 220). It belongs 
chiefly to the LX X and Byzantine writers, and Moulton puts it 
in ‘the higher stratum of education in the main.” The epexe- 
getic use occurs, as in C. P. R. 156 é£ouciay — rod — bécba, O. P. 
275 rod arocracbjvat éxiteuov. This construction (rod and the inf.) 
had a very wide development in the N. T. in opposition to the 
encroachments of iva. See Lu. 17:1 and Ac. 10:25, where rod 
and the inf. is practically the subject of the verb (cf. original 
dative and locative cases). Luke has two-thirds of the examples 
of vod and the inf. in the N. T. Only half of these (in Gospel and 
Acts) seem clearly final according to Moulton.’? He holds that of 
the 13 examples in Paul none are unmistakably final, though Ro. 
6:6 and Ph. 3:10 are probably so. In both instances rod and 
the inf. is epexegetic of a tva clause (Moulton, Prol., p. 218). In 
Paul ‘so as to’ will usually express his idea with rod and theinf. A 
clear instance in Luke is seen in Ac. 7:19, ékaxwoev Tobs tatepas 
Tod mouety=‘so as to make.’ Blass‘ cites a parallel from the LXX 
(1 Ki. 17: 20), od éxaxwoas rod Oavatdoar Tov viev aitqs. Other LXX 
instances are Gen. 3:22; 19:21; Is.5:14. Cf. Ro. 7:3 (epex., 
consec., p. 1067), 7od wy efvar. It is probable in Lu. 9:51; Ac. 
18:10; 20:3; 27:1; Ro. 1:24. Cf. rod épwrijcat and émws xara- 
yeyns in Ac. 23:20. So with es 76 and the inf. Its most natural 
signification is aim or purpose, but, Just as with iva, so here re- 
sult is sometimes the idea. Meyer in his note on Ro. 1: 20, eis 76 
eivar avrov’s dvaroNoynrous, insists that the meaning of es 76 is 
always purpose. In this particular instance divine purpose 
may be the idea, though result is the probable conception. See 
Sanday and Headlam in loco. Ellicott on 1 Th. 2:12, eis 76 
mepurarery (after mapaxadodvtes xTN.), admits the sub-final use of eis 
76 (cf. tva) after verbs of exhorting (cf. 1 Th. 3: 10), though 
denying the ecbatic use. But it is only a step to go on and that 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 210. 8 Proll, p. 217. 
2 Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 156. 4 Crore Ne bs Gk necau: 





; 
| 
] 
¥ 


as al ee PS 


° 


MODE (EIKAI=I>) | 1003 


the N. T. writers took. See the epexegetic use of efs 76 in 1 Th. 
4:9. Winer! admitted the consecutive use of eis 76 and the inf. 
as in 2 Cor. 8:6, eis 76 mapaxadéoar judas Titov, ‘so that we be- 
sought Titus.’ This idiom is not present in the Johannine wri- 
tings, though it is very frequent in Paul’s writings (especially Ro. 
and 1 Th.) and Hebrews. Notice taxvs eis 76 dxodoar, Bpadds eis 
To AaAjoa (Jas. 1:19). In Heb. 11:3, els 76 yeyovévar, we have 
a clear example of result. Note the perfect tense with notion of 
permanence.? See also dpovety els TO cwhpovety (Ro. 12 : 3), where 
purpose is impossible. Cf. Gal. 3:17. As to wpds 76 and the inf. 
the point is not clear. Purpose is undoubtedly present as in 
Mt. 6:1; Eph. 6:11, and there is total absence of purpose in Lu. 
18:1, wpds 76 detv. It is not certain, in spite of Blass’ comment,’ 
that in the N. T. zpés 76 expresses result.. In Mt. 5 : 28, apds 76 
érOuujoat, either purpose or result is possible. W. F. Moulton4 
denies that the idiom ever conveys mere result, but admits that 
it may have subjective purpose as in 1 Th.2:9. J. H. Moul- 
ton® holds that this is the idea in all the four examples in Paul’s 
writings. See further 2 Th. 3:8; 2 Cor. 3: 138. 

7. WisHEes. The use of the optative for a future wish like 
ayiacac (1 Th. 5: 23), wi yevorro (Gal. 6 : 14), is not a hypotactic 
construction. This is pure parataxis and has already been dis- 
cussed under the Optative.6 See Optative Mode. The only hypo- 
tactic sentence for the expression of a wish in the N. T. is that 
with d¢edov, which comes in the late Greek to be used as a par- 
ticle. Even here it is possible to regard the construction as 
paratactic, but note ei yap and ei#e. It is the second aorist ind. 
of o¢eikw without the augment. ”“Odedov with the inf. occurs in 
Herodotus, and the form is thus probably Ionic.’ For xow7 par- 
allels see ‘Impossible Wishes” under Indicative Mode. Cf. &de- 
Nov ouvioracbac in 2 Cor. 12:11. It is found in the LXX*® as a 
conjunction, as in Ex. 16:3, ddedov arefavouer. Cf. Num. 14: 2; 
20:3. Moulton® suggests that its application to the second and 


1 W.-M., p. 413 f. Be GreOfN ele Gaks Daeo0: 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 219. 4 W.-M., p. 414 note. 

5 Prol., p. 218. See further Ogden, De infinitivi finalis vel consecutivi 
constructione apud priscos poetas Graecos, 1913. 

6 See ch. on “ Wishes” in my Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 157. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 201. 

8 In W.-Sch., p. 29, reference is made to ei ddedov EpbAaéas in Job 14:13 and 
el yap dpedov Suvaiuny in Job 80:24. Evidently d¢edov was not felt to be suffi- 
cient alone. 

SmErol, pr 2uls 


1004. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


third persons is due to the meaning ‘I would’ rather than ‘thou 
shouldst.’ As a matter of fact its use in the N. T. is very limited, 
though ee and e yap are wanting as particles of wishing. For 
a wish about the past we have the aorist ind. So ddedov ve éBact- 
Netcare (1 Cor. 4:8). Cf. Ps. 118 (119): 5. For a wish about 
the present we have the imperfect ind. So 2 Cor. 11:1, d¢edov 
avelxecOe, and Rev. 3:15, ddedov js. The Text. Rec. here has 
ddedov eins, but it is baseless. However, we do find the fut. ind. 
for a future wish. So Gal. 5:12, ddedov aroxoYovtar. Wishes as 
a separate idiom are vanishing in the N. T. But édedov appears 
in Lucian, Athenagoras, Greg. Naz., Socrates. Cf. Sophocles’ 
Lexicon. ‘To compensate for this loss we have the strong assever- 
ations with od un (Mt. 18 : 14), the use of ei like the Hebrew 5s 
(Mk. 8:12; Heb. 4 : 8), ed unv (Heb. 6 : 14), the use of the parti- 
ciple like the Hebrew inf. absolute (Mt. 13:14). The distinction 
between wish and supposition with ei was sometimes hard to make 
in Homer.! The relation between wishes and conditions is not 
clear. 

8. CONDITIONAL SENTENCES. 

(a) Two Types. No hypotactic clause is more important than 
this. For some reason the Greek conditional sentence has been 
very difficult for students to understand. In truth the doc- 
tors have disagreed themselves and the rest have not known 
how to go. The theory of Hermann, followed by most Germans 
(Winer,? Blass*), is the one that I learned from Broadus and have 
expounded in my Short Grammar.* It is also that of Gilder- 
sleeve. This theory in brief is that there are four classes of con- 
ditions which fall into two groups or types. The two types are 
the determined and the undetermined. The point in ‘‘deter- 
mined” is that the premise or condition is asswmed to be true (or 
untrue). <A positive statement is made in either case and the 
conclusion follows logically from this premise. The indicative is 
the one used for this type (the first and second class conditions, 
real and unreal, or fulfilled and unfulfilled). The other type is the 
undetermined condition. Naturally the indicative is not allowed 
here. The element of uncertainty calls for the subj. or the opta- 
tive. The difference therefore between the third and fourth class 
conditions is just that between the subj. and the opt. They are 
both modes of doubtful, hesitating affirmation, but the optative 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 227. Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1909, p. 14. 


2 W.-M., pp. 363 ff. Seep Oli 
* Gr of N 2 Te Gein. 2 tot. 5 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, pp. 435 ff. 


MODE (EIKAISI=) 1005 


is more remote than the subj. In this type the premise is not 
assumed to be either true or untrue. The point is in the air and 
the cloud gathers round it. But there is less mist over the subj. 
than the opt. In broad outline this is the classification of the 
conditional sentences which I hold to be true. Thompson! is 
surely right in saying that no division can claim any higher right 
than that of convenience and intelligibility, except that I should 
like to add that the exposition should be in harmony with the 
facts of the historical development of the Greek language. There 
is no nobler achievement in syntax than the Greek conditional 
sentence before it broke down from the loss of the optative and 
the future indicative. In the modern Greek it is therefore a 
wreck, and there is corresponding obscurity between the various 
classes of conditions, as in English, in spite of special develop- 
ments to make atonement for the loss.2, In broad outline these 
four classes of conditions may be termed Reality, Unreality, 
Probability, Possibility. The word Probability is, however, too 
strong a term for the third-class condition (éay and the subj.). La 
Roche? prefers ‘‘objektive Moglichkeit”’ for the third class and 
“subjektive Moglichkeit” for the fourth class (ef and the opt.). 
This is also the language of Winer, ‘‘objective possibility” and 
“subjective possibility.” Farrar’ prefers the words Possibility, 
Impossibility, Slight Probability, Uncertainty. Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 142) calls ef with ind. ‘‘objektiv,” é&» with subj. 
“an sich objektiv,” «i with opt. “subjektiv,” ef with past tenses 
of ind. “Irrealitit.’”’ So it goes. Radermacher thinks also that, 
to understand the Greek conditions, we must distinguish sharply 
between the vernacular and the xowyn (‘so miissen wir scharf 
scheiden zwischen Volkssprache und der Koiné’’), a mistaken 
view in my judgment. It is best to use cow for both the ver- 
nacular and literary language. This brings us face to face with 
the other theory, the one adopted by Farrar. It was expounded 
by Goodwin® and has had quite a vogue in America and Eng- 
land.’ This theory calls for “particular” and ‘ general” supposi- 
tions as a fundamental element. This is a false step in itself. As 

1 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 296. 

2 Jebb, V. and D.’s Handb., pp. 330 ff.; Thumb, Handb., p. 194 f. 

3 Beitr. zur griech. Gr., 1893, pp. 14, 18. He uses “Wirklichkeit” and 
“Trrealitat’’ (pp. 8, 28) for the others. 

4 W.-M., p. 364. 5 Gk. Synt., p. 156 f. 

6 See Proc. of the Am. Acad., vol. VI; Jour. of Philol., V, pp. 186-205, 


VIII, pp. 13-38; M. and T., pp. 145 ff. 
7 Adopted by Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 296. 


1006 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Gildersleeve! shows, each of the four classes of conditions may be 
particular or general. That point has no bearing on the quality 
of the condition. Goodwin’s past general supposition, where alone 
a show of distinct structure is made, is a mixed condition (see later 
under fourth class condition). But the point on which I wish to 
attack Goodwin’s scheme is chiefly in his definition of the first and 
second class conditions. That involves the third also, as will be 
seen. Goodwin confuses the ‘fact’? with the “statement” of the 
fact. He describes the first condition thus: ‘‘When the protasis 
simply states a present or past particular supposition, implying 
nothing as to the fulfilment of the condition, it takes a present or 
past tense of the indicative with e.’’ The words to which I ob- 
ject, besides “particular,” are “implying nothing as to the fulfil- 
ment of the condition.” This condition pointedly implies the 
fulfilment of the condition. It is the condition of actuality, real- 
ity, Wirklichkeit, and not mere “possibility” as Farrar has it (see 
above) ad la Goodwin. This is the crux of the whole matter. 
Once see that the first class condition with the ind. implies the 
reality of the premise, all else follows naturally. In the discussion 
of the second class condition Goodwin? properly says: ‘‘When the 
protasis states a present or past supposition, implying that the 
condition zs not or was not fulfilled, etc.” This is the condition 
of unreality as the other is that of reality and the indicative is, of 
course, used with both. Hence the subj. and the opt. conditions 
fall apart to themselves as undetermined. The point about all 
the four classes to note is that the form of the condition has to 
do only with the statement, not with the absolute truth or cer- 
tainty of the matter. Examples will be given directly to show that 
the second class condition is sometimes used where the fact is 
just the opposite. The same thing is true of the first class condi- 
tion. We must distinguish always therefore between the fact 
and the statement of the fact. The conditional sentence deals 
only with the statement. This point is clearly seen in Kiihner- 
Gerth, II, p. 465, except that the third class is lost sight of and 
merged with the first. Burton*® follows Goodwin through all his 


1 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, pp. 435 ff. Gildersl. still objects to the distinc- 
tion of “particular” and “general” suppositions which Goodwin brought into 
fashion. That merely depends on the character of the apodosis. Cf. Am. 
Jour. of Philol., 1909, p. 10. 2- Mandy pale 

$3 N.T.M.and T., pp.100 ff. Farnell (Gk. Conditional and Rel. Sent., 1892) 
also follows Goodwin, as does R. H. Smith (The Theory of Cond. Sent. in Gk. 
and Lat., 1894). 


MODE (EIKAIZIZ) 1007 


ramifications. A word further is demanded by way of warning. 
One must not try to explain the Greek condition by the English 
or German translation. The English is often hopelessly ambigu- 
ous, while the Greek is perspicuous if one will only give it a 
chance to speak for itself. The true explanation is only possible 
by the approach from the Greek standpoint. And that is by the 
mode, not by e or éav. ’Eav is nothing but ef av. The ay is not 
essential to either protasis or apodosis. Homer! used ei with the 
sub]. with or without xe or av. The Attic Greek? sometimes has 
et av with the opt. and Demosthenes used ei avy with the past ind. 
Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 127) quotes Joh. Philop. De eterni- 
tate 430, 28 (i11/A.D.) ei — Adbvato av. He gives also (p. 163) Kav 
— Bonfoin, Diod. XI, 37, 3; éav wy — pioato, Diod. I, 77,3. The 
modern Greek uses av (for éav) with any tense of the ind. (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 194). There is no principle involved in dy, simply 
custom. In modern Greek the subj. is used, of course, more freely 
since the fut. ind. and the opt. have vanished.* Jolly holds that 
the ind. was a later development with conditional sentences in 
Greek and that the first attempt was made with the subj. and 
the opt. He thinks that the use of the ind. was the result of a 
clearer conception of the logical possibilities of the conditional 
clause. The subj. was more common in the Zend and the 
Sanskrit (and Latin) than in the Greek.’ Here as always ay is 
difficult to explain. “Now it has a definite reference, now it is 
indefinite. Sometimes the reference is supplied by the context, 
sometimes by the opposite.”® See The Use of a in Relative 
Sentences in this chapter. We shall first examine the standard 
forms of the conditional sentence and then note the variations 
and modifications. 

(b) Four Classes. 

(a) Determined as Fulfilled. This class of condition asswmes 
the condition to be a reality and the conclusion follows logically 
and naturally from that assumption. Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. of 
Philol., 1882, p. 435) observes that this is the favourite condition: 
“Tt is the favourite condition when one wishes to be or seem 
fair, the favourite condition when one is sure of the premiss.”’ 
The construction is ef (sometimes é4v)® and any tense of the in- 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 210f. 2 Biumlein, Unters., pp. 352 ff. 

3 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 463; Thumb, Handb., p. 194 f. 

4 Cf. Jolly, Kin Kapitel vergl. Synt., 1872, p. 122 f. 

5 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 449. 

6 The origin of ¢ is uncertain. Ei is the same as ai in Homer (and Doric). 


1008 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dicative in the protasis. The apodosis varies very greatly. It 
all depends on what one is after, whether mere statement, pre- 
diction, command, prohibition, suggestion, question. Hence the 
apodosis may be in the indicative (any tense) or the subjunctive 
or the imperative. There is no necessary correspondence in 
tense between protasis and apodosis. The variation in the mode 
of the apodosis has no essential bearing on the force of the con- 
dition. This condition, therefore, taken at its face value, assumes 
the condition to be true. The context or other light must deter- 
mine the actual situation. The apodosis is the principal clause, 
but since the protasis is the premise, the protasis usually pre- 
cedes the apodosis. The apodosis may be declarative or inter- 
rogatory, positive or negative. This condition is so frequent in 
the N. T. that no exhaustive list can be given, but representative 
examples must suffice. Thus in Mt. 12:27, ei eyo & BeefeBovdr 
éxBadrAw Ta darporvia, of viol buav ev Tine ExBaddAovow; This is a good 
example (cf. also Gal. 5:11) to begin with, since the assumption 
is untrue in fact, though assumed to be true by Jesus for the sake 
of argument. The question is a reductio ad absurdum. In verse 
26, ef 6 Laravads tov Latavay exBadder, ed’ éavTdv Euepicbn, there is 
the additional point of change of tense in the apodosis. He was 
already divided against himself, in that case, before he casts him- 
self out. But the tense may be merely due to a quick change 
of view-point as accomplished (timeless aorist in reality). This 
point comes out well in verse 28, ei 6€ év rvebuate Beod ey ExBadrAw 
Ta Oaiuoria, apa epbacey ed’ buds H Baorreia. Note dpa with the 
aorist. For the past ind. in both clauses see Ac. 11:17 (ei édwxer, 
tis nunv); 1 Cor. 15:2; Rev. 20:15 (ei rus ody ebpéOn, EBANOn). For 
the present ind. in both clauses note Mt. 19 : 10 (é otrws éoriv — 
ov ouudeper); Ro. 8:9; Jo. 15:18; 1 Cor. 15:12. The presence 
of the perfect in protasis (15 : 14, 17, 19) or apodosis (15 : 13, 16) 
does not vary the point. In 2 Cor. 2 : 5, the perfect is followed by 
the perfect. The fut. ind. may, though rarely in the N. T., occur 
in both clauses, as in Mt. 26 : 33 (ei cxavdadicOjoovra, cxavdadiobh- 
copa). Chi MEk 14529 Gut = 4051 Core 3 2b). 2elhimeeato 
Cor. 3:14f. But such little niceties cut no figure in this con- 
struction. There is perfect liberty to mix the tenses ad libitum. 
So past and present (Lu. 19:8f.; 11:18; 2 Cor: 7:8, 14::Ro. 


Lange (Der hom. Gebr. der Partikel Ei) makes it exclamatory. But Hale 
(The Orig. of Subj. and Opt. Cond. in Gk., Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901) 
treats it as a demonstrative in the locative case, meaning ‘in that case.’ 
This is more probable. 


MODE (EPKAIZI2) 1009 


Ae es Onell past andaiuture (J0i03 : 12; 15:20; 
Lu. 16:11), present and future (Mt. 17:4; Jo. 5:47; 11:12; 
Ac. 5:39; 19:39; Ro. 8:11). In 1 Cor. 9:11 e éozeipaye and 
et Oepicouev occur side by side. Examples of the imperative in the 
apodosis occur as in Mk. 4: 23 ei ris Ever Gta axovew, axoverw. Cf. 
Mieomee) 160 ol sluete ov AC 167155 Jo. 7:4; 18);:237 Int Lu: 
4:3, ef vids ef rod Oeod, eiré, we have a good example of the first 
class condition. The devil would not, of course, use the second 
class (assumed to be untrue), for that would be an affront to 
Christ. The third and fourth classes would throw doubt on the 
point. The temptation, to have force, must be assumed as true. 
The devil knew it to be true. He accepts that fact as a working 
hypothesis in the temptation. He is anxious to get Jesus to 
prove it, as if it needed proof for Christ’s own satisfaction and 
for his reception. If the devil used Aramaic, then we have 
Christ’s own translation of it or that of the Evangelist. In Jo. 
18 : 23 (el Kak@s EMaANoa, wapTipnooy rept TOD Kaxod), however, the as- 
sumption is not a fact, though Christ treats it as such for argu- 
ment’s sake. Cf. Lu. 23:35, 37. In Jo. 20:15 note the aorist 
ind. (ei €Bacracas) and the imper. (ei7e). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., 
p. 215) takes ei #éXes in the late xown to be like the French s’il 
vous plait. Cf. Mt.17:4. For the subj. in the apedosis note Gal. 
5:25, et CSuev rvebpare, wvebuare kal ororxGyev. The use of éav with 
the ind. is rather more frequent in the late xowy. Finally e came 
to be “fa mere literary alternative.”’! In the xow7 in Pisidia and 
Phrygia éav occurs with the aorist ind., the pres. ind. and the 
future ind. as well as with the subj.2. The papyri examples are 
unmistakable, as éav det in Th. P. 58 (ii/B.c.), éav ofde B. U. 
546 (Byz.), éav daiverat A. P. 98 (ii/A.D.), éay 6’ eiciv O. P. 
(ii/A.D.), éav xedeves O. P. 1150, 2 f. (vi/a.p.), éav paxodow Par. 
P. 18, éavrep éxtdAnpwoovow Par. P. 62 (ii/B.c.).2 Radermacher 
(VN. T. Gr., pp. 83, 163) cites others from the papyri and in- 
scriptions. So Heberdey-Wilhelm, Reisen, p. 137, éav 6€ Tis Onoe; 
Kum. Hippiatr., p. 244, 30, éavrep evopyns éoriv. Perhaps ex- 
amples like éay #v are not to be counted as instances, since jy 
for 7 is sometimes subj.4 In general, the difference between «i 
and éav is considerably lessened in the xo, though it must be 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 420. 

2 Compernass, De Sermone, p. 35 f. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 168. 

4 Ib., pp. 49, 168, 187; Cl. Rev., XVIII, p. 108. For the usage of the 
LXX see Sterenberg, The Use of Cond. Sent. in the Alex. Version of the Pen- 
tateuch, 1908. 


1010 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


remembered that é4v was never confined to the subj. nor e to the 
ind. and opt. ’Edv 406a occurs in Job 22 : 3, and Moulton! quotes 
it from Hb. P. 78 (iii/B.c.) as “certainly subj.” Cf. also éav joav 
Tb. P. 333 (iii/A.D.), and a number of undoubted examples of éav 
with past, present and future tenses of the ind. from xoww# writers 
are given in Sophocles’ Lexicon under éév. Thayer calls it “a 
somewhat negligent use, met with from the time of Aristotle on.”’ 
It was just a normal development in the xo till in the modern 
Greek ay is used indifferently with either ind. or subj. So dy 76 
‘caves, ‘if you did so,’ av dupacys, ‘if you thirst’ (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 194 f.). Theophylact in his Proem to Luke has éav uy apper, 
In the N. T. we note éay oldayev (1 Jo. 5:15); éay ornxere (1 Th. 
3:8), where the distinction is clear between the two modes (ind. 
and subj.). In 1 Th. 3:8 ND have orzjxnre, but in Lu. 6: 34 
there is considerable support for éay daveifere, as there is for éav re 
aroOynoxouev in Ro. 14:8. In Gal. 1:8 a few MSS. read éap ebay- 
yericerar. It is possible to treat éay uaprup& as pres. ind., Jo. 5: 
31;8:14. There is undue scepticism on Blass’ part? concerning 
éav and the fut. ind. It is true that the MSS. are generally di- 
vided, but there is no real room for doubt about following NBCE 
in Ac. 8 : 31, éav ddnynoe, except for possible itacism with —y. That 
is possible also in Rev. 2:5 where W. H. read édy peravonons. 
But there is no room for itacism in Mt. 18:19 éav ovpdwrjcovow, 
supported by NBDELA 33, although rejected by W. H. and Nestle 
(FGKM have —wow), nor in Lu. 19 : 40 éay cwwrhoovow, nor in Rey. 
2:22 édy mi) peravoncovow. In Mt. 18:19 the editors seem un- 
willing to follow the MS. evidence for the fut. ind. It is mere 
tradition to feel that éay has to have the subj. Besides, we have 
éav éon and édy pnxete mpoobyow in Hermas, Mand. V, 1. 2 and 
Mand. IV, 3.7. In Lev. 22:9 we find éay BeBn\woovow. There is 
at any rate no great difference in the resultant sense between the 
fut. ind. and the aor. subj. and it was a very natural develop- 
ment. Cf. Homer’s use of xé with both. But, when all is said, 
as a matter of fact, in the N. T. as in the xow7 generally, the rule 
is for ef to appear with the ind. and éayv with the subj. In 1 Cor. 
7:5 we have ei unre av (bracketed by W. H.) without a verb. It 
is matched by the papyri.? Thus B. U. 326 ei 7 éay — xaraXirw, 
O. P. 105 (4i/a.p.) ef 7 &\Xo alay (€)xw, B. M. 233 (iv/a.p.) ef ze 
av — avadwons, Tb. P. 28 (ii/B.c.) ei Kav dbvarar. In these the modal 
av (éav) is separated from ei and used as if with és, drov. Rader- 


LaProles Dao. | 
2 “Gr, ol. NOL. Gk pelo: 3’ Moulton, Prol., p. 169. 


MODE (EPKAIZI>) 1011 


macher (N. T. Gr., p. 162) cites also Joh. Philop., De ctern., p. 
85, 19, ef otk dv—tmapxn. Deissman! sees no analysis of éay uh 
7. in this, though Moulton contends for this explanation. The 
use of ef mepixerras in Mk. 9: 42 in the sense of 67 Blass (Gr. of 
NT. Gk, p. 215) calls “quite incorrect.” He means it is 
not “classic.”” Note the irony in 1 Cor. 14:38, e& tis ayvoe?, 
QYVOELTAL. 

The negative of the protasis in the first class condition is 
practically always od in the N. T. We have ei od as a rule, not 
ei wn. In the classic Greek the rule was to use ei uf, and ei ob 
appeared only where the ov coalesced with a single word (the 
verb generally) or for sharp antithesis or emphasis.2 But in the 
N. T., as in the xow7y generally and occasionally in the Attic,’ we 
meet ei od in the condition of the first class. Jannaris* notes 34 
examples of «i ot in the N. T., but Moulton? finds only 31 of this 
class of condition. There are only two in the second, so that there 
is a Slight discrepancy. In truth e uy occurs only five times with 
the simple logical condition, and the examples are not quite nor- 
mal except the one in Mk. 6:5, otk édtvato ef uw Weparevoey (a 
simple past condition), and in 1 Tim. 6:3, et rus — wi) rpocepxerar 
(Blass calls this an ‘‘abnormal’ instance from the literary style 
and unlike the N. T. idiom). But see 1 Cor. 15:2 éxrés e uy 
elk émcotevoate, 2 Cor. 13:5 ef pwnre dddxmol éore, Gal. 1:7 & uf 
tues elo. Elsewhere the negative is od. This is in harmony with 
the meaning of od and the ind. mode. The definite negative goes 
with the definite mode. This is the condition of supposed reality 
and ei od is the natural combination. In general Blass® is correct 
in saying that ov is the negative of the ind. and uy of the other 
modes including the inf. and part. This, of course, was not the 
Attic standard, but that was hopelessly gone even for the Atti- 
cists.’ In the modern Greek 6ev (from ovédev) supplants od with the 
ind. and un(v) goes with the subj. That is the goal, as Moulton 
observes,® which is not yet reached in the N. T., for uy occurs in 
questions of doubt with the ind. and ei u7 still holds on. Even in 
the modern Greek, Thumb (Handb., p. 195) gives de with subj. 
or ind. in conditions as a@ dév muorevys and a dev ryyawva. NRader- 


1 B.S., p. 204. 4 Ib. 


2 W.-Th., p. 477. Se Probl L: 
3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 429. © Gr of Nak Gk. ipe2os. 


7 Moulton, Prol., p. 170. Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1880, first copy. 
8 Prol., p. 170. Cf. P. Thouvenin, Les Négations dans le Nouveau Testa- 
ment, Revue de Philol., 1894, p. 229. 


1012 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


macher (N. T. Gr., p. 172) cites Pap. Wess. xxvi, ef ov didorat. 
But the point to get clear is that in the first class condition the 
normal negative in the xow7 is et ob. Moulton counts the idiom 
6 times in Luke, 3 in John, 16 in Paul, 2 in James, and one each 
in Matthew, Hebrews, 2 Peter and Revelation. As examples 
take Lu. 18:4 ei kal rov Oedv od hoBoduar ovd€ avOpwrov éevTpéTOmat 
and Jo. 1:25 ei ov otk e& 6 Xpiorés. In the latter case the nega- 
tive is very emphatic. Soin Jo. 5:47 e ot morevere. Cf. further 
Lu. 12+: 26; 165 13 a oms 2a Roms Ale Ore eg ee 
17; 2 Th. 3:10. Sometimes ov practically coalesces with the 
verb, as In us 14426738 Gore /<.9.01 15 6 7eL Oia 22 ee teens 
Rev. 20:15. The notion of contrast is seen in Jo: 10:37 ef ob 
mow, et d€ more. Note also xav py miorednre. So in 5:46 f. ef m- 
otevete, eb 6€— ov miorevere. See further Lu. 11:8; Jas. 2:11; 2 
Pet. 2:4. In Mt. 26:42 note e ov dtvatar rodro mapeNOety édy wn 
miw. In Ro. 11:21, ed otk edetoaro, ov6€ cod deicera, it is hardly 
possible to translate ef ov by ‘unless.’ The same thing is true in 
1 Cor. 9:2 and 15:29. Cf. édv uy iv. 9: 16. 

(8) Determined as Unfulfilled. In this somewhat difficult con- 
dition only past tenses of the ind. occur. The premise is as- 
sumed to be contrary to fact. The thing in itself may be true, 
but it is treated as untrue. Here again the condition has only to 
do with the statement, not with the actual fact. A good illustra- 
tion is found in Lu. 7:39 otros ef Av 6 rpodnrns, éyivwoxey av. The 
Pharisee here assumes that Jesus is not a prophet because he al- 
lowed the sinful woman to wash his feet. Jesus is therefore 
bound to be ignorant of her true character. The form of the con- 
dition reveals the state of mind of the Pharisee, not the truth 
about Jesus’ nature and powers. As a matter of fact it is the 
Pharisee who is ignorant. For this reason I cannot agree with 
Moulton’s statement! that the ind. is not suited to the expression 
of contingencies, wishes, commands or other subjective concep- 
tions. On p. 201 Moulton recovers himself by saying that “these 
sentences of unfulfilled condition state nothing necessarily unreal 
in their apodosis,”’ and ‘‘the sentence itself only makes it untrue 
under the circumstances.”’ I should add “as conceived by the 
speaker or writer.’ Surely the ind. is the mode for positive and 
negative statements, for directness of statement and clarity of 
expression. But one must emphasize the words “statement’’ 
and ‘‘expression.’”” The ind. does not go behind the face value 
of the record. Most untruths are told in the ind. mode. The 

1 Prol., p. 199. Goodwin, M. and T. (p. 147), sees clearly on this point. 


MODE (EIKAIZI>) 1013 


statement of unreality here from the standpoint of the speaker 
or writer, is as clear cut and positive as that of reality in the first 
class condition. The term ‘unreal’ as applied to this use of the 
ind. properly belongs only to the standpoint of the user. To him 
the case is impossible and he makes a positive statement to that 
effect with the ind. By the ind. mode the condition is determined. 
Whether it is fulfilled or unfulfilled is a more difficult matter. 
This idea has to be conveyed by suggestion. It is not a question 
of positive or negative, but of definite assumption of unreality. 
The “unreality’”’ does not come from the ind. That in its origin 
is a matter wholly of the context. Take Mk. 6:5, for instance, 
ovk édtvato ei un Ceparevcer. In the abstract it is not possible to 
tell which class of condition we have here. It is either first or 
second, we know. If the writer is talking about the present 
time in terms of past time, then it is a second class condition de- 
termined as unfulfilled. The Greek fell upon the use of the past 
tenses of the ind. as a device to help in this matter. An unful- 
filled condition about present time was expressed in terms of the 
imperfect ind. An unfulfilled condition about past time was ex- 
pressed in terms of the aorist or the past perfect ind. There is the 
analogy of wishes to justify it, if, indeed, wishes did not come 
out of this construction (ee, ei yap). The origin of this precise 
point is obscure! In the context one must seek for light and help. 
In Mk. 6:5 (ovx éd0vato exe? rorqoar ovdeuiay Sivamiy, ed py OALYoLs 
dppworos éribels Tas xelpas eparevoev) it is clear that a definite 
past event is chronicled. So it is a condition of the first class, de- 
termined as fulfilled. But in Jo. 15 : 22 (and 24) ef ui dOov Kai 
é\dAnoa airots, duaptiav ovk eixocay, how is it? Is it a simple his- 
torical narrative about a past situation? Is it a hypothesis about 
the present time in terms of past time to suggest its unreality? 
Fortunately here the context shows. The very next words are 
vov 6€ rpddacw oi Exovow epi THs duaptias aitav. (Cf. also viv dé 
in verse 24). The contrast with the present and actual situation 
is made in plain terms. In Jo. 9 : 41 we have viv 6€ even after ap. 
This is not always done in the context and one is either left to 
his wits or &v is added to the apodosis. In verse 19 of John 15 
we have ei é rod Kédcpou fre, 6 Kdouos av TO idvov epire. “The addi- 
tion of &y to an indicative hypothesis produced much the same 
effect as we can express in writing by italicising ‘if’ ’? or by add- 

1 Cf. Wilhelmus, De Modo Irreali qui Vocatur, 1881, p. 3. Mod. Gk. no 


longer has this idiom. It uses &v with the past ind. and 64 in the apodosis for a». 
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 200. 


1014. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ing to the apodosis ‘in that case.’ This is the definite use of a». 
But it is a mistake to say, as some writers! do, that av in the apod- 
osis is essential to the second class condition. Even Moulton? 
says: “The dropping of ay in the apodosis of unfulfilled conditions 
was classical with phrases like é6e, éxpjv, xadov nv.” The absence 
was so undoubtedly, but was av ever really necessary with these 
verbs? When ay was used with them, there was a slight change 
of meaning. The N. T. is in perfect accord with ancient idiom 
when it has xaddv jv ed odk éyerviOn (Mt. 26 : 24); edbvaro ef uh ére- 
xéxAnto (Ac. 26 : 32); ef uy jv, otk edbvaro (Jo. 9 : 33), not to men- 
tion the apodosis alone in Mt. 25: 27; Lu. 19 : 23; Ac. 22:22; 27: 
21; 2 Cor. 2.723123 015 2 Peto 221. eine Aca 24 ele opsmeiersent 
gov mapeivar Kal KaTnyopety el Te exovevy mpds Eue, 1t Is a mixed cond. 
(protasis in fourth class) and the apodosis is itself a relative clause. 
But the idiom goes further than these verbs of propriety and 
possibility and obligation, as is seen in Gal. 4 : 15, ei dvvarév, ea- 
kate mor; JO. 15 : 22, 24; 19: 11, ovk efxes, ef wy Av cor Sedopevov; Ro. 
7:7, ovk éyvwv et py did vouov and ovk joev ef un EXevev. In 1 Cor. 
5 : 10, émed a&deidere, we have the apodosis of this condition. Moul- 
ton (Prol., p. 200 note) cites O. P. 526 (1i/A.D.) ef Kal py aveBeve, 
éyw od mapeBevov; O. P. 530 (ii/A.D.) ef — rapéxerto, ameoradkey; 
Rein. P. 7 (ii/B.c.) otk aréornt, et wt) AvayKace. But in most cases 
the av regularly appears in the apodosis, though not as the first 
word. Thus ei éyevovto, madae dy perevonoay (Mt. 11:21). In Ac. 
18 :14f. we have the second and first class conditions side by 
side, ef wey nv adiknud Te } padcolpynua tovnpdv, @ “Iovdator, Kara Oyov 
dv averxounv bua’ el O€ (nTHuaTaA EoTLV Tepl AOYOU Kal oVvOU“aTwY Kal 
vouov Tod kal’ buds, dWeoOe at’roi. Here Gallio neatly justifies his 
own impatience by the first condition (second class) and shows 
his own opinion by the second condition (first class). Sometimes 
av is repeated with two verbs as in ei nde, éypnyopnoev av Kal ovK av 
elacev (Mt. 24:43), but it is not repeated in the parallel pas- 
sage in Lu. 12:39 e jder, éypnyopnoey av Kal oik adjxer, though 
W. H. have one verb in the margin. “Av is repeated also in Jo. 
4:10. 

The simplest form of this condition is when the imperfect occurs 
in both clauses or the aorist in both. In the former case present 
time is generally meant, as in Lu. 7:39 ei jv, éyivwoxev dv; Jo. 5: 
46 ei Emorevere, émcorevere Gv. So also Jo. 8:42; 9:41; 15:19; 

1 Bamberg, Hauptregeln der griech. Synt., 1890, p. 45.; Conditional Clauses 


in Gk., p. 2, Anonymous Pamphlet in Bodleian Library. 
2¢Prol peu, 


MODE (EIKAI=I=) 1015 


PoeesO sie@Orw blew Matsa les LOT Hebi Si: 4,575" In! Jo. 8): 19; 
el jOerTe — av nOecre, We have the same construction, for this past 
perfect has the sense of the imperfect. In Heb. 11:15, ef éuvn- 
povevov — etxov av, however, the reference is to past time as the 
context makes clear. It is descriptive of an unreal hypothesis in 
the past of a continuous nature. ‘If they had kept on remember- 
ing, they would have kept on having.’ This is a classical idiom, 
though uncommon. Another example is seen in Mt. 23 : 30, ei 
jucda ev Tals huepars THY TaTéepwv Nudv, ok av juea. Only the con- 
text can help one tell the kind of condition in 1 Cor. 12:19 and 
Heb. 7:11, for the apodosis appears in the form of a question | 
without ay and the verb. The other normal condition of this 
class is where the aorist ind. occurs in both clauses, as in Mt. 11 : 
21 ef eyevovto, madar av petevonoay, Mk. 13:20 ef py éxoddoBwoer, 
ovx av éowOn. This refers to past time. Cf. Mt. 25:27; 1 Cor. 2: 
8; Jo. 14:2; Heb. 10:2 (only apodosis). Sometimes one tense ~ 
occurs in one clause, another in the other. The standpoint is 
shifted. Thus in Jo. 14:28 e nyamdre, éxapnre av, Gal. 3:21 
et €600n, av nv, Heb. 4:8 ef xareéravoer, otk av éhade. Cf. also Jo. 
15 : 22, 24. It is not always certain that the present reference of 
jv can be insisted on, since there was no separate aorist form of 
eiut. Sometimes fv is aorist. So as to Jo. 11:21, 32, ef js, ov ap 
arébaveyr. But the point of difference is certainly made in Jo. 18: 
30, ef ur) Hv Torey, otk av mapedaxapevr. Cf. Ac. 18:14; Mt. 26: 24. 
In Jo. 4:10, e Ades, cd av Hrnoas, we have the same thing. Cf. 
also Mt. 24:43. In Ac. 18:14 note in the next verse ei 6€ éorw, 
dpeobe (first class). In 1 Jo. 2:19 we have the past perfect 
in the apodosis e foav, uewerfxeccav dv, the solitary example? But 
the past perfect occurs in the protasis as in Ac. 26 : 32, amode- 
Naat eSbvaro, 6 &vOpwros odros ei pi) EwexeKAnTO Kaicapa. Cf. also et 
éyvaxete, odk ay kareduxaoare (Mt. 12:7), though Westcott*® takes 
this as a “real imperfect” like #éev above. The periphrastic 
past perfect we find in Jo. 19:11 otk eixes, ef wn nv dedopevor. 
Moulton‘ has given a list of the times that év appears in the apod- 
osis in the N. T. with the ind. imperf. (17 times), the ind. aor. 
(24) and the past perfect (1). In Lu. 17:6 we have the pres. 
ind. and the imperf. combined, e éxere, éXeyere &v. This is really 
a mixed condition (first and second classes). Cf. Jo. 8:39, é 


1 Cf, Westcott on Heb., pp. 111 ff., for an excellent summary of the second 
class conditions. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 201. 

3 On Heb., p. 115. #9 Proli Daou: 


1016 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


éoré, érouetre (the margin of W. H.). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p. 163) quotes P. Oxy. IV, 729 (137 a.p.) éay dé un Exwdvoev Zebs — 
é(noe av, where note ééy with aorist ind. like the modern Greek 
av ro HEevpa (Thumb, Handb., p. 195). 

The negative of the second class condition is in the N. T. al- 
ways ph except twice, Mt. 26:24 (Mk. 14:21) xadov jv aire ei 
ok &yervndm. Here the ov is very emphatic. Elsewhere we have 
el uy as in Mt. 24 : 22 (note uy in protasis, od in apodosis); Jo. 
9 3333.15 : 22524: 918% 305.19 “all ACR 20n O2-5 Omen Gee Del eel 
ei uy is three times as common in the N. T. as e ov, but outside 
of the five examples of e yu in the first class conditions above 
and one in the third class (Lu. 9:13) ef uA is confined to the 
second class condition and to the elliptical use like zAnv in the 
sense of ‘except’ or the phrase ei 6€ uy meaning ‘otherwise’ with- 
out a verb (cf. ef wy thus in Mt. 12:4; Lu. 4: 26; ef dé uy in Jo. 
14:11)... See a bit later on this point. As already noted, modern 
Greek uses dy dé in this condition (Thumb, Handb., p. 195). 

(vy) Undetermined, but with Prospect of Determination. This 
class uses in the condition clause the mode of expectation (Er- 
wartung), the subj. It is not determined as is true of the first and 
second class conditions. But the subj. mode brings the expecta- 
tion within the horizon of a lively hope in spite of the cloud of 
hovering doubt. W. G. Hale? considers that the subj. in this 
condition is due ‘“‘to a fusion of volitive subj. and the anticipatory 
subj.” Monro’ thinks it is the quasi-imperative sense (volitive 
subj.). He argues that the use of uy with the subj. (ef. prohibi- 
tions) proves this. But Moulton‘ replies that “the negative un, 
originally excluded from this division of the subjunctive, has 
trespassed here from the earliest times.’”’ So he urges that the 
subj. with éav (as with é7av) is the futuristic, not the volitive, use. 
The futuristic subj. in Homer may have ov, but usually uy with 
the subj. in conditions, and yet some cases of ei od with the subj. 
occur in Homer when ov coalesces with the verb as ef otk €édwour, 
Iliad 3. 289, et otk eidow, 20. 1389. In Jer. 6:8 we still have Aris 
ov karoixiob7 in B. The truth probably is that in some instances 
this subj. is futuristic, in others volitive or deliberative. The 
point is a fine one as one can readily see. Gildersleeve® finds the 


Cf. Blass, Gr. of Nee Gk pn 254 Moulton, Proline Lite 

* The Origin of Subj. and Opt. Conditions in Gk. and Lat., Harv. Stu. in 
Class. Philol., 1901, p. 115. 

* Hom. Gr., p. 230. Stahl, Griech. histor. Synt., p. 390, makes it futuristic. 

4 Proll n Also: 5 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1909, p. 11. 


MODE (EPKAIZI>) 1017 


prevalence of the subj. in conditional (as in temporal) clauses due 
to the greater exactness of the subj. here. It enables one, since 
it has a “tendency to realization” (Tendenz zur Wirklichkeit),} 
to make a difference between the indicative and the optative 
conditions, though it has more affinity with the optative, except 
in the case of some future indicative conditions which come very 
close to the subj. idea. The kinship in origin and sense? of 
the aorist subj. and fut. ind. makes the line a rather fine one 
between ei and the fut. ind. and é4v and the subj. Indeed, as we 
sometimes have éav and the fut. ind. in the first class condi- 
tion, so we occasionally meet ef and the subj. in the third class 
condition. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 162) notes ef and subj. at 
first as a ‘‘vulgarism,”’ but surely the classic usage answers that. 
The inscriptions have usually only é4y and aorist subj. he finds. 
But he finds also: abundant instances of ef and subj. in xow? 
and late writers. So Epictetus, II, 18, 11 e un ris e£adeivyn, Vet- 
tius, 274, 11 e 6€ tis Aoyionra, Hippiatr., 177, 2 «i mpoccyjfs, 
Demetrius, De eloc. 21, 11 ef yévnra:, Pausanias, II, 35, 3 ei — 
ddpebwvrar. So in Lu. 9:13 ef unre ayopacwyer, 1 Cor. 14:5 éxros 
el pn Ovepunveln, Ph. 3:12 ef xaradaBw (possibly also ed rws xarap- 
tnow in verse 11), Rev. 11:5 et ris OeAXnon (text of W. H., but 
margin Oéde or OedXnoe). In Ro. 11:14, e& mws rapatnr wow xal 
gwow, we may also have the aorist subj. In 1 Th. 5:10 we 
have elite ypnyopayev elite kabeldwuevr. It is in the midst of a final 
sentence with a. In 1 Cor. 9:11 some MSS. read ei depiowper. 
This construction occurs occasionally in classical Greek. It was 
frequent in Homer and in the Attic poets, but is rare in our nor- 
malized texts of Attic prose, though a few examples occur in 
Thuc., Plato, Xenophon. This “laxity” increased till finally ei, 
like é7e, vanishes before éav (av) which is used indiscriminately 
with ind. or subj., while ef is a mere “literary alternative.” In 
modern Greek ay has driven e out of the vernacular. In 
Deut. 8:5 AF have e ris ravdebon. Cf. Judg. 11:9. Moulton* 
finds the same construction in the papyri as does Deissmann,? 


1 Biumlein, Griech. Modi, p. 177. 

2 Gildersl. (Am. Jour. of Philol., XX XIII, 4, p. 490) complains that in 
Germany no standing is given to his distinction between the ‘‘minatory and 
monitary’’ use of ei with the future indicative. He first promulgated it in 
1876. 

3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 420, 464. 

4 Prol., p. 187. Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 167. 

Pais) Or DLS. 


1018 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


though it is rare in the early papyri.1 Moulton (Prol., p. 
187) cites O. P. 496 (ii/A.pD.) e 6€ qv (=), though he? seems 
curiously unwilling to admit the examples in the N. T. As 
to éxrés ef uh in 1 Cor. 15:2, we have the ind. with this com- 
bination. Deissmann (B. S., p. 118) cites inser. éxrds ef uy éav — 
Oednon. It is true that in the N. T. as a rule e goes with the ind. 
and éav with the subj. It is mainly in the future conditions that 
the line is breaking down. In Mt. 12 : 29 we have éay wy dnon and 
then dvaprace., but W. H. break the sentence into two. Besides 
the normal é4v and the occasional e in this condition we have 
also &v (shortened form of éav, not the modal av). Thus Jo. 12: 
32 av bWwIS, 13 : 20 av twa Teupw, 16 : 23 ay tr aitnonre. It occurs 
in the N. T. only six times (cf. av uy in Jo. 5: 19) and all in John. 
Cf. Ac.9:2. But note Lu. 12 : 38, cav—kav €On kal edpn (contrac- 
tion of xait+éav). Cf. Mt. 21:21; Lu. 13:9. It is absent from the 
Attic inscriptions, but supplants é4vy in modern Greek. It is not 
clear why éav disappeared thus in modern Greek. The Ionic form 
is jv. The future conditions are naturally the most frequent of all. 

Just as the second class condition was debarred from the fu- 
ture, so the third class condition is confined to the future (from 
the standpoint of the speaker or writer). The first class condition 
covers past, present and future. In 1 Cor. 10:27 note e tus 
Kader and éay tis eirn. In Ac. 5:38, éay 7 and ei — éortiv, a real 
distinction is preserved. Gamaliel gives the benefit of the doubt 
to Christianity. He assumes that Christianity is of God and 
puts the alternative that it is of men in the third class. This 
does not, of course, show that Gamaliel was a Christian or an 
inquirer. He was merely willing to score a point against the 
Sadducees. Here, indeed, the supposition is about a present 
situation, but éadv and the subj. contemplate the future result 
(turn out to be). So éay éxnre in 1 Cor. 4: 15; éay 7 in Mt. 6 : 22. 
"Kav 6é\ns in Mt. 8:2 is future in conception. In Jo. 5:31, éav 
uaptup® (possibly pres. ind.), the idea would be ‘if perchance I 
bear witness.’ Cf. also 8:14. In such instances the matter 
may be looked at as a present reality (so ei cxavdadive. Mt. 5 : 29) 


* The Phrygian inser. show similar exx. Cf. Ramsay, Cities and Bish. of 
Phrygia, II, 292. Burton (N. T. M. and T., p. 105) admits that it is an over- 
refinement to rule out e& and the subj. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 240. 

Pe Prole oar. 

* Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 43; Meisterh.-Schw., p. 225 f. In Jo. 5:19 we have 
both uses of & (conditional and modal). In Mk 5:28 note éav aWwua Kav 
Tay ivariwv, not a repetition of modal ay, but a particle cay = ‘even.’ 


MODE (EPKAIZ=I>) 1019 


or a future possibility (so éay cxavdadion, Mk. 9:43). Cf. also 
éav ayarnonre in Mt. 5:46 with ef ayarare in Lu. 6 : 32 (in verse 
33, éav ayaborojre).! In Jo. 13:17 note e radra otdare, paxaprol 
éore éav tojte a’ta. Here we have the first and third class con- 
ditions happily combined with clear distinction. Jesus assumes 
the knowledge as a fact, but the performance is doubtful. 

The tense is usually the aorist, though sometimes the pres. subj. 
occurs. Thus édv dxovon (Mt. 18:15); éav da (Jo. 7:37). In 2 
Tim. 2:5 note édv 6€ kal aOR Tis, ov orepavovTar Edy pH vouipws 
aO\non, where the distinction is drawn between the two tenses. I 
doubt the propriety, however, of reading a future perfect sense 
a la Latin into this aorist subj. as Moulton? does. He cites Mt. 
5 : 47, éav adoracnobe, but surely the simple aorist conception is suf- 
ficient. John’s fondness (see Tenses) for the pres. subj. with éav 
has been discussed. In Jo. 3 : 27 we have the periphrastic per- 
fect, éay pur 7 dedouevov. Cf. also Jas. 5:15, xav 4 rerounxws. The 
conclusion of this condition is naturally most frequently the 
future ind. Thus Mt. 9:21 éav adYoua, cwOnooua; Jo. 16:7 eav 
topev0G, meuf~w; Ac. 5:38 édv 7, KatadvOnoera. So Mt. 5:13; 
Dora Om ite 2i220; 914.315: Ro: 2:26: But this normal 
apodosis is by no means universal. Thus note od uw) €dOn in Jo. 
16:7 after éav py) até\Ow. See also Jo. 8:51. Cf. Ac. 13: 41. 
In Mk. 14 : 31 note od uu) arapynooua. The imperative may occur 
in the apodosis as in Mt. 18:15, éav auaprjon, braye EXeyEov. So 
WitenlOn rr seioetlyeaeoe 42°01 2\3205513): 4) Phy 2:1.) But 
ofttimes the conclusion is stated in terms of the present either as | 
a present hope or a vivid projection into the future (futuristic 
present). So in 2 Cor. 5:1, éav xatadv09, Exouev. The condition is 
future in conception, but the conclusion is a present reality, so 
confident is Paul of the bliss of heaven. Cf. Mt. 18:18. In 18: 
12 both the fut. and the pres. ind. appear in the apodosis. A 
lively sense of present need is seen in Mt. 8:2. A practical turn 
is given by the pointed question in Mt. 5:47. In Ro. 14:8 note 
éav te — ay te. A maxim often has the pres. ind. in the apodosis. 
Thus od divarar obdels — tev pt rpdrov Spon (Mk. 3:27). Cf. Jo. 
8 16,5409) 128 241 Cor, 7239, 40; 2 Tim..2.:5, The pres. 
perf. is likewise so used, as in Ro. 14: 23, 6 6€ dvaxpuvdpevos éav 
ayn Kataxexpitac. So Jo. 20:23; Ro. 2:25; 7:2. More difficult 
seems the aorist ind. in the apodosis. The aor. ind. is sometimes 
timeless as is always true of the other modes (see chapter on 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 215. 
2 Prol., p. 186. 3 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 371. 


1020 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Tenses where papyri parallels are given). That may be the ex- 
planation here. It is possible also to explain it as a change of 
standpoint. The protasis looks to the future, while the apodosis 
turns back to the past. Such vivid changes in language are due 
to the swift revolution in thought. See Mt. 18:15, éay dxoten, 
éxepdnoas; JO. 15:6, éav un Tis wevyn ev Euol, EBANOn EEwW Kal EEnpavOn 
(cf. é0Eac60n iva dépnre also of the future); 1 Cor. 7:28, éay kal 
yaunons, ovx jhuapres’ Kal éavy ynun 4 mapbevos, ox juaprer. For a 
similar idiom see Ignatius, Hp. to Romans 8:3; to Polycarp 5:2. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 247) cites Epict., av uev crparebowpar, arnd\dAaynv. 
See also Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 586. In Mk. 10: 30, éav uw AaB, we 
have éav uy almost in the sense of és un. Cf. also éay uy va in Mk. 
4:22. The use of e od and édy py side by side is seen in Mt. 26: 
42, ei ov divatar TodTO TapeNOety éav wu alto wiw. Cf. also Jo. 10: 
37, el ov rod and Kav py mioTebnte. 

(6) Remote Prospect of Determination. Hale! attributes “the 
Greek optative assumption to a fusion of the true opt. and the 
potential opt.’”’? The use of the opt. in the protasis of this condi- 
tion is probably volitive, since the negative? is uy. That is cer- 
tainly true of the optative in wishes with ei or ei yap (ei#e).2 But 
the deliberative use occurs a few times with e in indirect ques- 
tions. The potential opt. in the apodosis with ay is more difficult 
to explain. It is certainly not volitive any more, not more than 
mere fancy (Vorstellung), the optative of opinion,‘ and apparently 
futuristic. This fourth class condition is undetermined with less 
likelihood of determination than is true of the third class with the 
subj. The difference between the third and fourth classes is well 
illustrated in 1 Pet. 3:18f. So Jesus draws a distinction in 
Lu. 22:67. The use of the opt. in both apodosis and protasis 
accents the remoteness of the hypothesis. And yet it is not in 
the category of unreality as in the second class. It floats in a 
mirage, but does not slip quite away. It is thus suitable not 
merely for real doubt, but it also fits well the polite temper of 
courteous address. It is evident that this condition will be com- 
paratively infrequent. It is an ornament of the cultured class 
and was little used by the masses save in a few set phrases (or 
wishes). It is not strange, therefore, that no complete example 
of this fourth class condition appears in the LXX, the N. T. or 
the papyri so far as examined.’ Radermacher (N. T. Gr., pp. 


' Origin of Subj. and Opt. Cond., Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901, p. 115. 


2 Moulton, Prol., p. 196. 4 Gildersl., Am. J. of Philol., 1909, p. 7. 
’ Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 227. ® Moulton, Prol., p. 196. 


MODE (EPKAIZIS) 1021 


133, 148) with all his diligence produces no example of the opt. 
in both condition and conclusion in the current xow7. In the 
modern Greek it has disappeared completely. In the N. T., as 
in the LXX, the instances of the protasis are very few. Moulton! 
notes only 13 in the LXX apart from the Atticistic 4 Maccabees. 
Of these he observes that 2 are wishes, 5 are cases of w&a(zep) él 
ms and 2 are indirect questions. There are in the N. T. only 11 
examples. Some of these are indirect questions. Thus in é\eyor 
et BovXo.To TopevecOar (Ac. 25: 20) we have the opt. of ind. dis- 
course. The direct was ei BotAn. The same thing is true of 
27:39, €Bovrebovto ei dbvaito exoGoar TO wAotov. ‘There is implied 
indirect discourse or purpose (cf. the classic use of e for pur- 
pose).2 So we see aim in Ac. 17: 27, ¢nrety ei dpa ye Ynradjceay 
aitov kal evporev, and 20:16, éoreviey ef Suvarov ein. In 27:12, et 
mws divavro, we have both purpose and implied indirect discourse. 
In 24:19, ef me éyouev, the protasis is more nearly that of the 
proper fourth class condition, but even so it is a mixed condition, 
since the apodosis é5e belongs to the second class. Blass* ven- 
tures to suggest ef te éyovow as more correct. But it is needless 
to change the text. These examples are all in Acts, one of the 
more literary books of the N. T. Paul has only the stereotyped 
phrase ei rbxou (1 Cor. 14 : 10; 15 : 37), which is a true example of 
this protasis, “if it should happen.’’ The two other examples are 
in 1 Pet. 3:14 ef kal racyote bia Sixarcocbyyny, uaxapio, and 3:17 
Kpeirtov ayaloro.odyras, ei O€Xor TO OEAnua TOD Heod, Tacxev. The 
idiom is a mere torso, as is evident. In O. P. 1106, 7 (vi/a.p.), 
el yap émipevorey, TAROOS EqraoTHoeTaL oTpaTiwwrikov, We have a mixed 
condition. 

The apodosis with dy (the less definite av) is more frequent and 
occurs both in direct and indirect discourse. Since the potential 
opt. in the N. T. never occurs in connection with the protasis, 
the matter was discussed sufficiently under The Optative Mode 
in Independent Sentences (see this chapter, 111, 3, (6)). This po- 
tential opt. is practically the apodosis of an unexpressed protasis. 
But the exx. occur in questions save one (Ac. 26 : 29). Twice the 
questions are direct (Ac. 8:31; 17:18). The rest are indirect 
(opt. preserved as in the direct). Cf. Lu. 1:62 ri av 6édo, Ac. 
5:24 ri av yevorro. So Lu. 6:11. The deliberative element in 
some of these questions is well illustrated in Lu. 9:46; Ac. 10: 
17. The MSS. vary in some cases about the presence of dy, as 


a bay, 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 228 f. 
2 GreOleNeeuaakK tp. 2a). 


1022 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Lu. 18:36. The examples are all in Luke’s writings. In Ac. 
8:31 we do indeed have a protasis, but not of the fourth class. 
It is a mixed condition. The disappearance of this opt. condi- 
tion led to the enlarged use of the first and third classes. In 
Ro. 3:6 and 1 Cor. 15:35 the fut. ind. is used where the po- 
tential opt. would have suited the Attic idiom. 

(c) Special Points. 

(a) Mixed Conditions. The human mind does not always 
work in stereotyped forms, however excellent they are. Gram- 
matical construction is merely the expression of the mental con- 
ception. Freedom must be acknowledged without any apology. 
I say these somewhat commonplace things because of the bill of 
“exceptions” which meet us in so many grammars at this point. 
It would have been a miracle if the four classes of conditions were 
never “mixed,” that is, if the protasis did not belong to one 
class, while the apodosis fell in another. In P. Goodsp. 4 (ii/B.c.), 
ei Eppwoat, ein av, we have the protasis of the first class and the 
apodosis of the fourth. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 132) quotes 
Pastor Hermae, Sim. IX, 12, 4 ovdels elcedetoerar ef pu aBor, 
Theoph. Ad Autolycum ei yap \aBou. — éxxatboer. Thus in Lu. 17:6, 
ei ExeTe, EAeyere Gv, We have a protasis of the first class (determined 
as fulfilled) and the apodosis of the second (determined as unful- 
filled). The same thing is true of the marginal reading in the 
text of W. H. in Jo. 8 : 39, ef éoré, érouetre. In Ac. 24: 19, ods eer 
él gov mapeitvar kal KatTnyopety ei TL Exorev pods eue, We find a prot- 
asis of the fourth class with an apodosis of the second class. 
Then again in Ac. 8:31, r&s yap ay duvaiuny éav pn Tis ddnynoe pe; 
we have a protasis of the first class (barring itacism) and an apod- 
osis of the fourth. The examples like 1 Cor. 7:28 do not amount 
to mixed condition, since it is merely a question of the standpoint 
in time of the apodosis, though this apodosis does more naturally 
go with the first class condition. There may be two protases, as 
in 1 Cor. 9: 11, and both of the same class, or the two may belong 
to different classes, as in Jo. 13 : 17. 

(8) Implied Conditions. Sometimes the apodosis is expressed, 
while the protasis is merely implied by a participle, an impera- 
tive or a question. In such examples one must not think that 
the participle, for instance, means ‘if... Thus in Ro. 2:27 re- 
otoa with xpivet suggests a condition of either the first or the 
third class according as one conceives it. The condition is hinted 
at, not stated. The same thing is true of \auBavduevov in 1 Tim. 

1) BlasesGrnolNmbGkarm 2a, 


MODE (EIKAIZI>z) 1023 


4:4 and perarieuerns in Heb. 7:12. Cf. also Heb. 2:3; 1 Cor. 
11:29; Gal. 6:9. This use of the participle is still very fre- 
quent! in the N. T. In Mt. 16:26 we have éay kepdnon, while in 
Lu. 9: 25 note xepdnoas. In Lu. 19: 23, xaya EOav ody ToKw av ab’To 
érpata, the apodosis calls for a condition of the second class (con- 
text). The imperative is used where a protasis might have been 
employed. ‘Fhus in Mk. 1:17, detre dricw pov, kal roujow. The 
adverb dedre has the force of an imperative. There is an implied 
condition here. So also 11:24, mucrevere cal éorar. Cf. Mt. 7: 
Velie 2e 07 cieelun tenet): 4216 Jas. 477.5: The imp. 
may be (Jas. 1:5) the apodosis of an expressed condition and the 
implied protasis of another conclusion.2, In Eph. 4 : 26; opyite- 
ofe Kai wu} duaptavere, two imperatives together practically answer 
as protasis and apodosis. In Mt. 7:10, 4 Kat ixOdv airnoe — un 
dow éeridwoe ata; the two questions do the same thing in a rough 
sort of way (anacoluthon), not technically so. In Mt. 26:15, ri 
Oéderé por Jotvar Kayw vyulv tapadwow avrov; the question takes the 
place of the protasis. Here xai joins the two parts of the sentence, 
but in Jas. 5:13 we have question and imperative in separate 
sentences. Cf. also 1 Cor. 7:21. These devices are all found in 
the classic idiom.’ . 

(y) Elliptical Conditions. An incomplete condition is really a 
species of ellipsis or aposiopesis and is common to all languages.* 
Ellipsis of the copula in the apodosis (1 Cor. 12 : 19) or the prot- 
asis (Ro. 8:17) is not the point. That is, of course, common. 
POM Oneal tease, elle 16°) Cor? o:-1. Pet: 32-1472. Cor. 
11:16. There may be the absence of either protasis or apodosis. 
The apodosis is wanting in some instances. The suppression of 
the apodosis in Lu. 18:9, kav wey roujon Kkapmov eis TO pwéeANOV — 
amounts to aposiopesis.° See also 19: 42, e éyvws wat ob. Cf. 
further Mk. 7:11; Jo. 6 : 62; Ac. 23:9. In Lu. 22 : 42 the aposio- 
pesis disappears from the text of W. H. (aapéveyxe, not rapeveyxetv). 
In 2 Th. 2:3, éav wu) On, we have a mere anacoluthon as in 
Ph. 1:22. These protases belong to either the first, second or 
third classes. The lonely protases of the fourth class discussed 
above (cf. 1 Pet. 3:14, 17) come in here also. We have a species 
of anacoluthon. The structure of the sentence is changed so 
that the corresponding apodosis does not follow. In the same 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 230. 

4 Burton, Ne) bev, ande.,'p. 110, 3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 461. 
4 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 166. 
5 W.-Th., p. 600. 


1024 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


way (suppression of apodosis) is to be explained the use of «i like 
bx in the sense of ‘not,’ in solemn oaths or questions. The apod- 
osis is wanting. So e doOjcerar tH yeved Tatty onuetov (Mk. 8: 
12). So Heb. 3:11 (4:3, 5) ef €Xeboovra (Ps. 94-95: 11). This is 
aposiopesis. The full expression is seen in Gen. 14:23; Num. 
14:30; 1Sam. 14:45. It is an apparent imitation of the Hebrew 
idiom, though not un-Greek in itself. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., 
p. 184) treats this idiom in Mk. 8: 12 as due to translation from 
the Hebrew (Aramaic). Analogous to this is ef unv in Heb. 6: 14, 
if ef is not really 7 changed by itacism (cf. Ezek. 33 : 27; 34 : 8). 
Hort! holds to the difference between ei unv and 7 wnv and would 
take ef in Heb. 6: 14 as the true et. But Moulton? makes out a 
good case from the papyri and the inscriptions for taking it as 
merely a variation of 7 unv. He finds eleven papyri examples of 
et unv from ii/B.c. to i/A.p. Particularly clear is the Messenian 
Mysteries inscr., Michel 694, ef wav efev. If so, it does not come in 
here. But the use of ef in questions is pertinent. Thus e édtyor 
of cwfdpevor; (Lu. 13°: 23). ‘Cf. Mt. 12 ::10; Lu. 12:26; 22: 49; 
Ac. 17:27; 19:2. - Radermacher CV. 7. Gr.; p. 136) takes’ et7in 
questions=7 as in Lu. 22:49. This is possible on grounds of ita- 
cism, but it does not entitle Radermacher to say “‘werden mu8.”’ 
The use of the condition in the sense of ‘to see if’ borders on 
this elliptical construction. Something has to be supplied before 
the protasis in order to make the idea clear. The apodosis is 
virtually contained in the protasis. It is a classic? idiom and 
reappears in the papyri.4 So O. P. 748, ddos dvarrovoduar ef “E. xad- 
KoUs aro\ecev. ‘The protasis here may conform to the first class 
condition as in e éye (Lu. 14:28); ef rws Hén ore ebodwhhoouat 
(Ro. 1:10). -So\Mks11s138 Aci 82227 "In Phy 3 l2ret Katexara- 
AaBw, we have the third class and possibly also in Ro. 11:14. 
But in Ac. 27:12 it is the fourth class, ef tws divawro. The use 
of ef in the indirect question, as in Mk. 3:2, e Oepareboer, corre- 
sponds closely with the preceding. Cf. also 11:13. The same 
thing is true of e in the sense of 671, as in Ac. 26 : 23. This is also 
true of ef with verbs of wonder, as in Mk. 15 : 44; Ac. 26:8. 

The protasis itself is sometimes abbreviated almost to the van- 
ishing point, as in ei un without a verb, in the sense of ‘except’ (Mt. 
5:13). Here e and uy seem to coalesce into one word like wAnp. 
Cf. 11:27, ovdels émuywwoxer tov vidv ei wh 6 tarhp. This is very 
common as in classic Greek. Sometimes we have ei yu} pwovoy as in 


INADD-, Deus § Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 180 ff: 
4°Prolipesau 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 194. 


MODE (EIPKAIZIZ) 1025 


Mt. 21:19. The origin of this use of ef uy was the fact that the 
verb was identical with the preceding one in the apodosis and so 
was not repeated. Irom this ellipsis the usage spread to mere 
exceptions to the previous statement, a limitation simply. Ei yf 
may make exception to a preceding negative as in Gal. 1:19, 
érepov 6€ TGV amoaTOAwY ovK eEldov ei un "laxwBov Tov adedpov. The 
effect here is to make e wp seem adversative instead of exceptive. 
Cf. Mt. 12:4. For édy u7 in this construction see Gal. 2:16. 
In 1 Cor. 7:17 e un has the sense of ‘only’ and is not to be con- 
strued with zepirareirw. The use of ei un occurs in questions ex- 
pecting a negative answer, as in Mk. 2:7, ris dtvarar adrévar duap- 
tias ei uy eis 6 Oeds; In 1 Cor. 7:5, ed unre [av], we have ru (cf. e 
me in Mt. 18: 28) added and possibly also &v. B here omits a, 
possibly to “ease a difficulty” as Moulton! suggests. If genuine, 
it would be a sort of analysis of éav into ei ay that occurs in the 
illiterate papyri. For examples see under 8, (b), (a). For e ujre 
with the ind. pres. see 2 Cor. 13 : 5 and the subj. aorist. See Lu. 
9:13. The use of éxrés ef un probably comes by analogy from 
éxtos.ei (cf. Latin nist), but it occurs in the N. T. without verbs 
only in 1 Tim. 5:19. Elliptical also are ef uy iva (Jo. 10:10); 
et pi). Ore (2 Cor. 12:13); ef wr) bray (Mk. 9:9)... In Jo. 14:11 
note ei dé uy in the sense of ‘but if not,’ ‘otherwise.’ Cf. Mk. 2: 
21; Rev. 2:5, 16. For e 6€ unye see Lu. 5:36. Other forms of 
et used elliptically are ef rep (Ro. 3 : 30); woet (Mt. 3:16); woze- 
pet (1 Cor. 15:8). Ei 6€ wn and ei 6€ un ye became such fixed 
phrases? that they occur even when the preceding sentence is 
negative (Mt. 9:17) or where éa4v uy would be more natural (Lu. 
10:6, where the phrase answers to éay 9). Cf. Lu. 13:9. In 
Jo. 14:2, ei 6€ un, efrov av, the conclusion is expressed. 

In 2 Cor. 10:9 we have ws av without a verb=‘as if.’ It is 
common to have eive — etre (1 Cor. 8: 5) without the verb. The use 
of xav without the verb is also found in the sense of ‘if only,’ ‘at 
least.’ So in Mk.-5:28; 6:56.. In 2 Cor. 11:16 we have:-both 
ei 6€ un ye and Kav (d€éno0e to be supplied). In Lu. 12:38 note 
xav —xav. The suppression of the protasis occurs in all the ex- 
amples of the potential opt. already discussed, as in Ac. 26 : 29. 
Even in the deliberative questions of the opt. with av the same 
thing is true. Cf. Ac. 17: 18 (direct); Lu. 1:62 (indirect). The 
protasis is also suppressed sometimes with ézei. Cf. 1 Cor. 15: 
29, érel ri wovnoovow; Here a protasis of the first or (more prob- 
ably) of the third class must be supplied. So in Ro. 3:6; 11:6, 

Le Prolps Log: 2 Burton, N. T. M. and-T., p. 111, 


1026 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


22. In 1 Cor. 14:16, evel éav eddoyfs Gs Epet, the ellipsis still 
occurs in spite of éav. In Heb. 9 : 26, ézei eer, and 10: 2, ézel otk 
av éxavcavto, the protasis would belong to the second class, as is 
true also of érel weidere dpa in 1 Cor. 5:10. In 7:14, érel apa 
éotiv, the protasis would be of the first class. 

(5) Concessive Clauses. These are really just conditional! 
clauses with the addition of xai. In xat ef and kai éav (kav) the 
sense is ‘even if’ and is climacteric. Burton? seeks to draw quite 
a distinction between concessive and conditional clauses. He 
cites Mt. 26:33, ef mavres ckavdadtabnoovrar &v aol, eyw ovdémrorTe 
ckavoadtoOnoouar, aS an instance of the concessive idea without 
kal. It is possible that we may read the idea into this passage 
because in the parallel passage in Mk. 14:29 we read ei kai — 
adr’ eyw. Cf. also cay de in Mt. 26:35 with éay dé7 in Mk. 14: 
31. The use of ei (éav) in the sense of ‘though’ shows that there 
is at bottom no essential difference. The structure is precisely 
the same as the conditional sentence. They are, to repeat, 
nothing but conditional sentences of a special tone or emphasis. 
The use of kai was to sharpen this emphasis either up or down. 

With xai e the supposition is considered improbable.? With 
kal e« the truth of the principal sentence is stoutly affirmed in the 
face of this one objection. It is rhetorically an extreme case. In 
1 Cor. 8 : 5, kal yap elrep elaiv — [a\X°] uty ets Geos, we have an in- 
stance. In Mk. 14: 29 the true text is ei cai, not cai e. In 1 Pet. 
3:1 W. H. read simply ei. In late Greek xai ef vanishes before 
kal ay (éav).4 So in the N. T. we have kal éav xpivw (Jo. 8 : 16). 
So also Gal. 1:8. For xav see Jo. 8:14, xdv paprupo. So Mt. 
21:21; 26:35. See Jo. 10: 38, ef dé row, Kav euol micrebnre. The 
clauses with éav and the subj. are, of course, third class condi- 
tions. Sometimes? xai ef anc «av can hardly® be considered as 
strong as ‘even if.’ They may be resolved into ‘and if.’ So Mt. 
Vea oul .6 i: 32; Mk 16 1S omseon ener ailero 

Much more common is é xai. This phrase means ‘if also.’ 
Here the protasis is treated as a matter of indifference. If there 
is a conflict, it makes no real difficulty. There is sometimes a 
tone of contempt in e« xai. The matter is belittled. There is 
often some particle in the conclusion in this construction as in 
Lu. 18:4, ef kat rov Oedv ob PoBoduar ovd€ AvOpwrov evTperoua, bid YE 
70 Tapexev, kTA. Note yeasin 11:8. Cf. Col. 2:5, ef kai — &drd. 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 215. 4 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 465. 

aac) eM wand ee peice 5 Thayer’s Lexicon. 

* Paley, Gk. Part., p. 31. 6 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T,, p. 114. 





MODE (EPKAISIz) 1027 


There is considerable variety with ei xai. Thus in 2 Cor. 7:8 we 
have a condition of the first class (so Lu. 11:8; 18:4, ete.), 
while in 1 Pet. 3:14, ef xal wacxorre, We have one instance of the 
fourth class. With éay cai and the subj. we find, of course, the 
third class. So Gal. 6:1, éay kat mrpodnudd7. Cf. 2 Tim. 2:5. 
In 1 Cor. 7:28, éay kal yauhons, the notion is ‘if even’ rather 
than ‘also’ (cf. cai éav ynun). In Mt. 18:17 note éay rapaxovon 
ai’rév and édy 6€ xal rhs éxxAnoias tapaxolon. There is nothing 
peculiar about Ro. 14:8, éav re fGyuev — Edy Te arroOvjckwyev. (CE. 
Ex. 19:13.) Cf. ere —eire with the ind. (1 Cor. 3 : 22) or the 
subj. (1 Th. 5:10). The use of the participle for concession (see 
Kairep wv, Heb. 5:8) will be treated under the Participle. For 
the use of xav even after éay see Mk. 5: 28. 

(e) Other Particles with ei and éav. These have no effect on 
the condition as a distinct class, though they modify the precise 
idea in various ways. This point will be treated more exactly 
under Particles. But note e apa (Mk. 11:18; Ac. 8 : 22); et ye 
(Eph. 4 : 21); ef dpa ye (Ac. 17: 27 opt.); e ye xai (2 Cor. 5:3); ef 
dé pnye (Lu. 5 : 36); ef ody (Mt. 6: 23; Heb. 7:11); etzep (Ro. 3: 
30); éavrep (Heb. 3 : 14; 6: 3); & rws (Ro. 1: 10, the fut. ind.; Ac. 
27:12, the opt.). In Mk. 8 : 23 ef rx is in direct question. 

9. INprREcT DiscouRsE (Oratio Obliqua). 

(a) Recitative “Or. in Oratio Recta. Direct quotation is more 
frequent in primitive language, in the vernacular, and in all vivid 
picturesque narrative. It is the dramatic method of reporting 
speech. It is natural in Homer, in the Old Testament and in the 
Gospels, in Aristophanes and in Shakespeare, and in Uncle Remus. 
The prolonged indirect discourse in Thucydides and in Livy, in 
Xenophon and Cesar, is more or less artificial. In the LXX little 
use is made of indirect discourse. The direct quotation may not 
be as verbally exact as the indirect,! but it is more lively and in- 
teresting. Asa rule the direct discourse is simply introduced with 
a word of saying or thinking. The ancients had no quotation-marks 
nor our modern colon. But sometimes 67: was used before the 
direct quotation merely to indicate that the words are quoted. We 
find this idiom occasionally with é7:, more seldom with as, in the 
Attic writers.2 It is very rare* in the LXX, since the Hebrew so 
frequently has a special participle like ‘saying.’ But see Gen. 28: 
16. Inthe N. T. Jannaris* counts 120 instances of recitative d7v. 


4sBurton, Nv CM? andeT;) p..130. 2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 285. 


3 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 50; but see on the other hand Con. and Stock, Sel., 
p. 114. 4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 472. 


1028 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The idiom appears chiefly in the historical books. See Mt. 7: 23, 
duodoyhow Ore obderroTe Eyvwv buds. This particular instance can be 
looked upon as indirect discourse, since the person is the same in 
both clauses and the tense and mode are unaffected. It is prob- 
able that indirect declarative clauses grew out of constructions of 
this nature. But in Mt. 27:48, efev dru Oeod eiul vids, there is 
no doubt at all. See 26: 74, duvvtev dre ovx otda Tov avOpwrov, and 
26:75, eipnxoros Ste mply adexTopa dwrjcar tpls amapynon pe. SO 
Mki 1-2373 022.12) 16346 2S ONO es 30 cr Canons meLLGe 
4:17. In Mt. 16:7 we have (W. H., but R. V. marg. has cau- 
sal) recitative dre (dre aprous ok éAdBouev); while in verse 8 the 
indirect (probably causal) use, 67c Gprous ovk éxere; In Mk. 6: 23 
(W. H. marg.) we have a direct quotation with é7., in Mt. 14:7 
the same thing appears as indirect discourse without 67. In Jo. 
10 : 34, amexpiOn — ok Ect yeypapupevoy Sri eye eira Deo Eore, NOtE 
a treble direct quotation, once with 67. and twice without. In Jo. 
1:50 the first 67: is causal, the second is indirect discourse. The 
dre in the beginning of Jo. 20:29 is causal. In Jo. 20:18 67x is 
recitative, causal in 3:18, declar.in 3:19. It is doubtful whether 
first 67c is recitative or causal in Jo. 21:17. In Ro. 3:8, ére rouy- 
owuev (hortatory subj.), d7- is also recitative. So in 2 Th. 3:10 
dre is merely recitative. The instances of direct quotation 
without 6é7c are very numerous. Cf. Mt. 8:3; 26:25. Some- 
times the same thing is reported with 67. (Mt. 19:9) or without 
dru (Mk. 10:11). For single words quoted without agreement 
with the word with which they are in apposition note 6 6.dacKados 
and 6 xipus in Jo. 13:13. W. H. seek to indicate the presence of 
recitative érv by beginning the quotation with a capital letter as 
in all their quotations. Cf. Jo. 9:9. This redundant 67 may 
occur before direct questions as in Mk. 4:21; 8:4. It continues 
common in the xow7 and the modern Greek uses 7s in this idiom.? 

(b) Change of Person in Indirect Discourse. Sometimes this 
was not necessary, as in Jo. 18:8. So in Mt. 16:18, kaya 5€ cor 
heyw Ore od ef Ilerpos, there is no change in the second person. Cf. 
also Jo. 11:27; Gal. 2:14. But in Mt. 20:10, &duoapv bre rretov 
Anuvovrat, the direct discourse would have \nupoucda. So Lu. 
24:23. Compare éd\aBouev in Mt. 16:7 with éyere in v. 8. Note 
Tt paywuev (direct) in Mt. 6:31, but 7i daynre (indirect) in 6: 25. 
In Mk. 9: 6, ob yap joe Ti droxpiO7, the direct would be ri aroxpiba; 

1 Schmitt, Uber den Urspr. des Substantivsatzes, 1889, p. 66. 


” Thumb, Handb., p. 192. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 472. Kai réres elze 
m&s Aé cov 76 ’Aeya éyw; ‘then he said, Didn’t I tell you so?’ 


MODE (ELKAIZI=) 1029 


The person may be both ways in the same sentence, as in Ac. 1: 
4, mapnyyevev — Tepipévery THY ErayyeNlav TOU TaTpOs iY HKovcaTE pov. 
See further under Mixture. 

(c) Change of Tense in Indirect Discourse. Mr. H. Scott objects 
to the wide scope here given to the term “indirect discourse”’ to 
cover “object clauses” after épaw, xrA., but I conceive the prin- 
ciple to be the same. After primary tenses there is, of course, 
no change in mode or tense. Note Mt. 16:18 above. See also 
Mk. 11: 24, muorevere Sti EMG Bere Kai Eorar byiv. It is only after 
secondary tenses that any change occurs. Usually even then there 
is no change of tense in Greek. Thus ézov jKovoy drt éotw (Mk. 6: 
55). So with dxovoas dre Bacrdever — Epo8nOn (Mt. 2 : 22). So HAzi- 
Couey Ste abros éorw (Lu. 24:21). See also Mt. 21:45; Mk. 6:49; 
Lu. 1:22; Jo. 2:17; 6:24. Cf. Gal. 2:14, efdov 67: otk dp8or0d00- 
ow. SoJo. 11:13. In Jo. 21:19 the future ind. is retained after 
elvev onuaiyvwy. Cf. Mt. 20:10. So in Lu. 5:19 the aorist subj. 
occurs. In Mk. 2:16 we have dru éofier twice, the first in ind. 
discourse and the second with interrogative 671. But sometimes the 
ancient Greek, even the Attic,' used a past tense of the indicative 
in ind. discourse where the direct had the tenses of present time. 
The N. T. shows occasionally the same construction. In a case 
like Jo. 1: 50, efaév cor bre eddy ce, the aorist tense belonged to the 
direct. Cf. 9:30, 32, 35. So as to the imperfect 7v and aorist 
aveBrevey in Jo. 9:18. Cf. also Lu. 13:2. In Mt. 27:18, fée 
bre dia POdvov rapédwxay atrdov, the aorist is used for antecedent 
action. Cf. rapadedwxecay in Mk. 15:10. See also Mt. 16: 12, 
dtu ovx etvev. But in Jo. 2:25, abros yap éyivwokev Ti nv & TO av- 
Opwrw, the direct form? would have éori, not jv. So with 7pde ri 
éueddev rovetv (6 : 6); obk eyrwoav bru Tov TaTEpa ators Eheyev (8 : 27). 
Cf. also 11:51; 12 : 16, 33; 18:32. In Ac. 19: 32, ov« Hédecay rivos 
évexa ovvednndvberoav, the past perfect stands when the direct would 
have the present perfect. In Ac. 16:3, #éecav dru “EXAny 6 raTHp 
aitod brfpxev, the imperfect may indicate that Timotheus’ father 
was no longer living, though it is not the necessary meaning, as 
we have just seen. Cf. Mk. 11:32; Jo. 6 : 22-24; 16:19; Ac. 22: 
2; 1Pet.1:12. In Ac. 22 : 29, efoByOn exryvors dru ‘Pwuatos eortuv 
kat 37u adrov Fv dedexas, we see both constructions combined. In 


1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 263. 

2 Cf. Robertson, Short Gr., p. 181. As a matter of fact, the primitive 
method in oratio obliqua was probably this very change of tense as in Eng. 
We have it more frequently in Hom. than the change of mode or the graphic 
retention of tense. Cf. Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 402. 


1030 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Jo. 11:40, ovk efrdv cor Ore Edy mioTebons Oy, the subj. and the 
fut. ind. are retained after secondary tense, unless é7z is recitative. 
This preservation of the original tense appears in clauses not 
strictly in indirect discourse. In Lu. 9:33, efrev—prj eidas 6 Neyer, 
the present tense is retained in the relative clause 6 deve, as it is 
in the causal clause in 9:49, exwAtvouev abrov dt obk akodXovbet pb’ 
juav. In Jo. 21:25, xwpnoew, the future inf. stands for the future 
ind. in the direct, as reOvnxevac does in Ac. 14:19 for the perfect 
ind. In Lu. 20:6 efva really represents the imperfect indicative 
of the direct. 

(d) Change of Mode in Indirect Discourse. The rule with the 
Greek was not to change the tense. The mode after past ten- 
ses, with more freedom, was either retained! or changed to the 
corresponding tense of the optative mode. The optative, as the 
most remote in standpoint of the modes, suited this idiom very 
well. The imperfect and past perfect indicative were, however, 
retained, though even here the optative sometimes appeared.? 
When the aorist optative represented an aorist indicative of the 
direct discourse the opt. represented past time.* Usually the op- 
tative and subjunctive are future as to time. We have the 
optative in the N. T. in indirect discourse only in Luke. It 
was in the xown a mark of literary care, almost Atticism, quite 
beyond the usual vernacular. And with Luke the idiom is almost 
confined to indirect questions. Luke never has the opt. after 
dre or ws. Once (Ac. 25:16) in a subordinate temporal clause 
the optative occurs where the subj. with (ef. Lu. 2 : 26) or without 
av would be in the direct, zplv 7 €xou — te A4Bor. And even here ovx 
éorw after 67. comes just before. This change in the subordinate 
clause was also optional in the ancient idiom. If av was used 
with the subj. in the direct it was, of course, dropped with the 
change to the optative in the indirect. Similar to this is the use 
of ec and the optative with dependent single clause either as prot- 
asis with implied apodosis or purpose like ef Yyr\adjceay (Ac. 17: 
27); e¢ duvvarov ein (20:16); ef rws dStvawTo (27:12). Here after 
primary tenses we should have éay and the subj. or ei and the 
future ind. Cf. Ph.3:12; Ro. 1:10. Cf. ri ypdyw in Ac. 25: 26. 
As already explained also, the indirect questions with e and the 


! In archaic Lat. the ind. was used in indirect discourse as in Gk. Cf. 
Draeger, Hist. Synt., Bd. II, p. 460. 

2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 263. 

* Madvig, Bemerk. iiber einige Punkte der griech. Wortfiig. 1848, p. 23. 

4 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 273. 


MODE (EIKAIZI>) 1031 


optative (Ac. 25 : 20; 27 : 39) are instances where the indicative 
would be used in the direct. Even in indirect questions Luke 
usually keeps the mode of the direct. So the indicative as in 
To tls — boxe? (Lu. 22 : 24), the subjunctive as in 76 ras — &70dg 
(22 :4) or the optative as in 76 ri dy Oedor (1:62). The indicative 
is never changed to a subjunctive as in Latin. When the subj. in 
Greek occurs in an indirect question it does so because it was the 
subj. in the direct. Thus ot yap 76eu ri aroxpi07 (Mk. 9:6). Cf. 
Mt. 6:25, 31, ri dayne, Ti daywuer. So Lu. 22:2, 4; Ac. 4: 21. 
Cf. subj. with tva after secondary tenses (Ro. 1:13; 1 Pet. 4:6). 
The use of the optative (as distinct from subj.) in indir. dis- 
course was a Greek development. We see the beginning of it in 
Homer. The optative, however, does occur.in Lu. (18 : 36, W. H. 
text, margin av) in an indirect question where the direct had the 
indicative. Cf. worards ety In 1:29. So 8:9, éanpwrwv ris ein. 
In Ac. 21:33, émvvOavero tis ein kal Ti éotiv meroinKws, both con- 
structions occur side by side. The variation here in the mode 
(retention of the ind.) gives a certain vividness to this part of 
the question. See Optative in Paratactic Sentences where the 
xown parallels are given. In yivo.to kpatety raons fs av alpjabe 
xwpas, P. Par. 26 (B.c. 163), there is no sequence of mode. The 
sub]. is with the indefinite relative and the opt. isa wish. It has 
been already (under Optative) shown that aév and the opt. in an 
indirect question is there because it was in the direct (cf. Ac. 17: 
18, ri av deka; with Lu. 1:62, ro ri ay Oédor). Sometimes, one 
must admit, the difference between the two is reduced to a mini- 
mum, as in the papyri occasionally. So in Lu. 9:46, 76 tis av 
ein (cf. 76 ris ely in Lu. 22 : 23). See also Lu. 15:26; Ac. 10:17. 
But there is always a shade of difference. The manuscripts re- 
flect this haziness in the variations between ind. and opt. as in 
Tur 22: 23;"Ac. 2:12; et cet» In Lu. 3:15, uh ore etn, we 
also have the opt. in an indir. question. Radermacher (NV. T. Gr., 
p. 165) quotes Diod. I, 75, 5, émedav — rpdcbo.70. The Atticists 
used it often. 

(e) The Limits of Indirect Discourse. It is not always easy to 
draw the line between indirect discourse and other constructions. 
Thus Jannaris? uses it only for declarative clauses with 67: or as. 
Burton® confines it to indirect assertions and indirect questions, 
but admits that it also covers indirect commands and promises. 
Take Mt. 14:7, apodoynoey airy dotvac 6 éav aitnonra. The in- 

1 Moulton, Prol., p. 198. ee Tisty GkaGree py seule 
3.N. T. M. and T., p. 131. So most of the grammars. 


1032 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


finitive dodvat is the direct object of the verb and does not seem 
to be in indir. discourse, for in Mk. 6:23 the direct form has 
deow. But, after all, it is practical indir. discourse, though the 
analogy of tense construction breaks down in this instance. But 
note fut. infinitive with duocey in Heb. 3:18, according to the 
principle of indirect discourse. On the whole it is best to consider 
three classes or kinds of indirect discourse: declarative clauses, 
indirect questions, indirect commands. 

(f) Declarative Clauses (Indirect Assertions). 

(a) “Ore and the Indicative. There is no clear instance of ws in 
this sense in the N. T. It was common in the ancient Greek.! 
Just as final é7ws retreated before tva, so declarative ws did before 
drv.2 In late Greek ta monopolized the field as a final particle 
and divided it with 67: as a declarative conjunction. We do have 
ws in indirect questions a few times as will be shown. This is 
more likely the meaning even in Ac. 10 : 28, érioracOe ws ab€utTov. 
Reeb? points out that Demosthenes uses ws for what is false and 
dre for what is true. The German wie is used like ws with verbs 
of reading, narrating, testifying. With these verbs ws is more 
than just d7 (‘that’). “O7v expresses the thing itself and as the 
mode or quality of the thing (Thayer). With this explanation 
it is possible to consider it as declarative, though really mean- 
ing ‘how.’ Cf. Lu. 24:6, uvncOnte ws EXaAnoevr. So in Lu. 8 : 47 
with amayyedAw, 23:55 after Pedouat, Ac. 10:38 after ofda, Ac. 
20:20 with éricraya, Ro. 1:9 with udprus (so Ph. 1:8; 1 Th. 
2:10). The manuscripts vary in some passages between ws and 
dre and was. W.H. bracket ws in Lu. 6:4 and read és in Mk. 
12 : 26 and é7 in Jude 5, though as is retained in 7.4 In all these 
passages it is possible to regard ws as the ‘how’ of indirect ques- 
tion rather than declarative. The encroachment of 7&s on ért is 
to be noticed also. Cf. Mt. 12:4 after dvaywaoxw (and Mk. 12: 
26), Mk. 12:41 after Oewpéw, Mk. 5:16 after dunyéouar, Lu. 14: 
7 after éréywv, Ac. 11:13 after dtayyé\d\w (so 1 Th. 1:9). In 
the later Greek 7&s comes gradually to be equivalent to 87.5 
Gradually wés gained the ascendency over ér till in the modern 
Greek it became the regular declarative particle. See Thumb, 
Handb., p. 190. In Ro. 10:15; 11:33, &s is exclamatory. The 
xown writers and the papyri show this same retreat of as before 


1 Goodwin, M. and T.., p. 258. 4° Jann., Hist) Gk; Grape 571, 
* De Particulorum érc et &s apud Demosthenum Usu, 1890, p. 38. 
4 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N: T. Gk., p. 230f. 

5 Hatz., Einl., p. 19. 


MODE (EPKAI=Iz) 1033 


dre and the inroad of ras on ére (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 159). 
Cf. B. U., I, 37 (51 A.D.), oféas r&s — xpnfor, and Epictetus often 
after dpaw. There is, however, no doubt of the use of ws é7u in 
the declarative sense=‘that.’ It is an unclassical combination, 
but it appears in the LX_X (Esther 4 : 14) and in the xowy writers.! 
It is like the Latin quas7z in the Vulgate. The late papyri (fourth 
cent. A.D.) show that ws 67. came in the vernacular to mean 
simply ‘that.’? Moulton cites also two Attic inscriptions from 
the first century B.c. which have ws 6ru in the sense of ws or 67t 
alone. The editors have removed érz from ws 67t in Xenophon’s 
Hellen. II, 1, 14, eirav as bre oxvoin. Moulton agrees to Blass’ 
stigma of ‘‘unclassical’”’ on as 671, but Paul has xown support for 
Gisguse) Olean Core hs 2ie Ze The: 22 But ériohas 
won its place in the N. T. not only over as, but also over the in- 
finitive. The use of the inf. in indir. discourse® takes quite a sub- 
ordinate place in the N. T. Luke alone uses it to any extent. 
The periphrasis with 67. has superseded it in nearly all the N. T-. 
writers.’ The use of 671 is the common way of making a declara- 
tion in indirect discourse in the N. T. There arose also 6:67: in 
the declarative sense® (cf. late Latin quia=quod), but no example 
occurs in the N. T. The classic causal sense of 6.67. prevailed. 
It is sometimes doubtful whether éru is causal or declarative 
as in Ac. 22:29. The context must decide. Finally, as noted, 
mas came to be the normal declarative conjunction in the ver- 
nacular (over the inf. as over ws and dr) as the infinitive disap- 
peared from indir. discourse. The only mode used with 67 in the 
N. T. is the ind. In Ro. 3:8 (subj.) é7vis recitative. At bottom 
dre is just 6 71, and Homer sometimes used 6 re in the declarative 
sense (and 6). Cf. é7c 67e together in 1 Cor. 12: 2. | 
The verbs after which 67: is used in the N. T. cover a wide 
range. Indeed, 57- comes also after substantives like ayyeNia (1 
JO. 1:5); xpiots (Jo. 8:19); Adyos (Jo. 15: 25); paprupia (1 Jo. 5: 
11); wé&prus (2 Cor. 1: 28); zappyoia (1 Jo. 5: 14), causal.in Ac. 22: 
14; daors (Ac. 21:31). It is in apposition also with & ovdyuare 
(Mk. 9:41). We see also & rolrw dr (1 Jo. 3:16). Some- 


1 See Sophocles’ Lexicon under as. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 413. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 212) gives C.P.R. 19 (iv/A.D.) mpwny BiBrXia ércdédwxa TH Of 
éripedela ws Ste EBovdANOnv. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 212. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 211. 

3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 231. 5 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 4138. 

6 Mitsotakis, Praktische Gr, der neugriechischen Schrift- und Umgangs- 
sprache, 1891, p. 235, 


1034 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


times dre itself seems to imply év rotirw (Ro. 5:8) or mepi robrou 
(Mk. 1:34) or eis éxetvo (Jo. 2:18). Cf. rotro dr (Rev. 2:6). 
Another irregularity of construction is the prolepsis of the sub- 
stantive before é7c (and change of case) as in 1 Cor. 16:15. This 
idiom is sometimes called the epexegetic use of 67. Cf. further 
Ac. 9:20. It is a rather common idiom. Cf. Mt. 25:24. See 
especially Jo. 8:54. In Ro. 9:6 note ody otov 6€ 67. In 1 Cor. 
15:27 d7Xov dre is almost adverbial, but that is not true of mpd- 
dndov ove in Heb. 7:14. The elliptical ri ére (Lu. 2:49) may be 
compared with ri yeyovey o7e in Jo. 14:22. The elliptical ovx 
dre (cf. Jo. 6:46) is like the corresponding English ‘‘not that.’ 
The 67 clause may be in the nominative (subject clause) as in 
Mk. 4:38, od weXee cor dre amodANvueOa; More usually it is, of 
course, in the accusative (object clause) as in Jo. 11:27, wezi- 
otevxa OTt. The dre clause may also be in apposition with the loca- 
tive as in Mk. 9:41. In Gal. 1: 20, i600 é&vmmvov Oeod 671, we have 
a solemn oath as in aAnOeca dre (2 Cor. 11:10); meords dre (1:18); 
uaptus OTe (2 Cor. 1:23); ouviw dre (Rev. 10:6); £& éyw, dre (Ro. 
14:11, LXX). Rarely the personal construction occurs with 671, 
as in 1 Cor. 15:12, Xpicrés knptocerar dtr. In Jas. 1:13 we either 
have recitative 67c or oratio variata. In Jo. 4:1 we have one éru 
clause dependent on another. “Oz. may be repeated in parallel 
clauses as in Jo. 6:22; Ac. 17:3; 22:29; 1 Cor. 15:3 ff. In J Jo. 
5:9 we have two examples of ér:, but one is causal. In Jo. 1: 
15 ff. the three are all causal. In Jo. 11:50 we have dr and iva 
in much the same sense. Not so 1 Jo. 5:13. Cf. wa in 1 Jo. 5: 
3 with) 6rnin=o 1s 

The verbs that use declarative 67: in the N. T. are very numer- 
ous. A few have only 67. Thus Mk. 11:32, dravres efyov rov 
"Iwavnv ote rpodnrns jv (note jv). Blass! calls this use of éxw a 
Latinism like habeo. Cf. also trodauBavw dre (Lu. 7:48), a clas- 
sical construction. So also Aa\éew (Heb. 11:18); cupBiBatw (Ac. 
16:10); cdpayiftw (Jo. 3:33); yrwpiftw (1 Cor. 12:3); éuda- 
vitw (Heb. 11:14); éfouodoyew (Ph. 2:11); xarnyé (Ac. 21: 
21); knptoow (1 Cor. 15:12); arodeixyvym (2 Th. 2:4); unriw 
(Lu. 20:37); brodeixyvum (Ac. 20:35); davepoouar (2 Cor. 3 : 3); 
amoxadtir7w (1 Pet. 1:12); mapadidwuc (1 Cor. 15:3); zapari- 
Onuc (Ac. 17:3); mpodnretw (Jo. 11:51). The great mass of 
the verbs of perceiving, showing (contrary to Attic), knowing, 
believing, hoping, thinking, saying, declaring, replying, testify- 
ing, etc., use either the declarative 67 or the infinitive. In Lu. 

1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 231, 


MODE (EPKAISIz) 1035 


9:18f. with \eyw we have the inf. and 87 side by side. So 
also in Ac. 14 : 22 with wapaxadkéw. Outside of the verbs eyo, 
émimapTupew, KaTakpivw and mapaxadéw the infinitive in indir. dis- 
course in the N. T. is confined to the writings of Luke and Paul 
and Hebrews according to Viteau,' “comme vestige de la langue 
littéraire.’”’ But even with Luke and Paul the rule is to use érv. 
Blass? has a careful list of the uses of these verbs. In margin of 
W. H. in Jo. 5:15 we have avayyeddw with 671, but the text has 
elrov. Butsee dr also in Ro. 2: 4 (ayvoew), Mt. 12:5 (avayuweoxw), 
Lu. 18 : 37 (amayyeddAw), Ac. 25 : 16 (aroxpivoua), 1 Jo. 2: 22 (apvéo- 
pat), Ac. 17:6 (Bodw), 1 Pet. 2:3 (yebouar), Ro. 10 : 5 (ypadw), Mt. 
16: 21 (Gexviw), 1 Cor. 1: 11 (6nddw), Ac. 10:42 (dtauaprbpouar), Ac. 
17:3 (dtavoiyw), Mk. 8:31 (6vdacxnw), Mt. 6:7 (Soxéw), Ac. 9:27 
(Sinyeouar), Lu. 24:21 (€rrifw), Mt. 6:26 (€uBderw), 1 Cor. 11:2 
(érawew), Ac. 13 : 32 (ebayyedivouar), Lu. 18:11 (etxapicréw), Rev. 
2:4 (€w xara twos), Lu. 11:38 (Oavuatw), Jo. 6:5 (edouar), Ac. 4: 
13 (katadapBavouar), Lu. 12:24 (karavoew), 2 Cor. 5:14 (kpivw), 2 
Pet. 3:5 (AavOavw), Mt.3:9 (Aéyw), Ac. 23:27 (uavOdvw), 2 Cor. 1: 
23 (uaptupa tov Oedv ércxadoduar), Heb. 7:8 (uaptupéw), Ac. 20 : 26 
(uaptvpouar), Mt. 27:63 (uirjckw), Mt. 5:17 (vouifw), Mt. 15:17 
(voew), Mt. 26 : 74 (ouriw), Jas. 1:7 (olouac), Ro. 9:1 (ob Webdouar), 
1 Cor. 15:3 (mapadidwum), Heb. 13:18 (weiPoua), Jo. 6 : 69 (m- 
arevw), Ro. 4:21 (adnpodopéw), 2 Cor. 13 : 2 (apoeipnxa kal mpodeyw, 
ef. Gal. 5:21), Ac. 23 : 34 (auvOavouar), Lu. 15:6, 9 (cvyxaipw), Jo. 
18 : 14 (cupBovrebw), Ro. 8 : 16 (cuppaprupew), Mt. 16 : 12 (cvvinuc), 
Ju. 5 (éroutprvynoxw), 1 Cor. 10 : 19 (gyi), Lu. 10: 20 (xaiow), 1 Tim. 
1:12 (xapw Ew rwi). I cannot claim that this is a complete list, 
but it is the best I can do with the help of H. Scott, Blass, Thayer, 
Moulton and Geden, and Viteau’s list. At any rate it gives one 
a fairly clear idea of the advances made by ér: on the classic infin- 
itive idiom. Some verbs still share the participle with 67, but 
not verbs of showing. These no longer appear in the N. T. with 
the participle. So with 67. note BXérw (Heb. 3 : 19); Pewpéw (Mk. 
16:4). Cf. Ac. 19 : 26, Oewpéw and dxotw. So also émiywackw (Lu. 
7:37); ériorauac (Ac. 15 : 7); ebpioxw (Ro. 7: 21); uvnpovebw (Ac. 20: 
31); d6paw (Mk. 2:16). Besides some verbs appear with either 671, 
the infinitive or the participle. Thus dxotw (Mt. 5 : 21; Jo. 12 : 18; 
Lu. 4: 23); ywoonw (Mt. 21:45; Heb. 10: 34; Lu. 8: 46); Aoyifouac 
(Ro. 8 : 18; 2 Cor. 10 : 2 both inf. and part.); of6a (Ac. 16:3; Lu. 
4:41; 2 Cor. 12:2); duortoyew (Mt. 7: 23 unless recitative 671; 


1 Le Verbe, p. 51. 2 Gr: of N. T. Gk., p. 231 f. 
3 Ib., p.:233: : 


10386 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Tit. 1:16; 2 Jo. 7). In Ac. 27:10 we find 67 used with the in- 
finitive “quite irregularly”’ Blass! calls it. But it is just the classic 
mingling of two constructions seen in the more usual form in Ac. 
14 : 22, where a change is made from the inf. to 67. and ée?. Dif- 
ferent verbs had varying histories in the matter of ém. It was 
not a mere alternative with many. With axovw, for instance, dru 
is the usual idiom. The same thing is true with yuweoxw, ofda, 
Eyw, vouitw, morebw. But with gyi, in classical Greek almost 
always with the infinitive (Ro. 3:8), we twice have ér (1 Cor. 
10:19; 15:50). For 87: and then the inf. see Mk. 8:28f. The 
substantive nature of the 67: clause is well shown in 1 Th. 3:6. 
Radermacher (VN. 7. Gr., p. 159) cites 671 — brapxev from Proklus’ 
In rem publ., II, 225, 22. The 67: clause is often called an object 
clause and may be in the nominative or in the accusative. 

(8) The Infinitive. With some verbs we have only single in- 
stances of the infinitive of indir. discourse in the N. T. So with 
Bodw (Ac. 25 : 24); yuwoxw (Heb. 10 : 34); katadapuBavowa (Ac. 25: 
25); wyéouae (Ph. 3:8); voew (Heb. 11:3). ’Amoxpivowac has it 
only thrice (Lu. 20:7; Ac. 25:4). See also amrayyeddw (Ac. 12: 
14); damapvéouar (Lu. 22 : 34); duoxupifoua (Ac. 12:15); dndrow 
(Heb. 9:8); érayyedNouae (Mk. 14:11; Ac. 7:5); émipapripopar 
(1 Pet. 5:12); xaraxpiww (Mk. 14:64); waprupew (Ac. 10: 43); 
mpoatiaouar (Ro. 8:9); mpoxatayyeddw (Ac. 3:18); onuaivw (Ac. 
11 : 28); xonuarifw (Lu. 2 : 26). Some of these are words that are 
not used with any construction very often, some occur only with 
the infinitive, like éridecxviw (Ac. 18 : 28); rpocdoxaw (Ac. 3:5; 28: 
6); droxpivouae (Lu. 20 : 20); brovoew (Ac. 13 : 25; 27:27). There 
is, besides, the inf. with BobAoua, Oe\w, KeXebw, etc., more exactly 
the simple object inf. Other verbs that have occasionally the 
inf. are in the list given under (a), those with either 67: or the inf. 
like apvéouar (Heb. 11: 24); ypadw (Ac. 18: 27); decxviw (Ac. 10: 28); 
didaokw (Lu. 11:1); dtauapripoua (Ac. 18 : 5); dtavoiyw (Ac. 16: 14. 
Cf. rod in Lu. 24 : 45); ebayyedifoua (Ac. 14 : 15), cupBovrebw (Rev. 
3:18). In Luke and Paul the inf. of indir. discourse is fairly 
common with deyw (Lu. 9 : 18, 20, etc. Cf. Mt. 12:24; Mk.3: 
28) and with vouifw (Lu. 2 : 44; Ac. 7 : 25, etc.). 

In the old Greek the inf. was the favourite construction in in- 
direct discourse.? The Latin had it in all its glory, but the grad- 
ual disappearance of the inf. from late Greek made it wither 
away. Indeed, it was a comparatively late development in Greek 


1 Gr. of N.:T. Gk., p. 233. 
* Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 267. 


MODE (EIKAI=Iz) 1037 


anyhow and is rare in Homer.! It is not easy to draw the line 
between BotvdA\ouar and xeXebw with the inf. on the one hand and 
Aeyw and vowifw with the inf. on the other.2 At bottom the con- 
struction is the same. The question of the case of the substantive 
or adjective used with this inf. is not vital to the idiom. It is 
really a misnomer to call it “the accusative and infinitive.’? That 
is, in fact, more frequently the case found with this inf., but it is 
so, not because the idiom calls for it per se, but simply because 
the infinitive can have no subject, not being a finite verb (cf. the 
participle). Hence when a noun (not the object) occurs with the 
inf. in indir. discourse it is put in the accusative of general refer- 
ence, if there is no word in the sentence in another case for it 
naturally to agree with by apposition. This matter was dis- 
cussed under Cases, but will bear some repetition at this point 
since it is so often misunderstood. Clyde* correctly sees that, 
since the inf. itself is in a case and is non-finite, it cannot have a 
subject. Monro‘ thinks that the accusative was a late develop- 
ment to assist the “‘virtual’’ predication of the later inf. Some- 
times this acc. itself is the direct object of the principal verb (so 
verbs of asking, etc.). Gildersleeve has a pertinent word: “I look 
with amazement at the retention [by Cauer in his Grammatica 
Militans| of Curtius’ utterly unsatisfactory, utterly inorganic ex- 
planation of the acc. c. inf. in oratio obliqua, against which I 
protested years ago (A. J. P., XVII, 1896, 517): fyyerav dre 6 
Kdpos évixnoe becomes Fyyerdav tov Kipov ore évixknoev, but dre evi- 
knoev=vujoa’”’ (A. J. P., XX XIII, 4, p. 489). To go no further, 
Gildersleeve shows that the é7c construction is later than the 
acc. c. inf. But the grammarians went astray and called this 
accusative the ‘‘subject”’ of the inf., and, when some other case 
appears with the inf., it is an ‘“‘exception”’ to the rules of the gram- 
marians, though in perfect harmony with the genius of the Greek 
inf. Even Moulton® says: “In classical Greek, as any fifth-form 
boy forgets at his peril, the nominative is used regularly instead 
of the accusative as subject to the infinitive when the subject of 
the main verb is the same.’’ Now, there is no doubt about the 
presence of the nominative in such an instance. But why say 
“instead of the accusative’? The nominative is normal and 
natural in such a construction. This construction probably, al- 
most certainly, antedated the accusative with the inf.6 We still 
1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 162. 4 Hom. Gr., p. 162. 


2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 269. 5 Prol., p. 212. 
§ Gk. Synt., p. 139. 6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 162. 


1038 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


meet it in the N.T. The oldest idiom was to have no noun with 
the inf., as in Lu. 24 : 23, 7\ayv A€youvcat kai OrTaciay ayyéhwv Ewpa- 
xevat. The context makes it perfectly clear that the word érraciap 
is the object of éwpaxévar and the rest is matter of easy inference. 
Gf. ‘Ac.¢26':9. (with %0ety)s asm 24 el Joo 26,09 eva 
In the majority of cases in the N. T. the noun is not repeated 
or referred to in the predicate. So in Lu. 20:7 we have amexpi- 
Onoav py eidevac, but in Ac. 25:4 djaotos aexpiOn tynpetobar tov Iabv- 
Aov eis Katoapiav, éavrov dé weddev. It is easy to see why IladAov 
has to be in the acc. if expressed at all. We could have had 
avrés rather than éavrov which probably is just co-ordinated with 
Iladdov. Cf. xpitrns efvae in Ac. 18:15; Mt. 19:21 rédeos efvar, 
Ph. 4:11 éuadov avrapxns etvat, where the principle is the same, 
though not technically indirect discourse; it is the predicate 
nominative. So with Botdoua, O€\w, fnrew, etc. The personal 
construction is a good illustration of the nominative. Cf. Heb. 
11:4, €uaprupydn efvar dixavos. ‘The nominative occurs also in 
Ro. 1:22, dackovres efvac codoi. See further Ro. 9:3; 1 Cor. 3: 
18; 82 ;°141537;92 Core l0m2 -Hebw5 212.0 Jase0 26 Oe 
(W. H. text). In a case like Lu. 20 : 20 dixaious efvar is inevitable 
because of tzoxpiwwouevovs. But there are a good many examples 
in the N. T. where the nominative could have been properly re- 
tained. and where the accusative has crept in, perhaps owing to a 
tendency towards uniformity rather than to any special Latin 
influence as Blass supposed.t Moulton? notes the same tendency 
in the xow7 outside of Latin influence. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) 
refers to Aischylus, P. V. 268 f., with the note of Sykes and Wynne- 
Wilson, and to Adam’s note on Plato, Apol., 36 B., for classical ex- 
amples of ace. with inf. where nom. could have occurred. Cf. Ro. 
6 : 11, duets Noyifecbe Eavtods efvar vexpots. It is rare in the classical 
Greek for the accusative to occur in such sentences.2 The N. T. 
undoubtedly shows an increase of the acc. where the nominative 
was the rule for the older Greek. So Ro. 2:19, wémoiBas ceavrov 
odnyov evar TUPAGV, Where avros (cf. Ro. 9 : 3) would have been suf- 
ficient. Cf. also Ac. 5:36 (ef. 8:9) Neywr efvat twa éavrdv, (Ph. 
3:13) eyo euavrov obrw Aoyifouar Kateekndevat, (Heb. 10 : 34) yuvw- 
oKxovTes Exe éavTovs Kpelacova Urapéiw, (Eph. 4:22) drobécOar tyes 
(some distance from the verb é6.d4axOnTe). See also Ac. 21:1; Ro. 
1:20f. Blass, p. 238, thinks that in 2 Cor. 7:11 the class. Greek 
would have had évras, not evar. Even so, but the N. T. has 


1 Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 238 f. 
2 Prol.; p,.212 f, +’ Blass,’ Gr. of NaPiGk. 5,237, 


MODE (EPKAISIS) 1039 


etvat. An example like Lu. 20 : 20 (see above) is hardly pertinent, 
since the participle on which the inf. depends is itself in the accu- 
sative. Cf. Lu. 6:4. In Ac. 25:21, 70d Ilatdou émixadecapévov 
Tnpetobar avtov, the pronoun could have been assimilated to the 
case of Ilatdou (airod). Soalso in Rev. 2:9; 3:9, rav NeydvTwv 
"Tovdaious efvar éavrovs (different order in 3:9). We find the same 
lack of assimilation in Ac. 22:17, wo. — wou — ue, and in 25 : 27 
po. — méurrovra and in Heb. 2:10 aita —dyayovra. In 2 Pet. 3:3, 
ywaoxovres is due to anacoluthon (cf. 1:20) as with amréyecbar — 
exovres (1 Pet. 2:11 f.) and with oreddduevor (2 Cor. 8:20). So 
Lu. 1:74 jyiy puocbevtas, 5:7 perexos EAMovTas. The Greek of the 
.N. T. did sometimes have assimilation of case as in Ac. 16:21, 
a& ovk ékeoTw huty wapadexecbar ovd6€ Trovetvy ‘Pwpuaios ova. So also 
15 : 25, edokev uty yevouevors duobvpadoy éxre~apevors (—ovs margin of 
W. H.) rena (cf. accusative retained in verse 22, éxe~apevous). 
Cf.-also Lu. 1:3; 9:59; 2 Pet. 2:21. Contrast é50fé pot of Lu. 
1:3 with éoga euavr@ of Ac. 26:9. The same situation applies 
to the cases with the articular infinitive. Cf. Mt. 26 : 32, wera 76 
évepOjvai we mpoaéw. Here the pe is not necessary and airdos could 
have been used. So with Lu. 2:4, 61a 76 efvar adrov. The adror is 
superfluous, as in Heb. 7 : 24.2 Cf. Lu. 10 : 35, éya & 76 éravépxe- 
obai we arodwow cor. See further Lu. 1:57; 2:21; 24:30; Ac. 
18:3. It is easy to show from this use of the articular inf. that 
the inf. has no proper “subject.’”’ The accusative is due to other 
reasons. Take Lu. 2:27, é& 7 eicayayely tobs yovets TO matdiov 
"Inootv, where the context makes plain that zacdiov is the object of 
eicayayetv and yovets the acc. of general reference. The article 
7@ must be considered in explaining this instance. Cf. Lu. 18: 
5; Ac. 1:3; 27:4; Heb. 5 : 12 (three accusatives in W. H.’s text). 
The ace. with the inf. was normal when the substantive with the 
inf. was different from the subject of the principal verb. Cf. Ro. 
3:8, daciy tives Huds Neyew bre (note inf. after dnui, and 67c after 
Neyw, but it is recitative dr). In Lu. 24:23, Aeyovow adrov FHp, 
we see \éyw with the ace. and inf. Typical examples are seen in 
Mt. 17:4, xaddév éorw Huds Bde eftvar, Ac. 12:14; 14:19; 16:13; 
Piso ieboteor i wile 2 1)Cor.14 +5; Heb. 9:8. See Turther 
Verbal Aspects of Inf., (d), in next chapter. 

The tense of the original is preserved in the inf. as a rule. A 
ease like Mt. 14:7, ayuortoyncer airh dodvar 6 éav aitnontar, May 

1 See also Lu. 23 : 2, Néyovra atbrov elvat. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 212. Cf. Zeitlin, The Accusative with Inf. and some 
Kindred Constr. in Eng. (1908). 


1040 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


seem a bit disconcerting since in the direct discourse in Mk. 6 : 23 
we find dwow. But the future is aoristic anyhow. The line be- 
tween indir. discourse and the simple object inf. is not sharply 
drawn. Cf. Ac. 23:12. In Lu. 20:6, rerewcpeévos yap éorw ’Iwa- 
vnv mpopynrny etvar, the inf. represents 4» of the direct. There was 
no help for this, since there is no imperfect inf. The future inf. 
in indir. discourse is rare, but see Jo. 21: 25; Ac. 23 : 30 (see Ten- 
ses). Examples of the perfect inf. in this idiom occur in Ac. 
12:14; 14:19; 16:27; 25:25; Heb. 9:8. Cf. duoroye? eirndevar, 
P. Oxy. 37 (A.D. 49). 

There is little more to say. The use of 70d and the inf. as sub- 
ject has been noted (pp. 996, 1002). See rod édOetv, Lu. 17:1, 
where 7a ocxavédada is the acc. of general reference while this geni- 
tive inf. is itself in the nominative case. See also Ac. 10:25. 
We do not have ay with the inf. in indir. discourse. In 2 Cor. 10: 
9, wa pn doéw ws av expoBetvy, we have ws av=‘as if.’ It is not the 
av in apodosis. Nestle in his N. T. gives at 1 Pet. 5:8 ¢nradv 
tiva katarveity, but surely ria is the correct accent. W. H. places 
even this in the margin. Souter prints t.va, departing from R. V. 
which has rua. But Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 147) cites Cal- 
linicus in Vita Hypati, 57, 12, rod ebpetv, and 1138, 11, ri rorfoae 
(cf. German Was tun?). It may be worth while to add that 
frequently we meet an inf. dependent on an inf. (cf. inf. on part. in 
Lu. 20:20). I have noticed the idiom in Luke, Paul, Mk., Heb. 
Cf. Lu. 6 : 12, é&eNOety abrov eis 76 Spos tpocevEacbar, where the first 
is in indirect discourse, and Ac. 18:2, é6:a 76 édiaTeraxévat Kdad- 
diov xwpivecbar tavtas Tovs ’Iovdaiovs, where the second is indirect 
discourse (indir. command). Cf. Ro. 15:8. 

(vy) The Participle. Middleton! suggests that the use of the 
participle in indir. discourse is older than the inf. This may be 
true, since in the Sanskrit it developed much more rapidly than the 
inf. But there were cross-currents at work in indirect discourse. 
Just as the inf. was circumscribed by the declarative 671, so the 
participle was limited by é7u or the infinitive. Thus verbs of 
showing (deixvuut, dndow) and of manifesting (davepdw) no longer 
occur with the participle in the N. T. However, we have the 
participle with ¢aivoua (‘appear’), as in Mt. 6:16. Besides, the 
participle has disappeared from use with aic@dvoyuat, yavOdvw, pé- 
pvnuar, ovvinut. The participles with pavéavw in 1 Tim. 5:13 are 
additional statements, as the Revised Version correctly translates. 
With the inf. yvavOavw means ‘to learn how,’ not ‘to learn that.’ 

1 Analogy in Synt., p. 64. 


MODE (EPrKAIzIz) 1041 


Cf. Ph. 4:11; Tit. 3:14. But some verbs in the N. T. still 
have the participle in indir. discourse. They are verbs of percep- 
tion by the senses (hearing, seeing, knowing). In the ancient 
Greek the nominative was used when the participle referred to 
the subject of the verb. Thus 694 juaprnxws meant ‘I see that I 
have sinned.’ In the N. T., however, we have declarative é7: in 
such clauses (Mk. 5:29; 1 Jo. 3:14).! Viteau? rightly insists on 
a real difference between the participial conception and the de- 
clarative 67c or the inf. If the idea is one of intellectual appre- 
-hension merely, an opinion or judgment, we have 6p dr (Jas. 
2:24). If it is a real experience, the participle occurs as in Mk. 
8 : 24, ws dévdpa 6p mepiratodyras. So in Ac. 8: 23, eis cbvdecpuov 
6p oe Ovta. There is something in this distinction. Cf. Srérw 
drt (Jas. 2 : 22), but the participle in Heb. 2:9, "Incobdy éorepavw- 
pevov. In Mk. 8 : 24 we have én with Bdrérw and the part. with 
6p. The realistic quality of the part. is finely brought out in 
Mk. 9:1, éws dv tdwow tiv Baotreiav Tov Deod EXndAvOviay Ev duvape. 
Note the tense as in Lu. 10:18, @edpovv rov Latavav — recovra. 
6fe9 49212 20;8Ac. 11:13) 17:16. See Jo. 19:33, ds eldov 
non avrov teOvnxora. ‘The tense of the direct is preserved. See 
for Qewpew, Mk. 16:4 and Lu. 24:39, xabws eué Oewpetre exorra. 
For ériorapa take Ac. 15:7 and 24:10. Cf. also pynuovebw with 
drt (Ac. 20: 31) and the part. (2 Tim. 2:8). It is very clear in 
evpioxw (see dre in Ro. 7:21) which, as in classic Greek, is com- 
monly used with the participle. See Mt. 1:18; 12:44; Lu. 
23:2; Ac. 9:2. In Mt. 1:18 we have the passive construction 
evpeOn Exovoa. In Lu. 23 : 2 we find three participles. Aoxiuatw in 
the N. T. has only the inf. (Ro. 1: 28) and the participle (2 Cor. 
8 : 22). So with yyéoua (Ph. 2:6;3:7). Cf. also eve we rapytn- 
pevoy (Lu. 14:18). In 2 Jo. 7 note the part. with duodroyew. In 
verse 4, repiratodvras with ebpicxw, the case agrees only in sense 
with & Tv réxvwv. The difference between ére with oféda (Ac. 28 : 
5) and the part. is clear (2 Cor. 12:2), though this is the only in- 
stance of the part. with this verb. It prefers é7:, but may have the 
inf. (Lu. 4:41). The difference is even clearer in yuwoxw. See dre 
in Mt. 21:45, the inf. in Heb. 10:34. The usual idiom is 671, 
but note Lu. 8 : 46, éyvwy divauy efeAndvOviay am’ Euod, where Christ 
thus graphically describes the terrible nervous loss from his heal- 
ing work. He felt the power “gone” out of him. In our ver- 
nacular we speak of a sense of “‘goneness.’’ See also Ac. 19 : 35; 
Heb. 13:23. But see Mk. 5:29, &yvw 73 cwpare bre tata. In 
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 246. 2 Le Verbe, p. 53 f. 


1042 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Mk. 5:30 émvywwoxnw has the attributive participle after it. 
’Axobw also occurs with declarative é7. (Mt. 5:21; 32 times), 
the tinf.. (Jo: 12: -18+s1-Cors 11518) or the parteuAc (eal, elan 
9: 3 Jo. 4; 2 ‘Th. 3:11, etc.). These examples have the accu- 
sative when the thing is understood. Blass! curiously calls the 
ace. incorrect in Ac. 9:4; 26:14. The genitive with dary does 
occur in 11:7; 22:7. Blass has an overrefinement on this 
point. As. with the acc. construction of the part. with dxotw, so 
most of the genitive examples are found in the Acts. So 2:6; 
6:11; 14:9, etc. But see also Mk. 12: 28, dkotoas abtav avfy- 
rolvrwy. So 14:58; Lu. 18:36; Jo. 1:37. The perfect part. in 
this construction is seen in Lu. 8:46; Jo. 19:33, etc. For the 
aorist see Lu. 10:18. In Mk. 6:8 we have oratio variata. The 
sentence starts with iva and concludes with the inf. Hence the 
part. bzodedeuévous is construed with the inf. See the acc. part. in 
Rey. 4:4 as explained by eféov in verse 1, though ido and the 
nominative have come between. 

(5) Kai éyévero. One hardly knows whether to treat this con- 
struction as indirect discourse or not. It is a clear imitation of 
the Hebrew 7757 and is common in the LXX with two construc- 
tions. It is either xal éyévero cat with finite verb (or éyévero 6€) as 
in Gen. 24:30; 29:18; Josh. 5:1, etc.), or we have asyndeton, 
kal éyévero plus finite verb (Gen. 22:1; 24:45, etc.). For éyevero 
we often find éyevyOn (1 Sam. 4:1; 11:1, etc.).. This asyndeton 
is also common in the future as xal éorac with finite verb (Is. 
9:16; 10:20, 27, etc.). This xai éovac construction is quoted a 
few times in the N. T. (Ac. 2:17, 21; Ro. 9 : 26) from the LXX. 
For kai éerau xai see Ex. 13:11 f. W. F. Moulton? has pointed 
out that the idiom occurs when the principal sentence has some 
note of time. J. H. Moulton* quotes Driver (Tenses, § 78) as 
describing the “471 construction in a similar fashion, ‘‘a clause 
specifying the circumstances under which an action takes place.” 
All the examples of these two constructions in Luke fit this de- 
scription. Luke has in the Gospel eleven of the kai éyévero kal ex- 
amples and twenty-two of the kai éyévero type. For kal éyévero xat 
see Lu. 17: 11; without the second cai 17:14. See in particular 
Lu. 8 and 9. It is frequently the case that Luke has & 76 and the 
inf. with the idiom. So 9 : 51, éyévero dé & 7G cupTAnpodacbar — Kal 
autos eoTnpioev. Here xal is almost equivalent to é71. So kal éyé 
veto ev TH etvar — eiwev Tis (11:1). We have xai éyévero xai also in 

1s GYROLING DG Kees. 
2 W.-M., p. 760, n. 2. ae Proll tps 


MODE (EPKAISIz) 1043 


Mt. 9:10. The form xai éyé&ero Moulton! counts outside of 
Luke only twice in Mark and five times in Matthew with the 
phrase éyéveto dre érédecev. Cf. Mt. 7:28. Moulton is concerned 
to show against Dalman that the idiom is not Semitic. He ad- 
mits the Hebraism in kai éyévero xai, but doubts as to kal éyévero 
(asyndeton). But surely the LXX has left its mark in this point 
also. The LXX does not have éyevero (or yiverat) and the infini- 
tive (but cf. 2 Macc. 3:16 Av — titpwoKecbar). In the N. T. we 
find it in Mt. 18 : 13; Mk. 2 : 15; five times in Luke and seventeen 
times in Acts. Cf. tuty yivorto xparetv, P. Par. 26 (B.c. 163-2). 
The other two constructions are absent from the Acts, showing 
that in the Gospel Luke was more directly using Semitic sources 
or imitating the LX X on the point. But even so inf. with éyévero 
is not ancient Greek, which used cvvé8n. We do have ovveBy and 
the inf. in Ac. 21:35. The modern Athenian vernacular has 
cuveBn orc While the country districts? use érvye va. Moulton finds 
the inf. with yiverac in the papyri and rightly sees in the vernacu- 
lar xown the origin of this idiom. There is no essential difference 
between the inf. with yiverac and éyévero. Cf. Ac. 9:32; 16:16; 
9 : 32, 37, 48; 11:26, etc. Outside of Luke (Gospel and Acts) 
the inf. with éyévero is confined to Mk. 2 : 23, which Moulton calls 
“a primitive assimilation of Lu. 6:1.’ See Ac. 10:25, eye 
veto Tov eicedOetv. This is Moulton’s presentation, which is cer- 
tainly more just than the mere description of ‘“ Hebraism”’ for 
all these constructions.2 We do not have the 67. clause with 
yiverat or éyevero in the N. T. 

(g) Indirect Questions. 

(a) Tense. See (c) under Indirect Discourse. It may here be 
simply stated that when the principal verb is primary no change 
in tense occurs. When it is secondary, still no change appears as 
a rule, though occasionally one does see it, as in Jo. 2: 25; 6:6; 
18:32. But note érvvbavero rod yevvarar (Mt. 2:4); Bewpovy rod 
rera (Mk. 15:47). Cf. Ac. 10:18. Note difference between 
present perfect in Mk. 15:44 and the aorist in the same verse. 
For the future ind. see Jo. 21:19; Mk. 11:18. 

(8) Mode. It is only necessary to say that as a rule the same 
mode is retained in the indirect question that was in the direct. 
Thus see Mk. 5:14; 15 : 47; Lu. 8 : 36; 23 : 55; Ac. 10 : 29, where 
the indicative occurs. We have the ind. after secondary as well 
as primary tenses. This is the common idiom in the N. T. as in 


1. Tb. 20ibe pe iss 
3 As in Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 142 f. 


1044 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the xow?. In all instances where a subj. appears in this con- 
struction it is due to the fact that the subj. would have been 
present in the direct (deliberative subj.). Note ri daywuev; in 
Mt. 6:31 and ri daynre (6:25). See also rod pevers; of Jo. 1:38 
and eféay 7od weve of verse 39 for the retention of the indicative. 
The Latin changed the ind. to the subj. in indirect questions, but 
the Greek did not. This deliberative sub]. occurs after primary 
tenses as in Lu. 9 : 58, ovk éxer 70d rHv Kepadny kdivn, and after sec- 
ondary tenses also as in Mk. 9 : 6, ob yap foe Ti doxpi87. Cf. also 
Mk. 6:36; Lu. 5:19; 12:36. So also the optative occurs a few 
times where it was in the direct. This is the construction with ap 
which has already been discussed twice. See Ac. 17:18, ri av 
Xo, for the direct form, and Lu. 1 : 62, 7i ay O€dor, for the indirect. 
Cf. Lu. 9 : 46; Ac. 5:24. In 2 Tim. 2 : 25, un ore 6@n (W. H. have 
dwn in margin), we have the optative without av after a primary 
tense if dwn be correct. Moulton! considers the subj. here a 
“syntactical necessity.”” We need not moralize, therefore, on 
this instance of the optative even if it is genuine. Radermacher 
(Neut. Gr., p. 132) shows that the Atticists frequently used the 
opt. after a primary tense, as copyists often fail to catch the spirit 
of a thing. The papyri (2b.) have some illustrations of the same 
idiom. The other examples of the opt. in indirect questions are 
all after secondary tenses and the change is made from an indica- 
tive or a subj. to the optative. These examples all occur in Luke. 
As instances of the opt. where the direct had the ind. see Lu. 1 : 
29; 3:15; 18:36. See Ac. 21:33 for both modes. In Ac. 17: 
27, el dpaye Ynradjoeav, the opt. represents a subj. with éay after 
a primary tense. So in Ac. 27:12. In no instance where the 
opt. without av occurs in the indirect discourse is it necessary. 
In all these examples the indicative or the subj. could have been 
retained. The infinitive with riva in 1 Pet. 5:8 is read by Nestle, 
but not by W. H. or Souter. See under (f), (8). 

(y) Interrogative Pronouns and Conjunctions Used. One notes 
at once the absence of éa7is in this construction, the common 
classic idiom. We do have ér: once in Ac. 9:6, AadnOAceETai cor 
bre oe bet movetv. Elsewhere the most usual pronoun is vis and Ti 
as in Ac. 10 : 29; 21:33. We even have ris ri &py in Mk. 15 : 24 
(double interrogative). Tischendorf reads ris ri in Lu. 19 : 15, 
but W. H. have only ri. This double use appears rarely in the 
older Greek.? As a rule the distinction between ris and és is pre- 


* Prol., pp. 55, 198. Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 184. 
: Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 68, 


MODE (EPKAIZzI2z) 1045 


served in indirect questions, as in Jo. 13 : 24 (cf. 13:12). The 
occasional confusion between ris and és was discussed under Pro- 
nouns. See 1 Tim. 1:7 and Jas. 3:13. Now and then the sim- 
ple relative pronoun or adverb is used in an indirect question, as 
was true of classical Greek also. So Mk. 5:19f. dca, Lu. 8 : 47 
6i qv. airiavy, Ac. 15:14 xadws, 1 Th. 1:5 oto, and the various 
examples of ws discussed in connection with Indirect Assertions 
(Lu. 8:47; Ac. 10:28, 38, etc.) which are more likely to be 
understood in the sense of ‘how,’ and so indirect questions. Cf. 
Lu. 6:3f. (6 and as), Mt. 10:19 (Go0ncerat was 4 Th AaAHoNTE) 
Lu. 17:8 (ri). Other interrogative words used are vod (Mt. 
2:4), rd0ev (Jo. 8:14), motos (Rev. 3:3), wore (Lu. 12:36), ras 
(Lu. 8:36), mndXixos (Gal. 6:11), rocos (Mt. 16:9), woramds (Lu. 
1:29). The correlative words, besides the lone instance of 
d7t in Ac. 9:6, are dzws (Lu. 24:20), érotos (1 Th. 1:9). In 
Mk. 14:14 (Lu. 22:11) rot — érov gayw; most likely the ézov 
clause is an indirect question with the deliberative subj., but 
it may be the volitive subj. simply. There are plenty of in- 
stances of ef in indirect questions (see Conditional Sentences) as 
in Mk. 15:44 after davuatw and érepwraw; Lu. 14 : 28 after Y7r- 
gifw; 14:31 after BovAelouac; Mt. 26 : 63 after efrov; 27:49 after 
dpaw; Mk. 3:2 after waparnpew; Jo. 9:25 after of6a; Ac. 4:19 
after kpivw; 10:18 after ruvPavouar; 19 : 2 after axobw; 2 Cor. 2:9 
after ywwokw; 18:5 after repafw. There are, besides, those 
passages! where a word is suppressed, like Mk. 11:13; Eph. 3 : 2; 
Ph. 3:12; 2 Th. 2:15. ‘See also the optative with e in Ac. 
17:27; 25:20; 27:12. This is all quite classical and gives no 
trouble. We find uy also used like an indirect question after cxo- 
mew (cf. p. 995) with the ind. (Lu. 11:35) and un wore after dadoyi- 
¢ouat with the opt. (Lu. 3:15). In Jo. 7:17 an alternative indi- 
rect question occurs with rérepov — 4. The only other alternative 
construction in an indirect question is in 2 Cor. 12 : 2 f. after oféa, 
and is etre —eire. In all these points the N. T. is in harmony 
with the xowy. The use of ri with the subj. (Mk. 6 : 36) or the 
future ind. (Ac. 25 : 26 possibly subj. aor.) may be compared with 
mod after éxyw in Lu. 9:58. In Col. 4:6 és after eidévar is to be 
distinguished from the use of the inf. after oféa (‘know how to 
do.’ Cf. Lu. 11:13). In Mk. 2: 24, ide ri rovodoww; the ide is prob- 
ably just the interjection as in Mt. 25 : 25. For the acc. and the 
ind. question side by side see Mt. 16: 9. 

(6) The Article with Indirect Questions. This classical idiom 

1 Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 62. 


1046 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


appears in Luke and Paul. See 76 ri (Lu. 1 : 62), 76 ris (9 : 46), 70 
mas (22:4). So Paul has 76 rés in 1 Th. 4:1 and 76 vi in Ro. 
8:26 2(cf.i7l ro0in 82 272% Seenalsoglu: Z2ie23 eee Cae ee 
22:30. The substantive nature of the indirect question is well 
shown also in Jo. 4:10. Cf. Lu. 24:19 f. 

(h) Indirect Command. As already explained, this construction 
is somewhat vague and the line is hard to draw between this and 
other idioms. | 

(a) Deliberative Question. <A direct command may be turned 
into a deliberative question in the indirect with the subjunctive. 
The volitive idea of the imperative thus glides into the delibera- 
tive. In Lu. 12:5, brodeiEw 6€ buty Tiva hoBynOnTe PoBHOnTe Tov, Ri Ne 
we have the point illustrated both in the direct (imperative) and 
the indirect (deliberative subj.).. Here the only difference be- 
tween the two forms is the accent. Cf. wu) doBnOjre in verse 4. In 
Mt. 10:28 we have ¢ofetce. Obviously this is a natural, though 
not very frequent, turn for the command to take. 

(8) The Conjunctions wa and érws. These may be used after 
verbs of commanding and beseeching. This idiom does not differ 
clearly from the sub-final construction. It is a species of purpose 
(or sub-final. See Final Clauses). The examples there given 
might suffice, but note the following: Mk. 6:8 raphyyedev abtots 
iva undev aipwow, Mt. 16:20 éreriunoer tots wadytats iva undevi eitrw- 
ow, 2 Th. 3:12 wapayyéeddouev kal mapakadoduev ev Kupiw "Inood 
Xpict@ tva — éoBiwow, Ac. 25:3 aitobuevor Stws peTaTéeupntar. See 
further Mt. 8°: 345 Lule: 27391 Core 103 eine Lis 1627 ewe 
have the purely final idea in both ézws and tva which are sub- 
ordinate to the first tva after €owrd. But we cannot follow this 
use of iva after 6€\w and such verbs where it is more or less purely 
objective. The recitative 67. with the imperative in 2 Th. 3:10 
is not an instance of indirect command, but simply the direct 
command preserved. 

(y) The Infinitive. It seems more obvious and is still common 
in the xown, though retreating before iva. The negative is, of 
course, uy. This use of the infinitive must not be confounded 
with the idiom for indirect assertion (declarative) as in Mk. 12:_ 
18, oirwes N€yovow avactacw pH etvar. Note Ac. 21:21, Neywr wh 
TEplTeuvery avTovs Ta TEKVA pNde Tots Ceow Tepirareiv, Where we have 
prohibition, not assertion (note incidentally the two accusatives) 
with Aéywy (same verb as above). So also 23 : 12, Neyovres unre 
payety unre metv. Cf. 21:4. Simple enough is the construction 
after ef7a in Lu. 9: 54, elrwuev rdp kataBjva; See also Mk. 8: 


MODE. (EPKAISI>) 1047 


7. In Mt. 16:12, ovvijxav b71 otk efrev rpocéyew (cf. rpocéxere in 
verses 6 and 11), we have the declarative 67: and the indicative 
followed by the inf. in indirect command. In Lu. 2: 26, fv aira 
KeXpnuaTtiouevov un ldetv Oavarov, the construction is like that of in- 
direct command, but the sense comes nearer to the mere object 
infinitive. See the direct dom in Mk. 6:23 reproduced in the 
indirect by dodvac (Mt. 14:7). There is a certain amount of free- 
dom taken in such transference to the indirect. In Ac. 18 : 2, dca 
TO OvateTraxevar Kdavd.rov xwpifecbar wavras, the inf. is dependent on 
an inf. Other instances of the inf. in indir. command are seen in 
Ac. 25 : 24, Bodvres un dety adrov onv, 26 : 20, aanyyeddov peravoety. 
In 2 Th. 3:6 we have zapayyéd\d\ouer orédA\XeoOa, while in verse 
12 we have ta. In verse 10 the direct quotation follows this 
same verb. In Mk. 6:8f. we have both ta uy aipwow and ph 
evdvoacba (marge. of W. H., M7 évdtonobe) after raphyyedrev. Luke 
(9: 3-5) gives it all in the direct form. In 2 Th. 3:14, rodrop 
onueovabe, ur) cvvavapiyvucbar aiT@, the inf. is not in indirect com- 
mand, but rather the inf. used in the direct as the equivalent of 
the imperative. But in 1 Cor. 5:11, éypava tuty uy cvvavapiyrv- 
car (so also verse 9), we do have indirect command. 

(1) Mixture. Strictly this point belongs to the chapter on 
Figures of Speech (cf. also, Oratio Variata, The Sentence), but 
a word is called for here. We have mixture of several sorts as 
in the classic Greek. In Ac. 19:1f., Tad\ov ed\Oety kat edpety, 
eiwey Te, we have the infinitive (object-clause subject of éyévero) 
and the finite clause e?7é re side by side. Cf. Ac. 4:5f. for 
inf. followed by xai and the indicative. So in Lu. 9:19 we 
have the infinitive construction and the 6rc construction side by 
side after dmoxpievtes einav. In Ac. 14:22, zapaxadodrres Eupeverv 
Th lore Kal 67 — det, the construction glides from the inf. into 
drt. In Ro. 3:8 the recitative éru is dependent on the inf. 
Nevyey after daciv. In Ac. 9: 27, dinynoavto wé&s ev TH 66G Eldev Tov 
kUptov kal OTe €XaANoEV a’Ta, kal THs kTr., we have a change from ind. 
question to indirect assertion and then back again to indirect 
question. The change may be from the indirect to the direct 
as in Ac. 1:4, wepimevery tiv erayyeNlav Tov TaTpds HY HKovoaTeE pov. 
Cf. also 23:22. See also Jo. 12:29. This change appears in 
Mk. 6:8 f., if the true text is &dtonobe. But the change may 
be just the reverse, from the direct to the indirect, as in Ac. 23: 
23, etre ‘Erowuaoate — xtyvn te mapacryjom. In 27:10 ére occurs 
with the inf., a mixture of the 67: and the infinitive constructions 
in indirect assertions. This use of 67. with the inf. appears in 


1048 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


classic Attic (cf. Xen., Cyr., 1, 6, 18, etc.). See Jannaris, Hist. 
Gk. Gr., p. 570. Moulton (Prol., p. 213) gives a papyrus example, 
O. P. 237 (ii/A.D.), 6nAGy Gre ef TA AANOH Hhavein unde Kpicews detoBar 
76 tpayywa. See further Winer-Moulton, p. 426. 

(j) The Subordinate Clause. A complex sentence may be 
quoted in indirect discourse as readily as the simple sentence. 
This principal clause follows the usual laws already discussed. 
Secondary tenses of the indicative in the subordinate clause 
suffer no change at all in mood or tense.!_ This is obviously true 
after primary tenses, as in Gal. 4:15, waprup& buiy ore et duvardv 
— édxaré por. Here the copula jv is suppressed. In Lu. 19:15 
note efrev dwrnbjvar—ois dedwxer. So after primary tenses the pri- 
mary tense follows, as in Mk. 11: 23, Aeyw sre ds ay ein — Eorae 
aire. Cf. Ac. 25:14f. But even after secondary tenses the rule 
is to retain the tense and mode of the direct much more than in 
the Attic where the mode was quite optional.? See Lu. 9 : 33, efzev 
yr) elas 6 Neyer. Another example of the relative clause appears in 
Mt. 18 : 25, &éXevcevy — rpabjvar — kal doa éxe. Even after a con- 
dition of the second class the primary tense may be retained, as 
in Lu. 7:39, éyivwoxev dv tis Kal rotam} } Yuva Aris Grrerar avTod 
dru dpaptwrdos éorw. For a causal sentence see éxwdvouev abrov dre 
obk akodovbel pel’ yuev (Lu. 9:49). A temporal clause with the » 
subjunctive appears in Mt. 14 : 22, nvayxacev — rpoayew — ews ov 
amodton. See also Ac. 23:12, aveBeuaticay — ews od aroKtelvwou. 
In 25:16, however, we have the optative in the subordinate 
clause of time with zpiv 7 (€xor, AaBor) after aexpiOny, the sole ex- 
ample. It is in Luke, as one would expect. The change here is 
from the subj. to the opt. In Lu. 7:48, 67. 6, only the subordinate 
relative clause is given. 

10. SERIES OF SUBORDINATE CLAUSES. It is interesting to 
observe how rich the Greek language is in subordinate clauses 
and how they dovetail into each other. It is almost like an end- 
less chain. The series may run on ad infinitum and yet all be in 
perfect conformity to the genius of the language. I have col- 
lected quite a number of examples to illustrate this complexity of 
structure, some of which are here given. A typical one is Mk. 
11:23. After Neyw 57c we have ds ay ei. which has oratio recta, 
but the relative clause proceeds with kat py) dvaxpi07 adda mioredby 
Ore 6 Nadel yiverar. The relative 6 dade? is the fourth involution of 
subordinate clauses after \éyw. Cf. also Jo. 17:24. A similar 
multiplicity of subordinate clauses is found in Ac. 25: 14-16. 

1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 273. 2 Ibeniwere: 


MODE (EIPKAISI=) 1049 


After avéero \eywv we have oratio recta. The first step is the rela- 
tive clause zepi ot) — éveparicay, on which hangs zpds ods amexpibny, 
which in turn is followed by 6re otk éorw and that by yapitecbar, 
and this again by zpiv 4 éxo. — dAdBo. The piv 4 clause is the 
fifth involution in the oratio recta. Cf. also Ac. 3:19 ff. (apos 76 
EEadiPOfjvar, Srws av, dv det de~acAa, dv). In Ac. 11:13 there are 
five involutions. The complications are not, of course, always 
somany. In Lu. 7 : 39 the oratio recta has a series of three (ris — 
ntis — Orv). See the threefold series in Ro. 3:8, xadws daciv tives 
nuas Neve ort, kTA. So also Mk. 6:55, repideperv dou Heovoy rt 
éorw (infinitive, relative, declarative). So again 1 Cor. 11:23 f. 
(571, #, etrev and oratio recta). Here also the 6 clause is in appo- 
sition with the ér: clause. Cf. Lu. 19:15 (inf., ta, vi). In Ac. 
7:25, evoucfer cuvievae Tos abeAods STL, KTA., We have two forms of 
indirect assertion (the inf., then 671), one dependent on the other. 
So also é7c follows éca 76 NeyeoOar in Lu. 9:7f. In Ph. 4:10 we 
have the é7c clause and then the articular inf. In Jo. 6: 24 the 
dre clause is subordinate to the dre clause. In 1 Jo. 5:9 we have 
a dre clause dependent on a dr clause. In Jo. 4:1 we have ws — 
dtu — Ore. In Mt. 16: 20 the sequence is tva— drr. So Jo. 16: 
4; 17:23. In Mk. 14:14 we have two cases of oratio recta, one 
dependent on the other. In Lu. 24:7 it is a: — én. Cf. va — 
wa in Gal 3:14. In Col. 1: 9 the wa clause and the infinitive 
Tepiratjoa. are parallel. The instances are numerous where 
one infinitive is dependent on another infinitive. Thus é£edety 
mpcevéacbar (Lu. 6 : 12); do6jvar dayetv (8 : 55); pds 76 dev mpocet- 
xecOar (18:1); dua 7d TeTaxEvar Krabd.oyv xwpifecOar, after édndvbdra 
(Ac. 18 : 2); dety rpadéar (26 : 9); yeyerqicbar eis TO BeBardoat (Ronlos 
8); Katnpticbat eis TO yeyovevar (Heb. 11: 3). In Ac. 23 : 30, unvv- 
deions pou eriBovr7js els TOv avdpa EoeoOar, the future inf. in indirect 
discourse is dependent on the participle in the genitive absolute. 
In Heb. 9:8, rodro énXobvTos Tod rvebuatos TOD aylov mehavepadbat, 
the perfect inf. follows the genitive absolute. There are various 
other combinations. These are given as illustrations. No rules 
are called for about the using of a series of subordinate clauses. 
The presence of so many of them in Luke, Paul and Hebrews 
shows the literary quality of a more periodic structure. 


CHAPTER XX 
VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 


I. Kinship. The finite verb, verbum finitum (das bestummte 
Verb), has now been discussed as adequately as the space in this 
grammar allows. Originally there was no difference between 
verb and noun (see Conjugation of the Verb). But gradually 
there was developed a difference. It was done largely by the 
help of the pronouns which were added to the verb-stems. Nouns 
also had their own inflection. But a considerable body of words 
partook of the nature of both verb and noun and yet did not cut 
loose from either. In a sense therefore the finite verb is a com- 
bination of verb and pronoun while the non-finite verb combines 
verb and noun. These verbal nouns are the non-finite verb, ver- 
bum infinitum (das unbestimmte Verb).1 They failed to add the 
personal pronominal endings of the finite verb and so did not 
become limited to a subject (finite). And yet they developed 
tense and voice and were used with the same cases as the finite 
verb. In so far they are true verbs. On the other hand they are 
themselves always in a case like other nouns. The verbal sub- 
stantive comes to drop its inflection (fixed case-form) while the 
verbal adjective is regularly inflected in the singular and plural 
of all three genders just like any other adjective. These verbal 
nouns may be regarded either as hybrids or as cases of arrested 
development, more properly deflected development, for they con- . 
tinued to develop in a very wonderful way. The Greek of the 
Attic period would be barren indeed if robbed of the infinitives 
and the participles. The names are not distinctive, since both 
are participles? (partake of the nature of both verb and noun) 
and both are non-finite or infinitives (are not limited to a subject 
by personal endings). The root-difference between these lies not 


1_K.-BE, Bde li p.43 
? In K.-G. (Bd. II, p. 1) the ch. begins thus: “Lehre von den Partizipialen; 
dem Infinitiv und dem Partizipe.” Both are “participles”? and both are 
“infinitives.”’ 
1050 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATO®) 1051 


in the verbal idea, but in the noun. It is the difference between 
substantive and adjective. Both are verbals, both are nouns, but 
one is a substantive and the other is an adjective. These general 
remarks may help one to understand the history and usage of 
both infinitive and participle. 

II. The Infinitive (7 dtapépdatos EykAtots or TO atrapéwhatov 
pipa). 

1. OrtaiIn. There is no real ground for difference of opinion 
on this subject, however much scholars may argue as to the sig- 
nificance of the infinitive.! In the Sanskrit the infinitive did not 
have tense or voice. The root used was that of a substantive 
closely connected with a verb.? But it is verbal in Sanskrit also 
in the notion of action, nomina actionis. In the Veda and Brah- 
mana the number of these verbal nouns is very large. They are 
used with cases, the cases corresponding to the verb, but that 
phenomenon appears in Latin and Greek. In Plautus ‘‘we even 
find the abstract noun factio in the nominative governing its 
case just as if it were tangere. Classical Greek has a few well- 
known examples of a noun or adjective governing the case ap- 
propriate to the verb with which it is closely connected.”? The 
same thing occurs in the N. T. also. Cf. kowwvia dwri (2 Cor. 
6:14). See chapter on Cases. These substantives have enough 
“verbal consciousness”? to ‘‘govern”’ cases.2 In the old San- 
skrit these verbal substantives occur in any case (except the 
vocative, which is not a real case). The later Sanskrit has only 
one such case-ending so used, the accusative in —tum or —itum 
(cf. the Latin supine). But for the developments in other lan- 
guages, especially in the Greek and Latin, these Sanskrit verbal 
substantives would not have been called infinitives. But they 
show beyond controversy the true origin of the infinitive before 
tense and voice were added. They were originally substantives 
in any case, which were used as fixed case-forms (cf. adverbs) 
which had a verbal idea (action), and which were made on verbal 
roots. The Latin shows three cases used in this way: the loca- 
tive as in regere, the dative as in regi and the accusative as in 
the supine rectum.® The Greek infinitive shows only two case- 
endings, the dative —ac as in Adoae (cf. also doFévar, dodvar, with 
Sanskrit davdné; Homeric Fiduevac with Sanskrit vidmdné) or the 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., :p. 297. MN eee Ga PA ORE 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 202. 4 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 347 ff. 

5 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 202; Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 469; Vogrinz, 
Gr. d. hom. Dial., 1889, p. 139. 


1052 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


locative in \vewv.! Thus in the Greek and Latin it is only oblique 
cases that were used to form the infinitives.? It is then as a 
substantive that the infinitive makes its start. We see this in the 
Sanskrit ddvdné vdstindm = dodvac trav ayabév This substantive 
aspect is clearly seen in the use of ravrés with rod ¢yv in Heb. 
2:15. The first’ step towards the verbal idea was in the con- 
struction dodvar ra ayaba. Moulton® illustrates the border-land of 
the English inf. by the sentence: “He went out to work again.” 
If we read ‘“‘hard work’ we have a substantive; but if we read 
“work hard,’ we have a verbal notion. Strictly speaking, dodvac 
ra ayaba = ‘for giving the good things,’ while idety ra ayaa = ‘in 
seeing the good things.’ This was the original etymological sense 
as the Sanskrit makes clear. See further chapter on Conjugation 
of Verb. 

2. DEVELOPMENT. In the Sanskrit we see the primitive in- 
finitive without tense or voice. In the modern Greek the in- 
finitive, outside of the Pontic dialect, has disappeared save with 
auxiliary verbs, and even so it is in a mutilated state, as with 
Oeder Aver, HOeEAa Sebe?, Exw Séeoe, remnants of the ancient infini- 
tives Ave, deOAvat, deoac (Thumb, Handb., pp. 162, 167). Between 
these two extremes comes the history of the rise and fall of the 
Greek infinitive. We may sketch that history in five periods.® 

(a) The Prehistoric Period. The infinitive is simply a substan- 
tive with the strict sense of the dative or locative case. Cf. the 
Sanskrit. We may infer also that there was no tense or voice. 
This original epexegetical use of the inf. as the dative of limita- 
tion has survived with verbs, substantives and adjectives. So 
6 xpovos Tod texety (Lu. 1:57). Cf. our “a wonder to behold.” 
See divarar dovrevey (Mt. 6 : 24), dpur bBpicoa (Ac. 14:5), tkavos 
Adoar (Mk. 1:7). See also Jas. 1:19, raxds eis 76 dxodoar, where 
els TO reproduces the dative idea. 

(b) The Earliest Historic Period. The case-form (dative or lo- 
cative) begins to lose its significance. In Homer the dative idea is 
still the usual one for the infinitive, in harmony with the form.’ 
With verbs of wishing, commanding, expecting, beginning, being 
able, etc., the dative idea is probably the original explanation of 


1 Cf. Giles (Man., p. 470) for \v-e and its relation to the Sans. —san-i. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 515. said: 

Balt. 5 Prol., p. 2038. 

® Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 148, has four. But see Robertson, Short Gr. 
of the Gk. N. T., p. 188. 

7 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1053 


the idiom. Cf. oléate drd6vac (Mt. 7:11), ‘knows how to give’ 
(for ‘giving’). Homer has 8% 6’ ievac=‘stepped’ for ‘going.’ But 
already in Homer there are signs that the case-form is getting 
obscured or stereotyped. It occurs as apparent subject with 
impersonal verbs and as the logical object of verbs of saying in 
indirect discourse.t The use of piv with the inf. is common also 
in Homer. IIpiv would naturally be used with the ablative, like 
pura and the infinitive in Sanskrit,” and so the Greek idiom must 
have arisen after the dative or locative idea of the inf. in Greek 
was beginning to fades In Homer the inf. is already a fixed 
case-form. The disappearance of —a: as a distinct case-ending in 
Greek may have made men forget that the usual inf. was dative. 
This dative inf. was probably a survival of the old and once 
common dative of purpose. Gradually the inf. passed from 
being merely a word of limitation (epexegetic) to being subject 
or object. We see the beginning of this process in Homer, 
though there is only* one instance of the article with the inf., 
and that is in the Odyssey (20. 52), 76 gdvAdocev. But even 
here 76 may be demonstrative.> But in Homer the inf. has tense 
and voice, a tremendous advance over the Sanskrit inf. This 
advance marks a distinct access of the verbal aspect of the inf. 
But there was no notion of time in the tense of the inf. except in 
indir. discourse where analogy plays a part and the inf. represents 
a finite mode.’ This use of the inf., afterwards so common in 
Latin, seems to have been developed first in the Greek.? But it 
was the loss of the dative force as an essential factor that allowed 
the inf. to become distinctly verbalized. As it came to be, it 
was an imperfect instrument of language. As a verb it lacked 
person, number and time except in indirect discourse. As a 
substantive it lacked inflection (without case or number) after it 
came to be limited to two cases. Even after the case-idea van- 
ished and it was used in various cases it was still indeclinable.? 


1 Tb., pp. 157, 159. 2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., § 983. 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 158. It seems a bit odd to find Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 145) saying of the inf.: “in seiner urspriinglichen Bedeutung 
als Modus.” The inf. is not a mode and the original use was substantival, 
not verbal. 

4 Monro, ib., p. 179. 

5 Birklein, Entwickelungsgesch. des substantivierten Infin., 1888, p. 2 f. 

6 Monro, Hom. Gk., pp. 158 ff. Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 515. 

7 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 299. 

8 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 195. 

® Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568. 


1054 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The addition of tense and voice to the fixed case-form of the 
substantive with verbal root was possible just because of the 
obscuration of the case-idea. 

(c) The Classic Period from Pindar on. The articular infini- 
tive is often used and there is renewed accent on its substanti- 
val aspects. The inf. is freely used with or without the article 
in any case (except vocative) without any regard to the dative or 
locative ending. * Pindar first uses the neuter article 76 with the 
inf. as the subject.1 “By the assumption of the article 1t was 
substantivized again with a decided increment of its power.’’? 
It is to be remembered, however, that the article itself is a de- 
velopment from the demonstrative and was very rare in Homer 
with anything. Hence too much must not be made of the later 
use of the article with the inf. Hesiod shows two examples of the 
article with the inf. Pindar has nine and one in the accusative.® 
The absence or ambiguous character of the article in early Greek 
makes it necessary to be slow in denying the substantival aspect 
or character of the inf. in the Homeric period. Hence it is best 
to think of the article as being used more freely with the inf. as 
with other nouns as the article made its onward way. The greatly 
increased use of the article with the inf. did serve to restore the 
balance between the substantival and verbal aspects of the inf. 
now that tense and voice had come in. The enlarged verb-force 
was retained along with the fresh access of substantival force. 
“The Greek infinitive has a life of its own, and a richer and 
more subtle development than canbe found in any of the cog- 
nate languages.’’®> The infinitive, thus enriched on both sides, 
has a great career in the classic period of the language, especially 
in Thucydides, the Orators, Xenophon and Plato. It has a 
great variety of uses.. In general, however, it may be said that 
the inf. was not as popular in the vernacular as in the literary 
style for the very reason that it was synthetic rather than analytic, 
that it lacked clearness and emphasis. But it was not till the 
kown period that the inf. began to disappear.’ | 

(d) The Kown Period. The inf. begins to disappear before iva 


1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 143. 

2 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 195. 

3 Birklein, Entw. d. subst. Infinitivs, p. 4 f. 

* Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. Hesseling (Essai hist. sur l’infinitif grec, 
1892, p. 5) puts the matter too strongly. 

® Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 195. 

6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 569. 7 Ib., p. 480. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOZ) 1055 


on the one hand and é7c on the other. Jannaris! outlines the 
two chief functions of the inf. in its developed state to be pro- 
spective (purpose like iva) and declarative (subject or object like 
é7t, and wa ultimately also). The fondness for analysis rather 
than synthesis, particularly in the vernacular, gradually pushed 
the inf. to the wall. The process was slow, but sure. There is 
indeed a counter tendency in the enlarged use of rod and the 
inf. in the xow7y, particularly in the LX X under the influence of 
the Hebrew infinitive construct, and so to some extent in the 
N. T. So from Polybius on there is seen an increase of rod and 
the inf. side by side with the enlarged use of iva and é7. The 
two contradictory tendencies work at the same time.? On the 
whole in the xo.wy the inf. has all the main idioms of the classic 
age (with the marked absence of é¢’ ére) and the new turn given 
to rod and év 7G. The Hebrew did not use the inf. as much as 
the Greek and never with the article. Certainly the inf. is far 
less frequent in the LXX than in the comparatively free Greek 
of the N. T., about half as often (2.5 to the page in the LXX, 
4.2 in the N. T.).2. But the Hebrew has not, even in the LXX, 
introduced any new uses of the inf. in the Greek. The Hebrew 
inf. construct had no article and was thus unlike 7od and the 
inf. The total number of infinitives in the N. T., according 
to Votaw,’ is 2,276. The number of anarthrous infs. is 1,957, 
of articular 319. The inroad of tva and 6ru is thus manifest as 
compared with the Attic writers. The writings of Luke show 
the largest and most varied use of the inf., while the Johannine 
writings have the fewest.2 Paul’s use is very uneven. Votaw® 
finds the same inequality in the case of the apocryphal books. 
The papyri show a similar situation. Different writers vary 
greatly, but on the whole the inf. is dying save in the use with 
auxiliary verbs, and it is going even there as is seen from the 
use of iva with #éX\w in the N. T. Cf. Mk. 9:30. In the xowy 
we find iva with BotAouar and dtvauac in Polybius, the LX X and 
later xowy writers.’ As the inf. disappears in the later Greek 
strange combinations appear, as in Malalas and Theophanes we 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568. 

2 Kalker, Questiones de Elocutione Polyb., 1880, p. 302. 

3 Votaw, The Use of the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., 1896, p. 55. 

4 Ib., p. 50. 

Etlby Droz: Sab: 

7 ThORpeont Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 248. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Sahat. 574, 
for list of verbs with iva in late Gk. 


1056 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


meet mpd rod with the subjunctive (apo rot érippi~wouw, po rod 
évwbow).! The inf. never had a monopoly of any construction 
save as the complement of certain verbs like BotAouat, Pew, ete. 
This was probably the original use of the inf. with verbs and it 
was true to the dative case-idea.”? It was here alone that the inf. 
was able to make a partial stand to avoid complete obliteration. 

(e) The Later Period. Outside of the Pontic dialect the inf. is 
dead, both anarthrous and articular, save with the auxiliary 
verbs.2 The use of 0eé\w as a mere auxiliary is common enough 
in Herodotus and probably was frequent in the vernacular then 
as it was later.4 ‘The fortunes of the infinitive were determined 
by its nature.’”’> The increased use of abstract nouns made it 
less needed for that purpose, as the fondness for tva and 67s made 
it less necessary as a verb. The N. T. is mid-stream in this cur- 
rent and also midway between the rise and the end of this river. 
The writers will use the inf. and iva side by side or the inf. and 
é7t parallel. Even in the classical Attic we find dws after 7ve- 
paouat (Xenophon). As ézws disappeared iva stepped into its | 
place. In Latin wt was likewise often used when the inf. could 
have occurred. The blending of tva and ér in the xown helped 
on the process. 

In the N. T. the exclusive province of the inf. is a rather nar- 
row’ one. It still occurs alone with dtvayar and wéddw. It has a 
wide extension of territory with 7od. But on the whole it has 
made distinct retreat since the Attic period. The story is one of 
the most interesting in the history of language. 

3. SIGNIFICANCE. Originally, as we have seen, the infinitive 
was a substantive, but a verbal substantive. This set case of an 
abstract substantive has related itself closely to the verb.2 The 
Stoic grammarians® called it a verb, arapéudarov piya, amrapéuda- 
tos éykuots. Apollonius Dyskolos! called it a “fifth mode” and 
the later grammarians followed his error. Some of the Roman 
grammarians actually took infinitivus in the sense perfectus, 


1 Rueger, Beitr. zur hist. Synt. d. griech. Sprache, 1895, p. 11. 

* Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 

3 Jebb in V. and D.’s Handb., p. 324. 

4 Tb., p. 8326. G. Meyer (Essays und Studien, 1885, p. 101) says that the 
Albanians are the only Slavic folk “dem ein Infinitiv abgeht.”’ It is due to 
the mod. Gk. 

> Thompson, Synt. of the Attic Gk., p. 247. 

$ Blass, GrootoN obitak pa "iba pe Zee. 

§ Curtius, Erlaut., p. 296. 

* Jolly, Gesch, des Inf. im Indoger., 1873, p. 16. The Daese 


a at) 
: 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1057 


just as they mistranslated yer by genitivus.!. Bopp? rightly 
perceived that the inf. has a nominal origin and was later ad- 
justed to the verb in Greek. It is not a real verb in the very 
height of its glory. And yet the consciousness of the nominal 
origin was partially obscured even in the time of Homer. The 
original case-form is so far forgotten that this dative may appear 
in the nominative and the accusative. The tenses and voices 
have developed. But Brugmann‘ seems to go too far in saying 
that already the inf. was “only” a verb in the popular feeling. 
Moulton,> indeed, harks back to Apollonius Dyskolos: “The 
mention of ‘The Verb’ has been omitted in the heading of this 
chapter, in deference to the susceptibilities of grammarians who 
wax warm when Ave or Avoas is attached to the verb instead of 
the noun. But having thus done homage to orthodoxy, we pro- 
ceed to treat these two categories almost exclusively as if they 
were mere verbal moods, as for most practical purposes they 
are.” He states, it is true, that every schoolboy knows that in 
origin and part of the use the inf. is a substantive, but ‘nearly 
all that is distinctive is verbal.’’® I venture to say that this is 
overstating the case. It is not a mere question of the notion of 
the user of the infinitive in this passage or that. The history is 
as it is. In the full development of the inf. we see the blending 
of both substantive and verb. In this or that example the 
substantival or the verbal aspect of the hybrid form may be dom- 
inant, but the inf. in the historical period is always both substan- 
tive and verb. It is not just a substantive, nor just a verb, but 
both at the same time. The form itself shows this. The usage 
conforms to the facts of etymology. It is not true that the article 
makes the inf. a substantive as Winer’ has it. As a matter of 
fact, therefore, the inf. is to be classed neither with the noun nor 
with the verb, but with the participle, and both stand apart as 
verbal nouns. The article did enlarge*® the scope of the inf. just 
as the use of tense did. The Germans can say das Trinken and 
French le savoir like the Greek 76 yvévar. There is no infinitive 
in Arabic. As a matter of fact, the inf. because of its lack of end- 
ings (here the participle is better off with the adjective endings) 
is the least capable of all parts of speech of fulfilling its functions.® 


i ova 0) oS) Aa 2 Vergl. Gr.,-p. 3. 

8 Cf. Schroeder, Uber die formelle Untersch. der Redet. im Griechischen 
und Lateinischen, p. 10. 

4°-Griech. Gr., p. 615.  ° Ib. § Goodwin, M. and T., p. 298. 

5 Prol., p. 202. 7 W.-M., p. 406. ° W.-M., p. 399. 


1058 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


In its very nature it is supplementary. It is either declarative or 
prospective,! but always a verbal substantive. There is a differ- 
ence between 76 mpdocev and 4 mpaés. Both have verbal stems 
and both are abstract. The difference? lies in the tense and 
voice of rpdocev. But rpacceyv has all that is in rpaécs plus tense 
and voice. I decline, therefore, to divide the infinitive into the 
anarthrous and articular uses so popular in the grammars. These 
uses do exist, but they simply represent two uses of the inf. in 
its substantival aspects. They do not affect the verbal side of 
the inf. at all. The inf. may properly be discussed under its sub- 
stantival and its verbal aspects. But even so a number of uses 
cross over as indirect discourse, for instance, or the inf. to express 
purpose (with or without the article). We must look at both 
sides of the inf. every time to get a total idea of its value. A 
number of points of a special nature will require treatment. 

4. SUBSTANTIVAL ASPECTS OF THE INFINITIVE. 

(a) Case (Subject or Object Infinitive). Here I mean the cases 
of the inf. itself, not the cases used with it. The inf. is always in a 
case. Asa substantive this is obvious. We have to dismiss, for 
the most part, all notion of the ending (dative or locative) and 
treat it as an indeclinable substantive. A whole series of common 
expressions has the inf. as subject besides the ordinary verbs. 
Thus note 1 Cor. 9:15 kaddv pou waddov arofavetv, (Heb. 4 : 6; 
9 : 27) amoxetar Tots avOpwros araé arrobavety, (Mt. 18 : 18) édv yévn- 
Tar evpety att, (3:15) mperov éoriv july mdynpGou, (Ac. 21:35) 
avveBn BacragveoOar, (Lu. 6 : 12) éyevero e&eAOety airov, (18 : 25) ebxo- 
matepov eat eicedOetv, (Jo. 18 : 14) cuudeper arobavetv, (Mt. 22:17) 
éfectw dodva, (Heb. 9:5) otk éorw viv eye, (Ac. 27: 24) de? rapa- 
arjvat, (Ac. 2:24) qv duvarov xparetoba, (Ph. 83:1) ra atta ypa- 
dew ork oxvnpov. So Ac. 20:16; 2 Pet. 2:21. All this is simple 
enough. The articular inf. is likewise found in the nominative 
as in Mk. 9:10, ri éorw 76 &k vexpdv dvactrqvac. Here the article is 
not far removed from the original demonstrative. Cf. 10 : 40, 76 
Kabicat ovk eat. eudov dodvar, Where dodvar is probably the original 
dative ‘for giving.’ One naturally feels that the articular inf. 
is more substantival than the anarthrous, as in Ro. 7:18, 76 6é- 
Aew rapdkerrat por, but that is not correct. The subject-inf. oc- 
curs freely both with and without the article in the N. T. as in 
the xown generally. See Mt. 15:20 76 dayetv, (Mk. 12:33) 76 


* Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 568 f. Cf. Henry, Revue de Linguistique de la 
Philologie Comparée, vol. XX, ii. 
2Monro, Home Grinvatos. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1059 


ayarav, (Ro. 7:18) 7d OéX\ev and 76 xatepyavecbar. Add 1 Cor. 
Tee2Ore Oe Or Gee ebilis 21524°.29 Heb. 10. 31° Ro.14: 
21. The origin of this nominative or subject is probably due 
to its use with impersonal expressions. Moulton! illustrates it 
by the Latin humanum est errare, where the force of the locative 
form errare may be seen by translating: ‘There is something 
human in erring.’ This may have been the original idiom, but 
it has gone beyond that to mean: ‘Erring is human.’ English 
students often forget that ‘erring’ is here infinitive, not parti- 
ciple, both in sense and history. It isa step further in the N. T. 
to see rod and the inf. used as subject nominative. Cf. Lu. 17: 
1; Ac. 10:25; 1 Cor. 16:4. In 2 Cor. 7:11 the substantival as- 
pect of the inf. is shown by the use of the pronoun airo rodro 76 
AuTOFvar In the nominative with xare.pyadcaro. Cf. the inf. in the 
predicate nom. with rodro in Ro. 1:12, todro 6€ és ouvrapa- 
KAnOqvac. So in Ro. 13:11, Spa én buds €£ trvov eyepOjvar, where 
the inf. is in predicate apposition with dpa. Originally it was 
doubtless ‘time for arising.” In 1 Th. 4:6 we have both the 
anarthrous and articular inf. in apposition with 7rofro. Cf. also 
the appositive inf. in Ac. 15:28; Jas..1:27; 1 Th. 4:3; Ro. 
4:18. 

The object-infinitive in the accusative is quite common 
both with and, particularly, without the article. In the N. T. 
more than half of the instances of the inf. come in here, the ob- 
ject-inf. with verbs of various sorts.2, In the LXX, however, it. 
is rare in proportion to the other uses. The accusative case is 
to us more manifest when the article occurs. See Ph, 2.6; oix 
dpmrayuov Wynoato To eivac toa Oe, Where the articular inf. is the 
direct object of jyncaro. So in 2:13, with 6 evepy&pr kal 7d OédXeuv 
kat To evepyetv. Cf. Ac. 25:11, od mapartoduat 76 arobavety. See 
further 1 Cor. 14:39; 2 Cor. 8:10. In Ph. 4:10, dveOarere 76 
vrép Euod Ppovetv, the acc. may be that of general reference. Cer- 
tainly in 1 Th. 3: 8, 76 caiveoOa, this is true. Blass® calls it 
here ‘‘quite superfluous.”?’ In Ro. 14:13 76 uw} riWévar is in ap- 
position with the accusative rodro, as in 2 Cor. 2:1. In 2 Cor. 
10:2, déouar 76 py} Tapwyv Oapphoa, we should naturally look for 
the ablative with déouac. The instances without the article are 
more numerous. A fairly complete list of the verbs in the N. T. 
that have the inf. in indirect discourse was given in the chapter on 
Modes (Indirect Discourse, pp. 1036 ff.). These infs. are in the acc., 


1eProlsep.210- 2"Votaw, Inf) im:Bibl. .Gk., p..57. 
3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 234. Cf. 2 Esd. 6:8 76 uh xcatrapynOjvar. 


1060 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


though some of them may possibly preserve the original dative 
or locative idea. But the acc. with the inf. is that of general 
reference, while the inf. itself is in the ace. case, the object of the 
verb of saying or thinking. Cf. Lu. 2:44, vopioavres abrov etvac. 
The occasional use of the nom. predicate, as in Ph. 4:11, éuafov 
alrapkns evar, accents the acc. character of the object-inf. This 
point is clear also in the case of indirect commands where the 
noun or pronoun is in the dative and the inf. in the acc., as in 1 
Cor. 5:11, &ypava byty wy cvvavapiyvucba. The illustrations are 
numerous and need not be multiplied (see list under Indirect 
Discourse). With BotdAouar, dtvayar, O€Xw the dative makes a good 
idea and was probably so understood in the beginning.! It may 
be questioned, however, if in actual usage this idiom is not also 
the ace. Cf. Mt. 1:19 eBovdrnbyn amortcar, (1: 20) un doBnOfs rapa- 
aBetv, (5:34) Aeyw duty wn oudcar, (16:12) ov efrev rpocéexey, 
(Lu. 18 : 1) rpds 76 detv rpocebyecOar (both infs. in the ace., one with 
mpos, the other general reference with deity), (Ro. 15:8) deyw 
Xpiorov duaxovoy yeyernobae (cf. Ac. 27: 13), (2 Cor. 10:2) dAoyitouat 
todujoat, (1 Th. 4:11) rapaxadotyev repiocebey xal didoripetobar 
novxatew Kal tpdocev Ta ida Kal épyatecOar (note the interrelation 
of these infs.). See further Mk. 9:28; 12:12; Lu. 16:3; Jo. 5: 
18; Ro. 14:2; Gal. 3:2; 1 Cor. 10:18. In the ace. also are the 
articular infs. with prepositions like eis (Ro. 1:11); dua (Ac. 8: 
11); wera (Lu. 22 : 20); rpds (Mt. 5 : 28). 

But the inf. occurs in the other oblique cases also with more 
or less frequency. The genitive, for instance, appears with the 
prepositions avri (Jas. 4:15); 6a (Heb. 2:15, dca ravréds rod 
Civ); evexa (2 Cor. 7:12); éws (Ac. 8:40). The only instance of 
an attribute with the infinitive in the N. T. is Heb. 2:15, 
except in apposition with rodro. It was rare in classic Greek 
and confined to pronouns. Cf. 7d a’rod mparrev, Plato, Rep. 
433. The genitive may be found with émiAavOdvoua as in Mk. 
8:14, éreddbovro AaBety (cf. eridabécbar Tod Epyou in Heb. 6: 10. 
But we have 7a oriow in Ph. 3:18). At any rate in Lu. 1:9, 
éhaxe Tov Ovaaca (cf. 1 Sam. 14:47), we have an undoubted 
genitive. Cf. also pereuednOnre tod misredoar (Mt. 21:32). The 
very common use of rod with the inf. must also be noted. Most 
of these are genitives, as in rod arodéoa (Mt. 2:13). The free use 
of rod with the inf. where the case is not genitive will be discussed 
under a special section under the article with the inf. Cf., for 
instance, Lu. 17:1; Ac. 10:25; 20:3; 27:1. The gen. occurs 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 


VERBAL NOUNS (ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATO2) 1061 


with substantives just as other substantives are used. This is 
a fairly common idiom. See Ac. 27:20 édmis raca rod owte- 
ofa, (1 Cor. 9:10) éx’ édmide rod peréexew, (Ro. 15:23) émimdfecar 
dé éxwv trod edOetv, (1 Pet. 4:17) xarpos rod aptacbar, (Heb. 5:12) 
xpelav Tov didacxev. Note, in particular, Ro. 11:8, eéwxev adrots 
6 Beds mvedua Katavikews, OPOadpors Tod wn BrErELY, Kal @Ta TOV [1 
axovev, Where the infs. are parallel with xcatavigews. Cf. Lu. 1:57, 
74; 2:6; 10:19; 21:22; 22:6, etc. Note especially Ph. 3:21, 
KaTa THY evepyeray TOV dvvacbat avTov Kal broraéa. Let these suffice. 
They illustrate well how the inf. continued to be regarded as a 
real substantive. The genitive occurs also with adjectives as in 
Bpadets rod mioredoat (Lu. 24:25); erommot éouev tod avedety (Ac. 
23:15). The genitive is found with a£os (the anarthrous inf.) as 
in Lu. 15:19, 21, aétos krAnOqvar (cf. Rev. 5:4, 9). In 1 Cor. 16:4 
Tov TopevecOac may be due to aor, but is probably used as subj. 
nominative in a rather loose way. The inf. in the genitive is 
specially common in Luke and also in Paul.! 

The ablative illustrations are not very numerous, but they are 
clear. Thus we have the abl. with verbs of hindering as in Mt. 
19:14, un Kwdvere abra éNety pos we, and Lu. 4:42, xaretyov airov 
Tov mH Topevecbar. The classical Greek had also 76 and the inf., as 
in 1 Cor. 14:39, and 76 yu after verbs of hindering, which last 
does not occur in the N. T., so that it is probable that an inf. 
without the art. as in Mt. 19:14 is in the abl., though not cer- 
tain. Moulton (Prol., p. 220) illustrates Lu. 4:42 and Ac. 14: 
18 by B. U. 164 (ii/iii A.D.) retcar adrov Tod edOetv, J.H. S., 1902, 369 
(Lycaonian inscription) 7é dcxotounoarTi pe Tod TO Noerov Hv, B. U. 
36 (ii/ili A.D.) rod (Hv weracrjoa, N. P. 16 (iii/A.D.) KwAvovtes Tod 
bn omeipev. See further Lu. 24:16 exparodyto rod wh éemvyvdvar 
av’rév, Ac. 10:47 dtvatat xwrddoai tis Tod py BarticOjva, 14:18 
KaTeravoay tod py Ovev. Cf. also Ac. 20:20, 27; Ro. 11:10; 
fee 2 ee Or mle, oe Liepss is 20; lePet3?s102~ Cr) inthe LX xX, 
Gen. 16:2; 20:6; Ps. 38:2; 68:24 (quoted in Ro. 11:10); Is. 
24:10; 1 Sam. 8:7; Jer. 7: 10.2 The abl. occurs also with prep- 
ositions as é in 2 Cor. 8:11, & rod évew and pod, in Mt. 6:8 
mpd Tod aitjoat. In Ac. 15: 28, robtwy trav éravayxes, aréexecbar, the 
inf. is in the abl., in apposition with the preceding words. 

The only instance of the inf. in the instrumental in the N. T. 
occurs in 2 Cor. 2:13, 76 uw ebpety pe Titov. The inf. is not found 
with civ in the N. T. Votaw (nf. in Biblical Greek, p. 29) notes 
six examples of the instrumental 74 and the inf. in the LXX text 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 234. 2 Cf. Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 172. 


1062 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of B (2 Chron. 28 : 22; Eccl? 1316; Is. 562.6; (4 Maccml7 420; 
21). But other MSS. vary. Moulton (Prol., p. 220) cites L. Pb. 
(11/B.C.), dAAws 6€ TO pnOev’ Exerv. 

The locative occurs with & as in év 7G etdoyetv (Lu. 24: 51). 
It is extremely frequent in the N. T., especially in Luke. The 
possible Hebraistic aspect of the idiom comes up under Prep- 
ositions with the Inf. There remains, of course, a possible loc- 
ative use of a form like \vev. But one doubts if this original 
idea is preserved in the N.T.1 Cf. Mt. 16:3, yuaoxere dcaxpivery, 
which is more naturally explained as a dative: ‘ye have knowl- 
edge for discerning,’ though ‘in discerning’ makes sense. But 
with the dative it is different. There is no instance of the dative 
inf. with a preposition, but the original dative is clear in all ex- 
amples of purpose without rod or a preposition. Thus Mt. 5:17, 
ovk nAPov KaTaddoat, AAAa TAnpGcat, ‘I came not for destroying, but 
for fulfilling.’ So Lu. 12:58, 66s épyaciay arnddaxbar, ‘give dili- 
gence for being reconciled.’ Cf. Mt. 7:11; 16:3 with oféa and 
ywaokw. See further Mt. 2:2, 7\ouev rpocxvvijca, ‘we came for 
worshipping’; Jo. 21:3, trayw adebew, ‘I go a-fishing.’? So Ro. 3: 
15, LXX, d€e?s exxeat aiva, ‘swift for shedding blood.’ The substan- 
tive also has the dative inf. in Ro. 9 : 21, é£ouciay rovfoa, ‘power 
for making.’ See further 1 Pet. 4:3, xarepyac0a, ‘for having 
wrought’; Gal. 5:3, ddererns rorvfoa, ‘debtor for doing’; Heb. 
11:15, karpdv avaxaupar, ‘time for returning.’ This was the orig- 
inal idiom and, with all the rich later development as verbal 
substantive, the inf. did not wholly get away from the dative 
idea. 

(b) The Articular Infinitive. We have to cross our tracks fre- 
quently in discussing the inf. in a lucid fashion. Numerous ex- 
amples of the articular inf. have already been given in treating 
the cases of the inf. But the matter is so important that it 
calls for special investigation. If we pass by the doubtful ar- 
ticular inf., rd duvAaooev, in the Odyssey,? we still find (cf. p. 1054) 
a few examples in the oldest Greek (two in Hesiod, nine in Pin- 
dar, nine in the Lyrics).’ The use of the article with the inf. grew 
with the growth of the article itself. But it is not to be overlooked 
that in Homer the anarthrous inf. had already developed nearly 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 210. 

> Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 179. Gildersl. (Am. Jour. of Philol., 1912, p. 
488) gave this name (“‘articular infinitive’) to the idiom. “I watch the fate 
of my little things with a benevolent detachment.” 

§ Birklein, Entwickelungsgeschichte, p. 91. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1063 


all the constructions of this verbal substantive.!. The addition of 
the article made no essential change in the inf. It was already 
both substantive and verb. But the use of the article greatly en- 
larged the range of the inf. It is extended to new uses, especially 
with prepositions. The article was first used with the nom., then 
the acc. and then the other cases. The use of rod and 7é with 
the inf. is wholly post-Homeric.2. In the Dramatists and Herodo- 
tus it is still chiefly in the nom. and acc., though we do find 70d 
and 7, and we see the inf. used with prepositions also. In Thu- 
ceydides the articular inf. suddenly jumps to great prominence, 
occurring 298 times,’ especially in the speeches. Of these 163 
occur with prepositions.» He even uses 76 with the future inf. 
and with ay and the inf. The orators likewise use the art. inf. 
very freely. It was especially in Demosthenes that ‘‘the power 
of taking dependent clauses’ was fully developed. Only the 
Pontic dialects, as already noted, keep the inf. as a living form, 
and a few substantives preserve a mutilated form, like 76 ¢ayi 
(‘eating’)=7d gayetv, ro didi (‘kissing’)=7o giretvy (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 117). In the N. T. we see all this power still retained 
with the further development in the use of 70d. The inf. itself, as 
we have seen, is retreating in the N. T., but it still possesses the 
full range of its varied uses. The articular inf. has all the main 
uses of the anarthrous inf. Votaw (The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 51) 
finds 22 uses of the inf. (19 anarthrous, 15 articular), but some 
of these overlap and are artificial. Moulton (Prol., p. 214) con- 
cludes from a study of the inscriptions that the articular inf. 
only invaded the dialects as the xown was starting. There is no 
essential difference in idea, and the mere presence or absence of 
the article is not to be pressed too far. Jannaris’? admits that 
sometimes the verbal character is completely obscured. On that 
point I am more than sceptical, since the inf. continues to have 
the adjuncts of the verb and is used with any voice or tense. 
Jannaris® thinks that in late Greek the substantival aspect grew 
at the expense of the verbal and the articular inf. had an in- 
creasing popularity. I admit the popularity, but doubt the dis- 

1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 164. 3 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. 

4 Birklein, Entwickelungsgeschichte, p. 91. 

5 Gildersl., Contrib. to the Hist. of the Inf., Transac. of the Am. Philol. 
Asso., 1878, pp. 5-19. 

6 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 315. Hypereides, he adds, even exceeds Demos- 


thenes. : 
™ Hist. Gk. Gr, p: 576. SAL DO Lice 


1064 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


appearance of the verbal aspect. Jannaris makes the mistake of 
taking ‘‘substantival inf.” as coextensive with “articular inf.” 
Blass! questions if the article always has its proper force with the 
inf. and suggests that perhaps sometimes it merely occurs to show 
the case of the inf. Here again I am sceptical. Why does the 
case of the inf. need to be shown any more than other indeclin- 
‘able substantives? In Mt. 1 the article does serve to distinguish 
object from subject. I have never seen an articular inf. where 
the article did not seem in place. Moulton? considers the use of 
the article “the most characteristic feature of the Greek infinitive 
in post-Homeric language.” Blass? seems puzzled over the fre- 
quency of the articular inf. in the N. T., since it is chiefly confined 
to Luke and Paul, whose writings have most affinity with the 
literary language. Jannaris* notes how scarce it is in the writings 
of John and in unlearned papyri and inscriptions, doubtful in the 
medieval period, and absent from the modern vernacular. ‘The 
articular infinitive, therefore, could not resist any longer the ten- 
dency of the time, whether it was conceived as a noun or as a 
verb.”’> The analytic tendency drove it out finally. Moulton® 
has made some researches on the use of the articular inf. in the 
dialect inscriptions. He does not find a single instance in Lar- 
field’s Boeotian inscriptions. He finds one from Lesbos, one from 
Elis, one from Delphi, a few from Messene, etc. He notes the 
silence of Meisterhans on the subject. The conclusion seems to 
be inevitable that the articular inf. is as rare in the Attic ver- 
nacular as it was common in the Attic orators. It is ‘‘mainly a 
literary use, starting in Pindar, Herodotus and the tragedians, 
and matured by Attic rhetoric.’’ Aristophanes uses it less than 
half as often as Sophocles and Aristophanes gives the Attic ver- 
nacular. And yet it is not absent from the papyri. Moulton? 
counts 41 instances in vol. I of B. U. The N. T. uses it about as 
often to the page as Plato. He scores a point against Kretsch- 
mer’s view that the Attic contributed no more to the xow7 than 
any one of the other dialects, since from the literary Attic ‘the 
articular inf. passed into daily speech of the least cultured people 
in the later Hellenist world.’”’® Polybius® deserves to rank with 
Demosthenes in the wealth of his use of the inf. He employs the 


1 Gr. of N. T. GE p233: 5 Tb. 

2 Prol., p. 213. 6 Prol., pp. 213 fi, 
8° Gryor NS GkK paos T Tb., p. 213. 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 579. 8 Ib., p. 215. 


» Allen, The Inf. in Polyb. Compared with the Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 47. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATO®) 1065 


inf. in all 11,265 times, an average of 7.95 to the page. He has 
the articular inf. 1,901 times, an average of 1.35 to the page. In 
the N. T. the inf. occurs 2,276 times, an average of 4.2 times to 
a page. The articular inf. is found in the N. T. 322 times, an 
average of .6 times to a page. The N. T. shows fewer uses, in 
proportion, of the articular inf. than the O. T. or the Apocrypha. 
Of the 303 (Moulton) instances, 120 are in Luke’s writings and 
106 in Paul’s Epistles. But Votaw! counts 319 in all. The 
MSS. vary in a number of instances and explain the difference. 
Moulton? gives the figures for all the N. T. books thus: James 
7, Hebrews 23, Gospel of Luke 71, Paul 106, Acts 49, 1 Peter 
4, Matthew 24, Mark 13 (14), John 4, Revelation 1, not in Col., 
Philem., Past. Eps., Joh. Eps., 2 Pet., Jud. Luke has the most 
varied use of the articular inf., and Paul’s is somewhat uneven.’ 
The use of the articular inf. in the various cases has already been 
sufficiently discussed. In general one may agree with Moulton‘ 
that “the application of the articular infin. in N. T. Greek does 
not in principle go beyond what is found in Attic writers.”’ The 
special use of the articular inf. with prepositions is reserved for 
separate discussion. There is little doubt that the first use of 
to with the inf. was demonstrative as it was with everything. 
In Mk. 9:10, ri éorw 76 &k vexp&v avacrnva, the article is almost 
demonstrative, certainly anaphoric (cf. verse 9). The same thing 
is true of 10:40 where 76 xaica refers to kafiowuev in verse 37. 
It is not necessary to give in detail many examples of the articu- 
lar inf. in the N. T. I merely wish to repeat that, when the 
article does occur with the inf., it should have its real force. 
Often this will make extremely awkward English, as in Lu. 2 : 27, 
évy TO eloayayety Tovs yovets TO wadiov. But the Greek has no con- 
cern about the English or German. It is simply slovenliness not 
to try to see the thing from the Greek standpoint. But we are 
not to make a slavish rendering. ‘Translation should be idio- 
matic. It is hardly worth while to warn the inept that there is 
no connection between the article 76 and the English fo in a sen- 
tence like Ph. 1: 21, éuol yap ro Hv Xpioros cal 76 arobavety Képdos. 
Here the article 76 has just the effect that the Greek article has / 
with any abstract substantive, that of distinction or contrast. 
Life and death (living and dying) are set over against each other. 
See further Mt. 24:45; Lu. 24: 29; Ac. 3:12; 10: 25; 14:9; 21: 


1 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., pp. 50 ff. ; <7 PTO viola 
4sProl., p.210, 5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 164. 
8 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 52. ~ 


1066 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


12° 25% 1135Ro. 4% 1118; 169187 13 814 0 S28 Oreo Ores 
OF 1g5Phy 1237 20502810) eee OU mlas iiss 12ers 

Some special words are needed about 7od and the inf. The 
question of purpose or result may be deferred for separate dis- 
cussion. We have seen how the genitive inf. with rod occurs with 
verbs, substantives, adjectives and prepositions. The ablative 
inf. with rod is found with verbs and prepositions. The ablative 
use is not here under discussion, since it involves no special diffi- 
culties save the redundant un. We may note that in Critias rod 
was very common with the inf.t We see it also in Polybius in 
various uses named above? It is an Attic idiom that became 
very common in the postclassical and Byzantine Greek.* Cf. yu 
duednons TOU evoxAjoat Owviw, O. P. 1159, 11-13 (ili/a.p.). There 
is no special difficulty with 7od and the inf. with verbs as object 
except in a case like Mt. 21: 32 where rod micredoa “gives rather 
the content than the purpose of ywerewednOnre.’’4 

The instances with substantives like Ac. 14:9, éve. rior rod 
owbqvar, give no trouble on the score of the article. It is the case 
(objective genitive) that has to be noted. So with Ph. 3:21, rip 
évepyecavy Tod dtvacba. As to adjectives, as already noted, it is 
doubtful if in 1 Cor. 16:4, éay 6€ détov 7 Tod Kaue ropevecOar, the 
inf. is to be taken with aé&ov as genitive. Moulton® so regards it, 
but it may be a loose nominative, as we shall see directly. But 
there is a use of rod and the inf. that calls for comment. It is 
a loose construction of which the most extreme instance is seen 
in Rev. 12:7, eyevero roXeuos ev TH obpavd, 6 Meyahd kal of &yyerou 
avTov Tod modeujoat peta TOD Spaxovtos. ‘This inf. (note the nom. 
with it) is in explanatory apposition with zé\euos. Moulton® 
cleverly illustrates it with the English: ‘There will be a cricket 
match — the champions to play the rest.” It is a long jump to 
this from a case like Ac. 21:12, rapaxadoduev rod ph dvaBaivew 
avtov, Where the simple object-inf. is natural (cf. 1 Th. 4:10 f.). 
Cf. also Ac. 23:20, cvvebevto tod epwrijcar ce brws KaTayayns. 
“This loose inf. of design” is found twelve times in Thucydides, 
six In Demosthenes and five in Xenophon.’ These writers prefer 
the prepositions with rod and the inf. Polybius in his first five 
books has this simple 708 and the inf. only six times, all negative.’ 


1 Birklein, Entwick., p. 9. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 
2 Allen, The Inf. in Polyb., pp. 29 ff. aa lee 
3 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 578. ° OIDs pee lae 


’ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 578. Cf. Birklein, Entwick., p. 101. 
8 Jann., ib. . 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1067 


The normal use of rod with the inf. was undoubtedly final as it 
was developed by Thucydides, and in the N. T. that is still its 
chief use.t But many of the examples are not final or consecu- 
tive. It is only in Luke (Gospel 24, Acts 24) and Paul (18) that 
tod with the inf. (without prepositions) is common.? They have 
five-sixths of the examples.* And Luke has himself two-thirds of 
the total in the N. T. Matthew has seven. John avoids it. 
Moulton‘ shows that of Paul’s “thirteen” examples three (Ro. 6: 
6; 7:3; Ph. 3:10) either final or consecutive, two (Ro. 15: 22; 2 
Cor. 1:8) are ablative, five occur with substantives (Ro. 15 : 23; 
1 Cor. 9:10; 16:4; 2 Cor. 8:11; Ph. 3 : 21), four are epexegetic 
(Os 24 iio pol) 3) Cory 10%13);-, In Luke about half are 
not final. It is this loose epexegetical inf. that calls for notice. 
We find it in the LXX (cf. Gen. 3: 22; 19:19; 31:20; 47: 29, 
etc.).2 It is possible that this very common idiom in the LXX is 
due to the Hebrew >. It does not occur in Polybius.6 In the 
LXX also we see 70d and the inf. used as the subject of a finite 
verb in complete forgetfulness of the case of rod. Cf. 2 Chron. 
6:7, éyévero Eri kapdiav Aaveld tod raTpds mov TOU oiKodounoaL otKor. 
POPs anel 22s Kis 811850161731 -1Ps.. 91735) Is..49.:.6; Jer. 
2:18; Eccl. 3:12; 1 Esd. 5: 67.7 One must recall the fact that 
the inf. had already lost for the most part the significance of the 
dative ending —a and the locative -. (-ev). Now the genitive 
vod and the dative —a: are both obscured and the combination is 
used as subject nominative. We have this curious construction 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 2 iin gp eave 
3 Mr. H. Scott gives the following list for rod and the inf.: 














Pres. Aor. 
Paul 13 4 
Synoptics 9 22 
Acts ET 13 
Heb. 1 3 
Rev. ~- 1 
Jas. — 1 
1 Pet. — 1 
34 45 
79 (less 9 fr. LXX, 4 Paul, 
5 Ac.=70) 
Prol, Decliseicl. ASO Galoo: 10; 5 Cf. W.-M., p. 410 f. 


6 Allen, Inf.in Polyb., p.53. Cf. Gildersl., Am. J. of Phil., vol. XX VII, p. 105 f. 
7 Votaw, The Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 28. 


1068 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in Lu. 17:1, avévoexrov éorw Tod py edOetv. See also Ac. 10: 25, eye- 
vero Tod elcedOetv, and 27:1, éxpiOn rod awordetv. Cf. further 20: 
3. It is naturally rarer in the N. T. than in the LXX. Moul- 
ton (Prol., p. 220) gives a papyrus example closely allied to it, 
O. P. 86 (iv/A.D.) Gos rod rapacxefqvar. See Winer-Moulton, p. 
411, for numerous examples in LXX. But very much like it is 
the use of rod as object-inf., with é&7e\ouar in Lu. 4:10 (Ps. 90: 
11); xaravebw in 5:7; ornpifw in 9:51; wovew in Ac. 3:12} Kaxow in 
7:19; émoré\dw in 15: 20; wapaxadew in 21:12; cuvTifewar in 23: 
20. Cf. also grouuos rod in Ac. 23:15. This is surely “a wide 
departure from classical Greek.’’! It is, however, after all in 
harmony with the genius and history of the inf., though the 
nominative use of rod comes from the LXX. 

The vernacular papyri show a few examples of rod and the 
inf. It is found in the inscriptions of Pisidia and Phrygia. Cf. 
Compernass, p. 40. Moulton? illustrates Lu. 1:9 with dapedety 
70d ypadev, B. U. 665 (i/A.D.); Mt. 18: 25 and Jo. 5: 7 (éxw) with tv’ 
éxe Tod wwe, B. U. 830 (i/a.D.); 1 Cor. 9:6 with éfovciay — rob 
— bécOa, C. P. R. 156; Lu. 22 : 6 with evxarpias — rod ebpetv, B. U. 
A6 (ii/a.p.). He concludes that the usage is not common in the 
papyri and holds that the plentiful testimony from the LXX 
concurs with the N. T. usage to the effect “that it belongs to 
the higher stratum of education in the main.” This conclu- 
sion holds as to the N. T. and the papyri, but not as to the 
LXX, where obviously the Hebrew inf. construct had a consider- 
able influence. Moulton seems reluctant to admit this obvious 
Hebraism. 

(c) Prepositions. We are not here discussing the inf. as pur- 
pose or result, as temporal or causal, but merely the fact of the 
prepositional usage. The idiom cannot be said to be unusual in 
classical Greek. Jannaris* agrees with Birklein* that classical 
writers show some 2000 instances of this prepositional construc- 
tion. The writers (classic and later) who use the idiom most 
frequently are Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Diodorus, Diony- 
sius, Josephus, Plutarch, Dio Cassius. The most prolific user of 
the construction is Polybius (1053 instances) and Josephus next 
(651 times). If the prepositional adverbs be added to the strict 


1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 159. In late Gk. this use of rod and the inf. 
came to displace the circumstantial participle and even finite clauses, only to 
die itself in time. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 483. 

2 PTOls, Paso 4 Entwickelungsgesch., p. 103. 

’ Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576, 6 Krapp, Der substantivierte Inf., 1892, p. 1. 





VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATO®) 1069 


list of prepositions, the number is very much enlarged, especially 
in Polybius, who has 90 with yap, 115 with agua, 504 with é&a, 
160 with zpos, 74 with eis, 24 with é, 90 with ézi, 33 with wera, 
41 with zepi, only one with zapa.!_ The idiom was here again later 
than the articular inf. itself and was also Attic in origin and 
literary. But it is common also in the Greek inscriptions accord- 
ing to Granit.? It is rare in the papyri, according to Moulton,’ 
save in the recurrent formula, es 7d & undevi weudOjva, and (cf, 
990) in the case of rpéds 76. Cf. mpds 7d rvxtv, B. U. 226 (i/a.v.); 
mpos TO wn — evtvyxaverv, O. P. 237 (i/A.D.) 3 rpds 76 — denOjvac (1b.). 
Votaw‘ finds the prepositional inf. almost one-half of all the 
articular infs. in the O. T., the Apocrypha and the N. T., the pro- 
portion being about the same in each section of the Greek Bible. 

Not quite all the prepositions were used with the inf. in ancient 
Greek, the exception® being ava. ’Audi had it only with the geni- 
tive, xara with the accusative, zapa with the acc., zepi with the 
acc. and gen., mpds with acc. and loc., drép with the ablative, 76 
with the ablative. It was not therefore freely used with all the 
usual cases with the different prepositions. As a rule the article 
was essential if a preposition occurred with an inf. The reason 
for this was due to the absence of division between words. It 
was otherwise almost impossible to tell this use of the inf. from 
that of composition of preposition with the verb if the two came 
in conjunction. Cf. av7l rod Neve in Jas. 4:15. A few instances 
are found without the article. Thus dyri 6€ adpyecbar (note pres- 
ence of dé between) in Herodotus I, 210. 2. It appears thus three 
times in Herodotus. So also in Atschines, Hum. 737, we have 
TAnY yauou tuxetv.. So Soph., Ph., 100. Winer® finds two in 
Theodoret (cf. IV, 851, rapa cvyxd\wbecOar). The papyri give us 
eis BaYar, O. P. 36 (i/a.D.), and the common vernacular phrase? eis 
mety (‘for drinking’). Cf. 66s wor wetvy in Jo. 4:10. Moulton’ 
cites also an example of axpc from Plutarch, p. 256 D, and one 
from an inscription of iii/B.c. (O. G. I. 8. 41, Michel 370) éxi — 
AauBavev. The instances without the article are clearly very few. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 81) suggests that the significant frequency of 

1 Allen, The Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. ’Ex 25, rpé6 12=1179 for all. 

2 De Inf. et Part. in Inscr. Dialect. Graec. Questiones Synt., 1892, p. 73. 

Se PTOL De 2eu, Soni sink bibl Crk. lo. 

5 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 320. 

6 Cf. Birklein, Entwickelungsgesch., p. 104. These preps. “retain this dis- 
qualification in the N. T.”’ (Moulton, Prol., p. 216). 


7 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 246. 9 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 
8 W.-M., p. 413. 10 Th. 


1070 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


eis ety in the papyri is due to Ionic influence. The LXX furnishes 
several instances of anarthrous eis, as eis éxpvyety in Judg. 6:11 
(cf. 2 Esd. 22:24; Sir. 38:27; Judith 4:15). Note also éws 
é\detv in 1 Mace. 16:9; ews ov oixrecpjoac in Ps. 122: 2 (so Ruth 
3:3); wéexpis ov éyyioae in Tob. 11:1. Cf. also rAqv with anar- 
throus inf. in Polybius, ete. 

The tenses have their full force in this prepositional construc- 
tion, as in Mk. 5:4, éua 76 — bed€oOar Kal dreomacbar Kal — ovvTerpi- 
¢0a. Naturally some tenses suit certain prepositions better, as é 
with the present tense.!. The principles of indirect discourse apply 
also to the inf. with prepositions. Cf. wera ro evepOjvai we mpoatw 
(Mk. 14: 28). In the N. T. the accusative seems to occur always 
even when the nominative predicate would be possible,? as in 
dud TO pevery adtov (Heb. 7: 24). So also Lu. 11:8. But note Xen., 
Cyr., I, 4. 3, dua To GrAomabys etvar. 

It is not necessary for the article to come next to the inf. as 
in Mt. 13:25. Several words may intervene and the clause 
may be one of considerable extent. Cf. Mk. 5:4; Ac. 8:11; Heb. 
11:3; 1 Pet. 4:2. But the N. T. does not have such extended 
clauses of this nature as the ancient Greek, and the adverbs usu- 
ally follow the inf. The English “split inf.’”’ is not quite parallel. 

In the O. T. there are 22 prepositions used with the inf. and 
the Apocrypha has 18, while the N. T. shows only 10.4 Of these 
only eight are the strict prepositions (avri, 6:4, eis, &v, éx, pera, 
apo, mpos) and two the prepositional adverbs évexa and éws. It 
remains now to examine each in detail. 

’Ayrt rod is not rare with the inf. and is chiefly found in the 
Greek orators. But we have it in Thucydides, Xenophon and 
Plato. Herodotus® has only 11 instances of the preposition with 
the inf., but 5 of them are with avri. It does not occur in Polyb- 
ius. In the N. T. we have only one instance, Jas. 4:15, avi 
Tod Neyev. Votaw gives one for the LXX, Ps. 108:4, davri rod 
ayaTav. é 

Ava has 33 instances in the N. T., all but one (genitive, Heb. 
2:15, dca ravrés rod (Hv) in the accusative. Mr. H. Scott reports 
the 33 exx. thus: Phil. 1, Jas. 1, Heb. 4, Mk. 5, Mt. 3, Lu. 9, 
Ac. 9, Jo. 1. The O. T. has it with the inf. 35 times and the 


1 Burton; Noe Mand 1: p.2b0, 

2 W.-M., p. 415. el. pealas 
4 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 

Birklein, Entwick., p. 104. 


5 
6 Helbing, Die Priipositionen bei Herod., p. 148. 





VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1071 


Apocrypha 26,! all with the accusative. The idiom 6a 76 is 
so frequent in Xenophon and Thucydides that as compared with 
dre it stands as 2 to 3.2. In later Greek (xowy and Byzantinc) it 
comes to displace even iva and oézws, though finally shifting to 
dia va In’ modern Greek (cf. English “for that’). It is not sur- 
prising therefore to find it in the N. T. with comparative fre- 
quency. Avda 76 is frequent in Luke’s writings, and once in Paul’s 
Epistles, and rare in the other N. T. writers. It is always 
the cause that is given by 6a 76, as in Mt. 18: 5f., 6a 76 py 
éxew. It is not merely the practical equivalent of 67. and 6é.é71, 
but is used side by side with them. Cf. Jas. 4:2 f., 6a 76 py aire?- 
aba buds — broTe Kax&s airetobe. It may stand alone, as in Lu. 9: 
7; 11:8, or with the accusative of general reference as in indirect 
discourse, as in Lu. 2:4; 19:11. Note two accs. in Ac. 4:2. 
The perfect tense occurs seven times, as in Mk. 5:4 (ter); Lu. 
6:48; Ac. 8:11; 18:2; 27:9. In Mk. 5:4 it is the evidence, not 
the reason, that is given.> Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236) un- 
necessarily rejects Jo. 2: 24. 

Kis 76 is common also with the inf. without much difference in 
sense from éri 7G and zpéds 76 with the inf.6 But the N. T. does 
not use ézi with the inf. There is no doubt about the final use of 
eis TO Whatever is true of the consecutive idea. In the late Greek 
Jannaris’ notes a tendency to use els 76 (cf. Bpadds eis Td AaAFoae in 
Jas. 1:19) rather than the simple inf. Cf.1Th.4:9. But this 
tendency finally gave way to iva. The O. T. has els 76 124, the 
Apocrypha 28 and the N. T. 72 times.’ In the N. T. it is more 
common than any other preposition with the inf., év coming next 
with 55 examples. Moulton’ counts only 62 instances of els 76 
in the N. T., but Votaw is right with 72. Paul has it 50 times. 
There are 8 in Hebrews and only one each in Luke and Acts, a 
rather surprising situation. The papyri! show scattered examples 
of it. Cf. els 7d ev undevi weudOjvar, P. Fi. 2 (ili/a.p.) 4 times. In 1 
Pet. 4: 2, eis 76 — Bidoa, note the long clause. There is no doubt 
that in the N. T. eis 76 has broken away to some extent from 
the ‘classic notion of purpose. That idea still occurs as in Ro. 
1:11, eis 76 ornprxOjvar. This is still the usual construction. Cf. 
ie 0 mee eee ebneel 1 oP hol103) 1 his 25") Jaa: 


1 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 6 Birklein, Entwick., p. 107. 

2 Birklein, Entwick., p. 107. ™ Hist'Gk: Gr.j p, 487. 

‘i Jann-; Hist).Gk Grip; 37a. f. 8 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 
4 Viteau, Le Verbe, p. 165. sProlaipy 2s: 


BS Gurion Nee bee ier DCE eps LOk. ITI. Detec0e 


1072 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1:18; 1 Pet. 3:7; Heb. 2:17, and other examples in Mt. and 
Heb., to go no further. In Paul we notice other usages. In 
Ph. 1 : 23, ériOupiay eis 76 dvaddoar, we have it with a substantive 
and in Jas. 1:19 it occurs with the adjectives raxts and Bpadts. 
It is epexegetic also with the verbal adjective @eodidaxro. in 1 
Th. 4:9. Besides, we find it as the object of verbs of com- 
mand or entreaty giving the content of the verb as in 1 Th. 
2:12; 3:10; 2 Th. 2: 2, épwrdye eis ro wn taxéews carevOjvac. 
Gf: also 1° Gor.”8': 105 “So an =Mt. 2035195926" 2- si Gormhi 2 
there is a really dative idea in eis ro. Just as a came to be non- 
final sometimes, so it was with eis 76, which seems to express con- 
ceived or actual result (cf. 70d also) as in Ro. 1: 20; 12:3; 2 Cor. 
8:6; Gal.3:17. Cf. the double use of &o7e for ‘aim’ or ‘result.’! 
The perfect tense can be used with eis 76 as in Eph. 1:18 eis 76 
eldevac and Heb. 11:3 eis 7d yeyovevar, the only instances. But 
the present occurs 32 times, the aorist 38, the perfect 2=72. 
These developed uses of eis 76 occur to some extent in the LXX 
(LK 223-8 1 Piisd2 24 ee) 

’Ev 7G appears in the tragedies.2 It is found 6 times in Thu- 
cydides, 16 in Xenophon, 26 in Plato.* But Blass* observes that 
the classical writers did not use év ré in the temporal sense of 
‘while’ or ‘during.’ Moulton® sought to minimize the fact that 
in the O. T. & 7& occurs 455 times (45 in the Apocrypha) and 
that it exactly translates the Hebrew 2 and held that it did not 
in principle go beyond what we find in Attic writers. But he 
took that back in the second edition® under the suggestion of 
Dr. E. A. Abbott that we must find Attic parallels for ‘during.’ 
So he now calls this “possible but unidiomatic Greek.” In the 
N. T. we have év 76 and the inf. 55 times and 3/4 in Luke. 
In the Greek Bible as a whole it is nearly as frequent as all the 
other prepositions with the inf.’ The Semitic influence is un- 
doubted in the O. T. and seems clear in Luke, due probably to 
his reading the LX X or to his Aramaic sources.’ Cf. Lu. 1:8; 
8:5 (& 7@ oneipev); 24:51; Ac. 3:26; 4:30; 9:3, etc. Jan- 
naris® sees here a tendency also to displace the participle. The 


1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 236; Moulton, Prol., p. 219; Burton, N. T. 
M. and T., p. 161. 


* Birklein, Entwick., p. 108. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 215. seProly naeLo. 

4°Gr of Nv Gk peor 6 P. 249. 

7 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 

§ But Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 26 f., denies that it is an Aramzean constr. 
9 


Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 379. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1073 


idiom is not confined to Luke’s writings. Cf. Mt. 13:4; 13 : 25; 
Mk. 4:4; Heb. 2:8; 3:12, etc. Ordinarily it is the present inf. 
as in Mt. 13:4; Lu. 8:5; Ac. 3:26, where the Attic writers 
would have the present participle. But in Luke we have also 
the aorist inf. as in 2: 27 év 76 eicayayeiv, (3 : 21) & 76 BarrisO7- 
vat, Where Blass! sees the equivalent of the aorist participle (cf. 
"Incod Barticbevros) or a temporal conjunction with the aorist in- 
dicative. One questions, however, whether the matter is to be 
worked out with so much finesse as that. The aorist inf. with év 
7 occurs only 12 times in the N. T.* It is more correctly just 
the simple action of the verb which is thus presented, leaving the 
precise relation to be defined by the context, like the aorist par- 
ticiple of simultaneous action. Cf. & 7 broraéac in Heb. 2: 
8; Gen. 32:19, & 7G ebpetv. This is all that é 7d should be 
made to mean with either the present or the aorist. Cf. Mt. 
13:4; 27:12; Lu. 8:40; 9:29. The-idea is not always strictly 
temporal. In Ac. 3:26 (cf. Jer. 11:17), 4:30, it is more like 
means. Votaw® sees content in Lu. 12:15; Heb. 3:12. In 
Heb. 8:18, & 7G Neyer, the notion is rather causal. The con- 
ception is not wholly temporal in Mk. 6:48; Lu. 1: 21.4 No other 
preposition occurs in the N. T. with the inf. in the locative case. 
But ef. émi 7G gual rapayerw, O. P. 1122, Of. (a.v. 407). 

“Evexev Tod appears in Xenophon, Plato and Demosthenes, usu- 
ally as final, but also causal.2 Sophocles in his Lexicon quotes 
the construction also from Diodorus and Apophth. There is 
only one instance of it in the N. T., 2 Cor. 7:12, e&vexey 70d dave- 
pwhhvar THY orovdjy buayv, Where it is clearly causal as with the two 
preceding participles, évexey rod ddiknoavtos, evexey Tod ddiKnOevTos 
(a good passage to note the distinction between the inf. and the 
part.). The case is, of course, the genitive. 

"Ex rod, likewise, appears in the N. T. only once with the inf. 
(2 Cor. 8:11, éx rod éxew), but the case is ablative. Its usual 
idea in Attic prose is that of outcome or result.6 Votaw’ gives no 
illustration from the O. T., but three from the Apocrypha. Blass® 
takes it in 2 Cor. 8:11, to be equivalent to xafo av éxn. More 


LT GrreOlsN ep alae p20 1. Peltor bible Given 2): 

2, Burton, NsE Maand-ls.p.750. <> Blass. GreoriN ool cs Geeta: 

5 Birklein, Entwick., p. 106. It is found in Polyb. also. Cf. Kalker, Ques- 
tiones, p. 302; Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 35. Lutz (Die Casus-Adverbien bei 
Att. Redn., 1891, p. 18) finds it “zuerst bei Antiphon.” 

6 Birklein, Entwick., p. 105. 

ete ie lb Ck Degct: Bore Ob Nw akin paces 


1074. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


likely it is meant to accent the ability growing “out of” the pos- 
session of property, whatever it may be. In Polybius é 70d with 
the inf. has a more varied use (departure, source of knowledge, 
source of advantage).! He uses it 25 times. 

"Ews rod, likewise, occurs but once (Ac. 8:40, éws rod edOezv), 
and with the genitive. Birklein does not find any instances of 
éws rod and the inf. in the classic writers, though he does note 
péxpe rod and less frequently aype rod.2 Cf. wexpe Tod riety, P. B. 
M. 854 (i/ii A.p.). But in the O. T. Votaw® observes 52 instances 
of éws rod and 16 in the Apocrypha. Cf. Gen. 24:33; Judith 8: 
34. We have already noted the anarthrous use of éws édMety in 
1 Macc. 16:9A. Cf. Gen. 10:19, 30, etc. So also éws od and 
uéxpt(s) ob and the inf., 1 Esd. 1:49, and Tob. 11:1B. It israther 
surprising therefore that we find only one instance in the N. T. 
and that in the Acts. The construction is probably due to the 
analogy of zpiv and the inf. 

Mera 76 is found only a few times in Herodotus, Plato and 
Demosthenes.* It appears, however, thirty-three times in Polyb- 
ius and usually with the aorist tense.6 The idea is temporal and 
the aorist is a practical equivalent for the aorist participle. In 
the O. T. Votaw® finds it 99 times and only 9 in the Apocrypha. 
There are 15 examples in the N. T. and the case is the accusative 
always. Mera 76 vanished with the inf. in modern Greek.’ The 
aorist is always used in the N. T. save one perfect (Heb. 10 : 15). 
See Mk. 1: 14; 14: 28, wera 76 e€vepOjvai ue. Hight of the examples 
occur in Luke’s writings (Lu. 12:5; 22:20; Ac. 1:3; 7:4; 10: 
41; 15:18; 19:21; 20:1). See also Mt. 26:32; Mk. 16:19; 1 
Cor; 112257 Hebi L035) 220: 

IIpd‘70d in the ancient writers was used much like zpiv and in 
the temporal sense.* It gradually invaded the province of zpiv, 
though in the N. T. we only mect it 9 times. It is not com- 
mon in the papyri nor the inscriptions. See Delphian inscr. 
220, mpd tod mapayetva. Polybius has it 12 times.!2 In the 
O. T. we find it 46 times, but only 5 in the Apocrypha." The 
tense is always the aorist save one present (Jo. 17: 5). Cf. Gal. 
3:23, mpd tod éMety rv riotw. There is no essential differ- 


1 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 34 f. 7 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 386. 

2 Entwick., p. 105. § Birklein, Entwick., p. 105. 

* Inf.an Bibl Gk pe20: ® Moulton, Prol., p. 214. 

4 Birklein, Entwick., p. 108. 10 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. 

5 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 41. 11 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 
6 


Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOZS) 1075 


ence in construction and idea between piv and the inf. and 
apo tov and the inf. The use of zpiv with the inf. was common 
in Homer before the article was used with the inf. The usage 
became fixed and the article never intervened. But the inf. with 
both piv and po is in the ablative case. Cf. ablative! inf. with 
purd in Sanskrit. IIpiv was never used as a preposition in com- 
position, but there is just as much reason for treating mpiv as a 
prepositional adverb with the ablative inf. as there is for so con- 
sidering éws rod, not to say éws alone as in éws édOety (1 Mace. 16: 
9). The use of the article is the common idiom. The fact of rpiv 
and the inf. held back the development of zpé rod. In modern 
Greek pd rod as rporod occurs with the subj. (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 193). In the N. T. zpiv is still ahead with 13 examples. The 
instances of zpo rod are Mt. 6:8; Lu. 2:21; 22:15; Jo. 1:48; 
DLO el Oe Ceo. 20s ah. 2h oP 25s 

IIpés 76 is the remaining idiom for discussion. It was used by 
the ancients in much the same sense as eis 76 and émi 74, ‘looking 
to,’ ‘with a view to.’? The idiom is very common in Polybius,? 
150 examples, and there are 10 of zpos 7G. But in the O. T. we 
have only 14 examples and 12 in the Apocrypha.*’ The N. T. 
shows 12 also. Some of the LX X examples are of mpés 74 (Ex. 
1:16; 2 Macc. 7: 14), but in the N. T. they are all zpdés 76. In 
the papyri Moulton® finds zpés 76 rather more common than eis 
76. In the N. T. Matthew has it five times (5 : 28; 6:1; 13 : 30; 
23:5; 26:12). These express aim unless 5 : 28 is explanatory 
of B\éxwv.6 Mark has it once, 18:22. Luke has it twice (18: 
1, where zpos 76 detv means ‘with reference to’; Ac. 3:19 only 
NB, while other MSS. read eis).”7. Paul’s four examples (2 Cor 
Seo phe 6 ll DEFG <ssl Th.2::9; 2 Th::3 :8)all give the 
“subjective purpose.’’® Both present (3 times) and aorist (9 
times) tenses occur. Cf. pds 76 Oeabjvac in Mt. 6: 1. 

(d) The Infinitive with Substantives. Numerous examples of 
the inf. with substantives were given in the discussion of the cases 
of the inf. The matter calls for only a short treatment at this 
point. The use of the inf. with substantives was ancient® and 
natural, first in the dative or locative and then in the genitive 


1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., § 983; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 158. Homer used zpiv 
with the inf. after both positive and negative clauses. 

2 Birklein, Entwick., p. 107. Sab Daals: 

3 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 33. 7. Ciablassy Gr. of Noli Gky p.2es, 

4 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 20. & W.-M., p. 414 note. 

5 Prol., p. 220. 9 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 


1076 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with 7od. It was always common in the classic Greek.1 The 
usage is common in Polybius with both the anarthrous and the 
articular inf.2- The same thing is true of the O. T. and the Apoc- 
rypha.’ It is so frequent as not to call for illustration. The 
meaning is that of complement and the inf. most frequently oc- 
curs with words of time, fitness, power, authority, need, etc. It 
is abundantly used in the N. T. both with and without the article. 
Some anarthrous examples are (Mt. 3: 14) xpelav BarrioOjvat, (Lu. 
2:1) ddypa amoypadecbar, (Jo. 1:12) ekovoiay yevecbar, (19 : 40) 
éOos evradudtew, (Ac. 24:15) rida pweddrev, (Ro. 13:11) Spa eyep- 
Onvat, (Gal. 5:3) dbecdérns rovfioa, (Heb. 7: 5) evrodjy amodexaroiy, 
(Rev. 11:18) xarpos xpOjvar, etc. These are all real datives and 
the construction is common enough in the N. T., more so than 
in the LXX. In Ph. 1:23 note éribvuiav eis 7d dvaddoa. The 
same substantives may have rod and the inf., though now, of 
course, the case is genitive. Cf. (Lu. 1:57) xpovos rod rexety, (2: 
21) Huepar rod wepureuetv, (10:19) eEovoiay rod marety, (Ac. 14: 9) 
miotw Tod cwhnvar, (27:20) edXmis rod cawfecOa, etc. It occurs 
ten times in Luke’s writings and nine in Paul’s Epistles. It is 
about as common in proportion as in the LXX.* See further 
Tu. 13:74: 2+ 63 21: 223 225.6 AC 20 Ome 24ers 
15: 23;°L. Cor. 9:10: 102 13; 2 Cor, Seol Ue Phe 6 2 ele ere ee ee 
Heb. 5:12, etc. Since the inf. is a substantive, the genitive re- 
lation with other substantives is obvious and natural. 

(e) The Infinitive with Adjectwes. ‘This idiom is likewise clas- 
sical and is common from Homer on.> As already shown, the 
case varies with different adjectives. This inf. is complementary 
as with substantives. It is natural with adjectives as any other 
substantive is. It held on longest with dvvarés, tkavos, but other 
adjectives in late xown began to give way to els 7o (cf. Jas. 1: 19, 
Taxvs els TO akodoat, Bpadds eis 7d Aadjoar) rather than the simple 
inf. and finally this disappeared before ta (cf. Mt. 8:8, txavds 
iva).6 In the LXX and the N. T. the inf. with adjectives is less 
frequent than with substantives. We have it with both the an- 
arthrous and the articular inf. See (Mt. 3:11) txavés Bacraca, 
(Mk. 10:40) éuov dodvar, (Lu. 15:19) d&étos KAnPAvar, (Jas. 3:2) dv- 
vatos xakwaywyjoat, (1 Cor. 7:39) Xevdépa yaunOjvar, (Heb. 5 : 11) 
dvoepunvevtos heyery, (1 Pet. 4:3) dpxerds xarepyacba, etc. It is 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 301. 3 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., pp. 15, 26. 
a~AllenyInisin) Polyb. ppe2n.ce eee Lotte 

® Monro, Hom. Gr., p.155 f. For Polyb. see Allen, Inf. in Polyb., pp. 23, 32. 
6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487, . 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1077 


more common with dévos, duvarés, ixavds. The only adjective that 
often has rod and the inf. in the O. T. is éro.uos.1. We find it also 
with adverbs as in Ac. 21:13, de6fvar arobavety éroiuws exw (so 2 
Cor. 12:14). The articular examples are less frequent. But note 
(Lu. 24:25) Bpade?s rod meotrevev, (Ac. 23:15) Eroiuor rod averety. 
Some would add 1 Cor. 16:4, a@&ov rod ropevecbar, but see Cases 
of the Inf. 

(f) The Infinitive with Verbs. This usage came to be, of course, 
the most frequent of all. It started as a dative or locative, then 
a sort of accusative of reference,” then the object of verbs with 
whatever case the verb used. It is both anarthrous and articu- 
lar. It is not necessary to go over again (see Cases of the Inf.) 
the varied uses of the inf. with verbs, whether the object of verbs 
of saying or thinking in indirect discourse, verbs of commanding 
or promising, the direct object of verbs (auxiliary inf.), verbs of 
hindering,* etc. Asa matter of fact they are all object-infs. what- 
ever the case (acc., gen., abl., dat., instr.). Votaw‘ notes that in 
the N. T. this use of the inf. is four times as common as any 
other. It is usually the anarthrous inf., but not always. Even 
dtvvayar and apxoua (not N. T.) are used with vod and the inf. Jan- 
naris® has made a careful list of the verbs that continued for a 
while in late Greek to use the inf. against the inroads of tva. 
Radermacher (NV. T. Gr., p. 150) argues that in general the N. T. 
use of the inf. with verbs is like that of the xow7. The inf. \adjoa 
with érappynovacaueba (1 Th. 2: 2) is not a Hebraism, but a Hellen- 
ism. But surely it is not necessary to call this usage an Atticism. 
In the discussion of ta (see pp. 430, 994) the. displacement of 
the inf. by tva even after verbs like é\w was sufficiently treated. 
Schmid® “shows how this ‘Infinitivsurrogat’ made its way from 
Aristotle onwards.”’? In the N. T. it is chiefly in the Gospel of 
John that we find this use of ta. ‘‘The strong volitive flavour 
which clung to iva would perhaps commend it to a writer of John’s 
temperament.’’® But after all, the inf. with verbs has not quite 
disappeared from John’s Gospel. Jannaris? has worked out the 
situation in John’s Gospel as between this use of the inf. and iva. 


1 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 27. 


2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. Sei elt ible Cikes Doe cs 
8 See Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 487. ee Hist Gk aGrep. otal. 
6 Atticismus, Bd. IV, p. 81. Cf. also Hatz., Hinl., p. 215. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 211. 8 Tb. 


9 Hist. Gk. Gr., p.572f. For an extended list of the verbs in the N. T. 
used with the complementary inf. see Viteau, Le Verbe, pp. 157 ff. 


1078 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


He finds iva about 125 times and the inf. with verbs about 129 
times. Of these 57 belong to dtvayar (387) and 6é\w (20). There 
are besides, 10 with de? and 12 each with ¢n7éw and with yéaddrw. 
The rest are scattered with didwu, exw, ddeihw, doxew, adinu, 
airéw, éopwrdw, apxouar, etc. It is clear, therefore, that the inf. 
with verbs is by no means dead in the N. T., though the shadow 
of tva is across its path. As illustrations of the great wealth of 
verbs with the inf. in the N. T. note (Mt. 11: 20) jpéaro dvedifar, 
(27:58) ékéXevcev arodoPAvar, (Mk. 12:12) e&Hrovv xparjoa, (Lu. 
16:3) cKarrew otk icxbw, ématetv aicxbvouat. Almost any verb 
that can be used with a substantive can be used with the inf. 
The use of the inf. with mpoorifeuat is a Hebraism. Cf. Ex. 14: 
13. See Lu. 20:11 f., rpocétero wéeufar. It means ‘to go on and 
do’ or ‘do again.’ It is the one Hebraism that Thumb! finds 
in Josephus, who is Atticistic. The articular inf. with verbs is 
much less frequent. But note 7d ayaray after ddeikw (Ro. 13: 8); 
mapartoduat TO amrobavety (Ac. 25 : 11); rod wepirarety after rovew (Ac. 
3:12); émicretAae Tod amexecOar (15 : 20); Karetxov Tod uw TropeberOar 
(Lu. 4:42). In 1 Ki. 13:16 we have rod émorpeyar with divayac. 
These are just a few specimens. See Cases of the Inf. 

(g) The Appositional Infinitive. The grammars draw a dis- 
tinction here, but it is more apparent than real as Votaw? well 
says. The inf. in apposition is that with nouns; the epexegetical 
inf. is used with verbs. But at bottom the two uses are one. 
They are both limitative. With nouns the appositional inf. re- 
stricts or describes it. It is a common enough idiom in classical 
Greek? and is found also in the LXX. In the N. T. observe Ac. 
15:28 wAnv robrwv Tdv éeravayKes, amexecOar, (Jas. 1:27) Opnoxeia 
Kafapa kal duiavtos —attn éotiv, éemioxertecOar. Cf. further Ac. 
26 16302 Cor. 1023135 Wi ph 30) 8 ee 7 le ee eee 
9:8; 1 Pet. 2:15 (otvws). The articular inf. may also be apposi- 
tional as in Ro. 14:18, todro xpivare waddov, To wh Teva. So also 
2 Cor. 2:15 72115 Ros424338)) Dhe-4 96°b7s.) in theses baad 
the Apocrypha it is only 76 (in the articular use) that is apposi- 
tional, but in the O. T. 15 out of the 17 instances have rod with- 
out any reference to the case of the noun.t It is worth noting 
that ta is common also in appositional clauses (cf. Lu. 1:43; 
1 Cor. 9 : 18), especially in the writings of John (Jo. 4 : 34; 15:8; 


1 Hellen., p. 125. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 233. 

2 Infoin BibigGke pals, 

’ Cf. Hadley and Allen, § 950; Goodwin, § 1517. 
4 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 29. 


VERBAL NOUNS (*ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1079 


17:3; 1 Jo. 3: 11, 238; 4:21; 5:3, etc.). We find 87: also in 1 Jo. 
Pray tye ala) fe 

5. VERBAL ASPECTS OF THE INFINITIVE. It is worth repeat- 
ing (p. 1057) that the inf. is substantive as well as verb. Each 
inf. does not, of course, have all the substantival and verbal uses, 
but each inf. has both substantival and verbal aspects. The 
uses vary with each example. The verbal aspects do not exclude 
the substantival, though some? writers say so. Per contra, Jan- 
naris® holds that “the verbal nature of the substantival infinitive 
was sometimes completely lost sight of.’’ This I do not concede. 
After tenses came to the verbal substantive its dual character 
was fixed. But, pp. 1050, 1056 f., the inf. did not come to the 
rank of a mode. 

(a) Voice. The Sanskrit inf. had no voice. In Homer the inf. 
already has the voices, so that it is speculation as to the origin. 
It is possible that the original Greek inf. had no voice. This is an 
inference so far as the Greek is concerned, but a justifiable one. 
Moulton? illustrates it well by dvvaros Oavudcat, ‘capable for won- 
dering,’ and dos @avudoa, ‘worthy for wondering,’ when the first 
means ‘able to wonder’ and the second ‘deserving to be wondered 
at.’ They are both active in form, but not in sense. ‘‘The middle 
and passive infinitives in Greek and Latin are merely adaptations 
of certain forms, out of a mass of units which had lost their in- 
dividuality, to express a relation made prominent by the closer 
connection of such nouns with the verb.”> There was so much 
freedom in the Greek inf. that the Sanskrit —twm did not develop 
in the Greek as we see it in the Latin supine. Gradually by 
analogy the inf. forms came to be associated with the voices in 
the modes. Practically, therefore, the Greek inf. came to be used 
as if the voices had distinctive endings (cf. the history of the 
imper. endings). Thus in Lu. 12:58, 66s épyaciay amnddaxOar 
am’ avrod, it is clear that the passive voice is meant whatever the 
origin of the form —cfa.. The reduplication shows the tense also. 
The same remark applies to Mk. 5 : 4, dca 76 ded€o0ar Kal drecrracbar 
br’ av’tod tas ddvoes. See also 5 : 438, efrev doOjvar ath dayetv. No 
special voice significance is manifest in ¢ayety, which is like our 


1 See Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 229. 

2 As, for instance, Szezurat, De Inf. Hom. Usu, 1902, p.17. He claims that 
the Hom. inf. came to serve almost all the ideas of the finite verb. 

3 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 576. 4 Prol., p. 203. 5 Ib. 

6 In Ac. 26: 28, weifers Xprotravov worjoa, one notes a possible absence of the 
strict voice in zojoa. But it is a hard passage. 


1080 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


‘eating’ and is the ace. of general reference with do8jvar which in 
turn is the direct object of efzev. But do6jvac has the passive force 
beyond a doubt. Cf. further aodedtobar edtvvaro in Ac. 26 : 32 and 
évexeyv ToD havepwOhvac in 2 Cor. 7:12. In general, therefore, after 
the inf. is fully developed, the voice in the inf. appears exactly 
as in the modes. So rod aréxecOar (Ac. 15 : 20); aroypapacba (Lu. 
2:5); émAabécbar (Heb. 6:10); yaunOjvac (1 Cor. 7:39); KrnOjvar 
vids (Lu. 15:19). Cf. Oeacacbar (Lu. 7: 24) and deadfvar (Mt. 6: 1). 

(b) Tense. See chapter on Tenses for adequate discussion of 
this point. Some general remarks must here suffice. As the 
Sanskrit inf. had no voice, so it had no tense. In the original 
Greek there was possibly no tense in the inf., but in Homer the - 
tense is in full force.!. There is no time-element in the inf. (cf. 
subj., opt. and imperative) except as the future inf. echoes the 
expectation of a verb like é\zifw (or wé\d\w) or as the inf. repre- 
sents a fut. ind. in indirect discourse (see Indirect Discourse under 
Modes). It is probably true that originally there was no distinc- 
tion between aorist (punctiliar) and present (linear) action in the 
inf. In Sanskrit and Latin the infinitives and supines have no 
necessary connection with the present stem (cf. supine tactum and 
inf. tangere).2 ‘‘The o in ddoar has only accidental similarity to 
link it with that in €\vcoa.’’? Moulton‘ tersely adds: “But when 
once these noun-forms had established their close contact with 
the verb, accidental resemblances and other more or less capri- 
clous causes encouraged an association that rapidly grew, till all 
the tenses, as well as the three voices, were equipped with infini- 
tives appropriated to their exclusive service.’”? But even so at 
first the tense of the inf. had only to do with the kind of action 
(punctiliar, linear, state of completion), not with time. 

In general, as with the subj., opt. and imper., the aorist inf. 
came to be the natural® one unless some reason for the present 
or perf. or fut. existed. Cf. xataBfvar (Lu. 9 : 54); rabety (Lu. 24: 
46); karaddoar (Mt. 5:17); rpoceb&acbar (Lu. 18 : 10); dxotoa (Ac. 
10 : 33); exxear (Ro. 3:15), ete. Sometimes, as in 6a oqo 
(Mt. 23: 23), the inf. was used to suggest antecedent action. But 
the timeless aorist may point to what is future, as in Lu. 24: 
46 above. Cf. also Lu. 2:26; Ac. 3:18. Essentially, it does 
neither. Cf. we\\w with aor. inf. So wéddovra éveyx[e?]v, P. Grenf., 


‘ Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 160. sf sy. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 204 *albs 

* Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p.59, notes 5,484 aorists and 3,327 presents in 
the Gk. Bible. In the N. T. the ratio is 4:3, in the O. T. 2:1. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOZ) 1081 


li, 77 (i/a.p.). In indirect assertions the aorist inf. represents 
the aor. indicative, but the N. T. seems to show no instance like 
this.t However, that is a mere accident, for note & 76 eicayayeiv 
Tovs Yovels TO TaLdlov TOD motjoar av’Tovs (Lu. 2 : 27) where the same 
principle applies. Contrast the tense of zovjoac and eifes in 
Ac. 26:28. In Lu. 24:46, yéeyparra: rafeity tov Xpiocrov, we have 
the timeless aorist in indirect discourse. 

The present inf. with some verbs would accent linear action 
and with others the inf. would not draw the point sharply. Some 
writers have a fondness for the present.2 One can see the 
force of linear action in judas be? épyatecbar (Jo. 9:4) and in 76 
ayarav avrov (Mk. 12:33). Cf. also crovyetv in Ph. 3:16. In 1 
Jo. 3:9, ob divarar duapraver, the linear notion is prominent (cf. 
ovx duapraver in verse 6). It is also quite normal with yéd\d\w, with 
which it occurs 84 times in the N. T. to 6 of the aorist. See Mt. 
14: 22 for both aorist éuGjvac and present rpoaye in same sen- 
tence. Cf. also Ac. 15:37 f. The usual tense-distinction may be 
assumed to exist, though in a case like Neyew (Heb. 5:11) the 
point is not to be stressed. The present inf. in indirect assertion 
represents the same tense of the direct, as in Mt. 22 : 23; Lu. 11: 
18, etc. Rarely the present inf. represents an imperfect indica- 
tive as in Lu. 20 : 6. 

The perfect inf. is common also in indirect discourse to stand 
for the same tense of the direct, as in Jo. 12 : 29; Ac. 12:14; 14: 
19; 16:27. Thisis natural enough. But the perfect inf. is found 
also in the complementary inf. as Ac. 26: 32, dmoXedbobar edtvaro. 
Note Lu. 12: 58, 66s épyaciav amrnd\d\axPar. But we also find the 
perfect tense with the articular inf. (so aorist and present) as in 
Mk. 5:4; Lu. 6:48; Ac. 27:9. In the N. T. there are in all 47 
perfect infs. and the same number in the O. T.2 Of the N. T. 
examples 23 are anarthrous, 8 articular. The papyri show the 
articular perf. inf. Cf. ért 7d yeyovevar, P. Oxy. 294 (a.pd. 22); 
trép Tov admoNeNvaba oe, P. Br. M. 42 (8.c. 168). 

The future inf. is increasingly rare. Thucydides even used 76 
with the future inf. The same construction is found in Polybius. 
But in the xowy the future inf. is weakening rapidly. This dis- 
appearance of the fut. inf. is partly due to the retreat of the fu- 


+ Burton Noel evieesnoel a pao. 

2 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1882, p. 193. Madvig, Bemerkungen tiber 
einige Punkte des Griech., 1848, p. 321, shows how the inf. has only the time 
of the principal verb. 

§ Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 59. 4 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 48. 


1082 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ture tense in general! and partly to the apparent kinship between 
the future and aorist forms. In the papyri Moulton? notes that 
the future inf. is sometimes used in the xo.wy as equivalent to the 
aorist or even the present, since the sense of the future was van- 
ishing. Cf. xwpnoew in Jo. 21:25 (NBC), while the other later 
MSS. give xwpfca. In the O. T. the fut. inf. (anarthrous always) 
occurs only 14 times and only 6 in the N. T. The Apocrypha 
has, however, 54, but almost all in 2 and 3 Maccabees.? Three 
of the N. T. examples are with weddw (Ac. 11: 28; 24:15; 27:10). 
Another is in Ac. 23 : 30 and is dependent on a participle after a 
past indicative. In Ac. 26:7 the margin of W. H. (after B) has 
karavrnoew (text —joar) with edrife. In Heb. 3:18 note duwoev 
ur eicerevoecOar (LX X). Another example is in Jo. 21:25, after 
ofuat. Moulton (Prol., p. 219) cites xpy éromacev, B.U. 830 (i/A.D.). 

(c) Cases with the Infinitive. In general the inf. uses the same 
case that the finite verb does. So the genitive in Heb. 6:10 
érirabécbar Tod épyov, the dative in 1 Cor. 7:39 @ Oéd\er yaunOjvat, 
the acc. in Ac. 23:15 70d avedetv, the instrum. in Mt. 15 : 20 76 
avirros xepol gayeiv, the locative in Ac. 21:21 pndé rots Weow 
mepurateiv, the ablative in Ac. 15:20 70d améxecOar T&v ad\oynua- 
twv, the predicate nominative in Ac. 17:18 karayyened’s efvar, the 
predicate accusative in Ro. 2:19 wémoWas ceavrov ddnyov efvat, Or 
the acc. of general reference in ind. discourse in Mk. 12:18. But 
this brings us again to the acc. in indirect assertion, a matter al- 
ready treated at some length. (See Accusative Case, Indirect Dis- 
course, and the next section.) But the thing to note is the real 
verbal nature of the inf. in the matter of cases. Note the three 
accusatives with rod didacxew in Heb. 5:12, two objects, one of 
general reference. The cognate neuter plural is seen in zoA\a 
mabety (Mt. 16: 21). 

(d) The Infinitive in Indirect Discourse. The frequent ob- 
scuration of the cases with the inf. in indirect discourse justifies 
some additional remarks besides those in the chapter on Modes. 
The inf. is not finite and, like the participle, has no subject. By 
courtesy the grammars often say so, but it beclouds more than 
it clears to do so. The case of the predicate! with the inf. is the 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 486, 552 ff. 

 Prol., p. 204f. Cf. Hatz., Hinl., pp. 142, 190; Kalker, Quest., p. 281. 

3 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 59. 

* Cf. Delbriick, Vergl. Synt., Tl. II, p. 460. Brug. (Griech. Gr., p. 518) 
takes the acc. as originally the obj. of the verb. That was not always true, 
as we have seen in Indirect Discourse (pp. 1037 ff.). 


» 
eee 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1083 


place to start. Cf. Mt. 19:21, ef Oéders TédXevos efvar. See also 2 
Cor. 10:2, déouar 76 wr) Trapwv Oappjoa, where the nominative oc- 
curs within the domain of the accusative articular inf. But note 
Mk. 14: 28, pera 76 éyepO vai we tpoaéw. The true nature of the acc. 
with the inf. as being merely that of general reference comes out 
well in the articular inf., as in Jas. 4: 2, obk Exere 61a 7d uy) airetobat 
tuas. It is not necessary here to go over again the steps taken 
under Modes, but simply to insist on the true nature of the ac- 
cusative with the inf. It stands, indeed, in the place of a finite 
verb of the direct statement, but does not thereby become finite 
with a subject. From the syntactical standpoint the construc- 
tion is true to both the substantival and verbal aspects of the 
inf. The subject of the finite verb, when thrown into the acc., 
takes this turn because of the limitations of the inf. When it is 
retained in the nominative, it is by apposition with the subject 
of the principal verb or by attraction if in the predicate. Draeger 
sees this point clearly in his treatment of the matter in Latin 
where the acc. with the inf. is much more frequent than in Greek.! 
“The name is confessedly a misnomer,” say King and Cookson.? 
Schmid? also sees the matter clearly and makes the ace. with the 
inf. the acc. of general reference. The usual beaten track is taken 
by Jolly,* but the truth is making its way and will win. Schmitt® 
admits that the acc. is not the grammatical subject, but only the 
logical subject. But why call it ‘‘subject” at all? Schroeder® 
properly likens it to the double accusative with dé.dacKw, as in 
ddacKw aitov repirarety. The late Sanskrit shows a few examples 
like English ‘if you wish me to live.’’? The use of the ace. with 
the inf. early reached a state of perfection in Greek and Latin. 
Schlicher® notes 130 instances of it in Homer with ¢nyi alone as 
against 15 with as, 671. We sce it in its glory in historians like 
Xenophon and Thucydides in Greek and Cesar in Latin. Vo- 
taw® notes the rarity of the construction in the O. T. and Apoe. 
(46 verbs), while the N. T. has 27 (83 exx.) verbs which use the 
idiom. But even in the N. T., as compared with the ancient 
Greek, the construction is greatly narrowed. The particular 
1 Hist. Synt., Bd. IL, pp. 380, 446. ’ Uber den Infinitiv, p. 40. 
2 Introd. to Comp. Gr., 1890, p. 214. 4 Gesch. des Inf., p. 247. 
5 Uber den Urspr. des Substantivsatzes, p. 5. 
6 Uber die formelle Untersch. der Redet., p. 28. 

7 Wilhelmius, De Inf. linguarum Sanscritae, Beoticae, Persicae, Graecae, 

Oscae, Vmbricae, Latinae, Goticae Forma et Vsv, 1873, p. 65. 


8 Moods of Indirect Quotation, Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1905. 
9 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 9. 


1084 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


verbs in the N. T. which may use the acc. and the inf. in indirect 
assertion were given under Modes. A general view of the matter 
discloses a rather wide range still. But the idiom, being largely 
literary, is chiefly found in Luke, Rom. and 1 Cor. The other 
writers prefer 671. Luke, in fact, is the one who makes the most 
constant use of the idiom, and he quickly passes over to the direct 
statement. There is with most of them flexibility as was shown. 
Blass! has a sensible summary of the situation in the N. T. There 
is, in truth, no essential difference in the Greek construction, 
whether the inf. is without a substantive, as in Ac. 12:15 ducyv- 
pitero otrws exe, with the acc., Ac. 24:9 ddcxovtes tadra otTws 
éxe, or with the nom. Ro. 1:22 ¢dcxovres eivar copoi. Cf. Ac. 
17:30; 1 Pet. 3:17. Words like det, avayxn may be followed by 
no. substantive (Mtiz 23 <-233) Ron 13%:)see Gime 26 ee 
Pet. 2:11, we have only the predicate ws rapoixovs — aréxecbar. 
Freedom also exists. In Mk. 9:47 we have xadov cé éorw povo- 
pbadpov eiceNOetv, while in Mt. 18:8 we read xadov cot éorw pove- 
pOadpov eiceNetv. Even in Matthew the predicate adj. is acc., 
though it might have been dative, asin Ac. 16:21. Further ex- 
amples of the predicate dative when an accusative is possible are 
seen in Lu. 1:3; 9 : 59; Ac. 27:3 (NAB); 2 Pet. 2:21. . But see 
Ac. 15:22, 25; Heb. 2:10. The case of the inf. itself is not the 
point here. There are besides verbs of willing, desiring, allow- 
ing, making, asking, beseeching, exhorting, some verbs of 
commanding, the inf. with zpiv, wore, 76, Tod, prepositions and 
the articular infinitive. With all these the acc. may occur. 
A difficult inf. occurs in Ac. 26 : 28, & OAlyw ue Teifers Xproriavov 
roujoar. Is ye the object of reies or of rorfjoar? Can reibes be 
‘try by persuasion’? Prof. W. Petersen suggests that this is a 
contamination of & édlyw ue welOes Xproriavoy efvac and év odrLyw "Ee 
mongers Xprotiavov. But verbs differ. Kededw, for instance, always 
has the acc. and the inf., while the dative comes with racow (Ac. 
22:10), émutaoow (Mk. 6 : 39), and verbs like évré\Xouar, éritpéerrw, 
mapayyeAXw, and impersonal expressions like cuudéper, os eoriv, 
abeuttov, alaxpov, etc. As shown above, xadov éorw is used either 
with the acc. or the dative, as is true of \éyw (cf. Mt. 5 : 34, 39 
with Ac. 21:21; 22:24). Blass? adds also Ac. 5:9, cuvedwrnby 
duty mepaoca.. He notes also that rpooradcow occurs with the acc. 
(Ac. 10:48) as is true of émitacow (Mk. 6 : 27) and rédoow (Ac. 
15:2). Even cuudeper appears with the acc. and inf. (Jo. 18 : 14) 
and éfeorw (Lu. 6:4, where D has the dative, as is true of Mt. 
1 Gr. of N. T. Gk., pp. 239-241. 2 Ib., p. 240. 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1085 


12:4). With éyévero Blass! observes how clumsy is éyéveré por — 
vyeverbar we (Ac. 22:17). The acc. and inf. occurs with éyévero (Ac. 
9 : 32) and the dative also in the sense of it ‘befell’ or ‘happened 
to’ one, asin Ac. 20:16. In Ac. 22 : 6, éyevero yor — repiacrpayar 
$s, the two constructions are combined. Blass? further observes 
the independence of the inf. in adding an acc. of general reference 
besides the acc. with a verb of asking, as in Ac. 13 : 28 qrhcavro 
Ilevvarov avarpebqvar avrov, (1 Th. 5:27) dpkitw buds davayvwobjvac 
THv ercotoAnv. In Ac. 21:12, rapexadoduev — rod pu) avaBaivery abrov 
els "Iepovoadyu, the airor is acc. of general reference with the inf., 
which is itself in the genitive as to form, though the real object of 
the verb. There is no instance in the N. T. of the inf. in a sub- 
ordinate clause unless we follow Nestle in 1 Pet. 5:8, ¢nrav riva 
katamvety. ‘There are sporadic examples of such a construction 
due to analogy of the inf. in the main clause.? Cf. O. P. 1125, 14 
(11/A.D.), oUs Kal kuptevery TOv KapTav. 

(e) Personal Construction with the Infinitive. Many verbs and 
adjectives allowed either the personal or the impersonal con- 
struction with the infinitive. The Greek developed much more 
freedom in the matter than the Latin, which was more limited 
in the use of the impersonal.’ In the N. T. the impersonal con- 
struction occurs with fixed verbs like de?, Ac. 25 : 24, Bodvres uh 
detvy atrov CHv unxért, where note inf. dependent on inf. as is 
common enough (Ac. 26:9; Lu. 5:34; Heb. 7:28; Mk. 5:43; 
Lu. 6 :12;8:55). So also with éfecrw, etc. The impersonal con- 
struction is seen also in Lu. 2: 26; 16:22; Ph. 3:1; Heb. 9: 26, 
etc. The inf. with impersonal verbs is somewhat more frequent in 
the N. T. than in the LXX. On the whole the personal construc- 
tion with the inf. is rare in the N. T.° But in the N. T. doxéw has 
the personal construction, as in Ac. 17:18, doxe? xatayyereds evar 
(cf. Jas. 1: 26; Gal. 2:9, etc.), but we find gdofé wo. in Lu. 1:3 
(cf. Ac. 15 : 28, ete.) and even éb0fa éuavtd detv rpatau (Ac. 26 : 9). 
The xown seems to use it less frequently than the ancient Greek. 
Radermacher (N. 7’. Gr., p. 148) quotes Vett. Valens, p. 277, 19, 
ddfeu — brapxew aitiy thy alpeow. We have dedoximacucda mriorev- 
Ojvac (1 Th. 2:4) and éuaprupnOn efvac (Heb. 11:4). One may 
compare the personal construction with ér (1 Cor. 15 : 12; 2 Cor. 


Gre OleNaLeksrpe stl, 2 Th. 

3 Cf. Middleton, Analogy in Synt., p. 9. Maximus of Tyre has it in a rel. 
clause. Diirr, Sprachl. Unters., p. 43. 

4 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 239. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 239. 


1086 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3:3; 1 Jo. 2:19). The personal construction occurs with wpére 
(Heb. 7:26). The impersonal has the acc. and the inf. (1 Cor. 
11:13), the dative and the inf. (Mt. 3:15), both the dative and 
the acc. (Heb. 2:10). Cf. W. F. Moulton in Winer-Moulton, p. 
402. The love of the passive impersonal appears in Ac. 13: 
28 arhoavro IledGrov, avaipefqvar abrov, and in 5:21, aréoredapy 
axOjvar abrovs (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 148). The nominative 
predicate with the inf. and the nom. in indirect discourse is to be 
noted also. 

(f) Epexegetical Infinitive. As already remarked, there is no 
essential difference between the appositional and the epexegetical 
use of the infinitive. The epexegetical inf. is added to a clause 
more or less complete in itself, while the merely appositional is 
more simple.! It is common in the dramatists. This use is prob- 
ably adnominal? in origin, but it drifts into the verbal aspect 
also. We see a free use of the limitative® inf. in as Eros eimety, 
which only occurs once in the N. T. (Heb. 7:9). Brugmann does 
not agree with Griinewald that this is the original epexegetical or 
limitative inf., though it is kin to it. Blass* applies “ epexegetical”’ 
merely to the appositional inf. It is in the epexegetical inf. that 
we see more clearly the transition from the original substantive 
to the verbal idea. It is hard to draw the line between doyya 
amroypaderOar tacay Ti oikovpervny (Lu. 2:1) and rapédwxev abrods eis 
GdOKLwOV vodY, wotety Ta pw KaOnKovTa (Ro. 1: 28). The first is appo- 
sitional, the latter epexegetical. A good instance of the epexeget- 
ical inf. is seen in 2 Cor. 9:5, where ravrny éroiunv etvar ws evoyiav 
is subsidiary to the iva clause preceding, as is often the case. Vi- 
teau® notes that the construction is frequent in the Epistles. Cf. 
Eph. 1: 16-18 (iva — els 76 eldevar), 3:16 f. (wa — kpatawfvat, KaTot- 
kjioat), Col. 1:10 (va — repitarfoa), 4:3 (va —dadjoa). Further 
examples occur in Lu. 1:54 pvnoOfva, 1:72 woujoa xat prn- 
aOnvat, 1:79 émrpavar Tod Kxarevddvar, Ac. 17:27 fnretv, 2 Pet. 3: 
2 prnoOjvar. The LXX® shows rather frequent instances of the 
articular inf. in this sense (cf. Gen. 3:22; Judg. 8:33; Ps. 
77:18). The N. T. shows very few. Indeed, Votaw finds only 
one, that in Gal. 3:10, émixatdparos ras bs obk éupever Taow Tors 
YeYpampevors ev TH BiBAiw Tod vouov Tov Twoifoa ad’ta. But certainly 


1 Thomspon, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 239. 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 517. 

* Griinewald, Der freie formelhafte Inf. der Limit. im Griech., p. 21 f. 
“Gre of NV Takao 

5 


Le Verbe, p. 161. 6 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 26. 


Sa ee ae ee 





Po EN le? 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1087 


Tov ariuavecbar (Ro. 1: 24) after wapédwxev is Just as truly epexeget- 
ical as is movety in verse 28 after tapédwxev. So also Ro. 7:3; 8: 
12; 1 Cor. 10:13. Burton! looks at the epexegetical inf. as ‘an 
indirect object,” as in Lu. 10:40, 7 aéeX¢7q pov movny pe KaTé\eurrey 
duaxovetv. ‘There is no doubt that in such instances the inf. is in 
the original dative case with the dative idea. See further Mk. 
4:28; 6:31; Lu. 7:40; 12:4; Ac. 4:14; 7:42; 17:21; 23:17, 
tom Lose itn 2c 8 UG: 

(g) Purpose. It is but a step from the explanatory or epexe- 
getical inf. to that of design. Indeed, the epexegetical inf. some- 
times is final, a secondary purpose after iva, as in Eph. 1:18; 3: 
17; Col. 1:10, etc. The sub-final or objective use of the inf. is 
also a step on the way. This use was very common in the ancient 
Greek, but was partially taken up by tva in the N. T.2. But many 
verbs, as we have seen, retain the sub-final inf. in the N. T. as 
in the rest of the xow7. Blass’ careful lists and those of Viteau 
were given under Indirect Discourse. This notion of. purpose is 
the direct meaning of the dative case which is retained. It is the 
usual meaning of the inf. in Homer,* that of purpose. It goes 
back to the original Indo-Germanic stock.’ It was always more 
common in poetry than in prose. The close connection between 
the epexegetical inf. and that of purpose is seen in Mk. 7:4, @ 
mapédaBov Kpatecty (‘for keeping,’ ‘to keep’). So Mt. 27: 34, é6wxap 
ait@ muety otvoyv (‘for drinking,’ ‘to drink’). So Mt. 25:35, éa- 
katé wor dayetv. The inf. with the notion of purpose is exceedingly 
frequent in the LXX, second only to that of the object-inf. with 
verbs.” It was abundant in Herodotus. Hence Thumb’ thinks 
its abundant use in the xow7 is due to the influence of the Ionic 
dialect. Moulton’ agrees with this opinion. This is true both of 
the simple inf. of purpose and rod and the inf. The Pontic dia- 
lect still preserves the inf. of purpose after verbs like avaBaivw, 
etc. It is noteworthy that this inf. was not admitted into Latin 
except with a verb of motion. Moulton (Prol., p. 205) cites Par. 
P. 49 (ii/B.c.) édyv avaBd Kayo mpooxvvfca, as parallel to Lu. 18: 

LeN ae Vande. ctl. 

2 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255 f.; Humphreys, The Problems of Greek, 
Congress of Arts and Sciences, 1904, vol. III, pp. 171 ff. 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 154. 

4 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 516; Delbriick, Grundr., IV, pp. 463 ff. 

5 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 10. 

6 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 240. 

7 


Theol. Lit., 1903, p. 421. 
8 Prol., p. 205. 


1088 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


10, avéBnoav — rpocebéacba. Moulton! notes this correspondence 
between the ancient and the modern vernacular and agrees with 
Thumb’s verdict again that the result is due to the two conflict- 
ing tendencies, one the universalizing of iva, which prevailed in 
Western Hellenism and resulted in the disappearance of the inf. in 
modern Greece, while the localizing of the inf. in Pontus serves 
to illustrate to-day the N. T. idiom. The N. T. use of the inf. 
of purpose includes the simple inf., 7od and the inf., eis 76 and 
the inf., zpos 76 and the inf., cre and the inf. There is no ex- 
ample of é¢’ é te. First note the simple inf., all in. the original 
dative case. This use had a wider range in Homer than in the 
Attic writers. Thus Mt. 2:2 4\Mouev rpocxvyqjoa atta; (5:17) 
obk #AVov KaTaddaoar, AANA TANnPdcar; (7:5) draBdeWers ExBarety TO Kap- 
gos; (11:7) ri e€&nAOare eis ryv Epnuov Dedcacba (So verse 8, édety) ; 
20: 28; (Mk. 3:14) dmocréddy abtrods knpboceyv; (5 : 32) repreBdeE- 
mero toetv; (Lu. 18 : 10) aveBnoav rpocebéacbar; (Jo. 4:15) drépxwuae 
evade avtretv; (Ac. 10:38) mapecuer axodoar; (2 Cor. 11:2) ppyo- 
gapny buas — mapaoryoa; (Rev. 5:5) evixnoev — avotéar; (16 : 9) ob 
perevonoay dodvac. ‘These examples will suffice. It is very com- 
mon in the N. T. It is not necessary to multiply illustrations of 
rod after all the previous discussion. The O. T. shows the idiom 
in great abundance, though the construction is classic. It was 
used especially by Thucydides.2 This was a normal use. We 
have already noticed that Paul makes little, if any, use of this 
idiom.’ It is possible in Ro. 6:6; Ph. 3:10. Indeed, Votaw4 
notes only 33 instances of rod and inf. of purpose in the N. T., 
and these are chiefly in Matthew, Luke and Acts. Note (Mt. 2: 
13) fnrety 70d ‘arodéoa, (13:3) e&fAOev Tod omelpev, (Lu. 21: 22) 
Tov mAnoOAVaL TavTa, (24:29) rod petvar. See further Ac. 3:2; 5: 
313) 26:18; 1) Cor: 10s? 7 GalosrslO Hepa 1l0 72 ecc me enesuse 
of rod un is, of course, the same construction. Cf. Ro. 6:6, rod 
Mnkete dovdevey quads. Cf. Ac. 21:12. In Lu. 2:22 note zapacrf- 
gat, and in verse 24 rod dodvar. Purpose is also expressed by eis 7é 
as inl Th. 3:5, éreu~a eis 7o yroSvar, and by mpds 76 as in Mt. 
6:1, mpos 76 Geadjvar. In the N. T. dore with the inf. of purpose 
is rare. Originally purpose was the idea with so7e, or conceived 
result. Actual result with aore was expressed by the indicative. 


1 Prol., p. 205. Allen gives no ex. of the simple inf. of purpose in Polyb., 
only rod, wore, ep’ gre. Cf. Inf. in Polyb., p. 22. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. Thuc. was the first to use rod and the inf. for 
purpose (Berklein, Entwickelungsgesch., p. 58). 

2 lbs, Dazliit. 4 Inf. in Bible. Gk. pal, 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1089 


In the LXX the notion of purpose is still common, especially in 
the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus.!. In the N. YT. there are 
only 8 instances, leaving out Ac. 20:24, according to W. H., and 
only 7 if we follow W. H. in Lu. 9:52. See Mt. 10:1, edwxev 
avtots é€ovciay wate ExBadrAe Kal Oeparevey. And date (=as, Te, 
‘and so’) is simply ‘so as,’ not ‘so that.’ See also Lu. 4:29, dace 
kataxpnuvioa. Cf. further Mt. 15: 33; 27:1; Lu. 20:20. Burton? 
thinks that in Mt. 27:1 ore gives rather content than pur- 
pose. One must not confuse with 7od and the inf. of purpose 
the somewhat analogous construction of rod and rod uA after 
verbs of hindering. ‘This is in reality, as was shown, the abla- 
tive and the regular object-inf. (substantival aspect). Cf. Lu. 
4:42; Ac. 20:27; Ro. 15:22. Votaw? notes 22 verbs in the 
LXX and the N. T. that use this idiom. The only common one 
is kwdtw. See further Final Clauses in chapter on Modes for 
papyri examples. 

(h) Result. Purpose is only ‘‘intended result,” as Burton? ar- 
gues. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 153) says that the difference 
between purpose and result in the inf. is often only in the more 
subjective or objective colouring of the thought. It is hard to 
draw a line between conceived result and intended result. Blass® 
explains a number of examples as result that I have put above 
under Purpose, as Rev. 5:5; 16:9. It is largely a matter of 
standpoint. The line of distinction is often very faint, if not 
wholly gone. Take Rev. 5: 5, for instance, évixnoev 6 Méwy avotéar. 
The lion had opened the book and so it was actual result. So 
also Ac. 5:3, 6ca Ti érANpwoev 6 caTavas TY Kapdiay cov, Pevoacbat 
oe. Ananias had actually lied. In the ancient Greek also the 
distinction between purpose and result was not sharply drawn.® 
The inf. may represent merely the content’ and not clearly either 
result or purpose, as in Eph. 3 : 6, efvac ra €Ovn. Cf. also 4: 22, azo- 
6éc9a. This is not a Hebraistic (Burton) idiom, but falls in na- 
turally with the freer use of the inf. in the xowy. See also Ac. 
15:10 érbetvar Cvyov, (Heb. 5:5) yernOjjvar dpyvepea. Where it is 
clearly result, it may be actual or hypothetical.’ The hypothet- 
ical is the natural or conceived result. The N. T. shows but 12 


1 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 10. 2°N.. Ls Myand:T., p. 150. 
3 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 24. Cf. W.-M., p. 409. 

«Neale Mandel. p. 145, 

5 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 224. 6 Baéumlein, Modi, p. 339, 
7 W.-M., p. 400. See Burton, N. T, M. and T., p. 150 f, 

8 Allen, Inf. in Polyb., p. 21, 


1090 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


instances of the simple inf. with the notion of result, according to 
Votaw.! In the O. T. it is quite common. The 12 examples in 
the N. T. are usually hypothetical, not actual. So Ro. 1:10 eto- 
dwnoouar EOety mpods buas, (Eph. 3:17) kpatawwOjvar, xatouxjoa, (6: 
19) yrwpioa, (Col. 4:3) Aadqoa, (4: 6) etdevar, (Heb. 6 : 10) értda- 
décbar. It is here that the kinship with purpose is so strong. Cf. 
Rey. 16:9. But some examples of actual result do occur, as in Lu. 
10:40; Ac. 5:3; Rev. 5:5. In the O. T.? we have actual result 
with rod and the inf., but no examples occur in the N. T. Not 
more than one-half of the examples of ro and the inf. in Luke, who 
gives two-thirds of the N. T. instances, are final.? Some of these 
are examples of hypothetical result. See discussion of Result in 
chapter on Mode for further discussion and papyri examples. It 
is rather common in the O. T., though not so frequent in the 
N. T.* It is possible to regard Mt. 21:32, wereuednOnre Tod mioTed- 
gat, thus, though in reality it is rather the content of the verb.* 
There is similar ambiguity in Ac. 7:19, éxaxwoev Tod rovetv. But 
the point seems clear in Ac. 18 : 10, ovdels EriOnoerai cor Tod KaxGoat 
oe, and in Ro. 7:3, rod pr efvac ab’riv porxadioa. If rod can: be oc- 
casionally used for result, one is prepared to surrender the point 
as to eis 76 if necessary. It is usually purpose, but there is ambi- 
guity here also, as in Mt. 26:2; 1 Cor. 11: 22, where the purpose 
shades off toward hypothetical result. In Ac. 7:19 we seem to 
have hypothetical result, efs ro pu) Cwoyovetcbar. So also Ro. 6: 


12, es ro braxovev. It is true also of Heb. 11:3, els 76 yeyovévar. 


See further Ro. 12:3; 2 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 3:17. Votaw7 argues 
for actual result in Ro. 1: 20, eis 76 efvar abrods dvarodoyhrous. It 
is hard to deny it in this passage. But it is dove and the inf. that 
is the usual N. T. construction for this idea with the inf. As 
already shown (see Mode) nearly all of the 62 examples of dare 
and the inf. in the N. T. have the notion of result. Once Votaw® 
notes an instance of hypothetical result in the N. T., 1 Cor. 13: 
2, Kav Exw Taoav THY TidTL woTE dpyn UeOLoTdvey. Burton® goes fur- 
ther and includes in this category Mt. 10:1; 2 Cor. 2:7. But 
these debatable examples are in harmony with the usual am- 

1 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 13. 

* Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Ghee peo erahuthiws 10, ri dte ebpov xapw év bpOar- 
Hots gov Tov éemryvGvat ue; See also 2 Chron. 33:9; 1 Macc. 14:36. 

* Moulton, Prol., p. 217. 

* Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 25. 5 Moulton, Prol., p. 216. 

® Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161; Moulton, Prol., p. 219. 

Inf. in Bibl. Gk, p. 21. 

8 Ib., p. 14. 9 N. T. M. and T,, p. 149. 


i ne 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1091 


biguity as to result and purpose. There is no doubt about the 
examples of actual result with gore. Thus Mt. i3 : 54 édidackey 
a’tovs wate exrAnooecOar kal Neve, (Mk. 9 : 26) wore Tods toddods 
Neyer, (Liu. 12:1) wore wepirarety addndovus, (Ac. 5:15) dore exde- 
Der eC. OL SOn sh Cm Deo O LOmnty a0 sea) GOT. 976d; Pha de: 13;:ete. 
There is one instance in the text of W. H. where ws occurs 
with the inf., Lu. 9:52, as éroumaoac with the idea of purpose 
involved. Cf. as cxetv O. P. 1120, 19 f. (iii/a.p.). The use of 
@s éros eiretv (Heb. 7:9) is the absolute idea, as already shown. 
Different also is ws av éxfoBety (2 Cor. 10:9)=‘as if.’ A clear 
case of result occurs in Epictetus, IV, 1, 50, otrws — uh aodt- 
pacbat. 

(1) Cause. There is only one example in the N. T. of the ar- 
ticular inf. without a preposition in this sense. That is in 2 Cor. 
2:18, 7d uh epety, and it is in the instr. case as already shown. 
The LXX shows a half-dozen examples, but all with variant 
‘readings.!. But it is common with 6.4 76 to have the causal sense, 
some 32 times in the N. T.2. See Prepositions and Substantival 
Aspects of the Infinitive. Cf. Mt. 13:5f.; Mk. 5:4; Lu. 6:48; 
Jas.4:2f. There is one instance of évexey rod in 2 Cor. 7: 12. 

(7) Time. Temporal relations are only vaguely expressed by 
the inf. See Tense in this chapter for the absence of the time- 
element in the tenses of the inf. except in indirect discourse. 
Elsewhere it is only by prepositions and zpiv (an adverbial prep- 
osition in reality) that the temporal idea is conveyed by the inf. 
Antecedent time is expressed by rpiv or zpo tod. For pod rod, see 
Mt. 6:8; Lu. 2:21, etc. Tpty or zpiv 4 (so in Mt. 1:18; Mk. 
14:30; Ac. 7:2; W. H. have zplv 4 in the margin in Ac. 2: 20) 
occurs with the inf. 11 times, all aorists (all in Gospels and 
Acts). We have it only twice with finite verb after negative 
sentences, once with the subj. (Lu. 2 : 26), once with the opt. 
(Ac. 25:16), both in Luke (literary style). See, for the inf., 
Mt. 26 : 34 aplv adéxropa dwrjca, (Jo. 4:49) mpiv arofavety. See 
further Mt. 26:75; Mk. 14:72; Lu. 22 : 61 (five of the instances 
are practically identical); Jo. 8:58; 14:29; Ac. 2:20. In He- 
rodotus, under the influence of indirect discourse, the inf. occurs 
with 6xws, ézel, érerdn, ef, dud7e and the relative pronouns. Con- 


1 Votaw, Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 29. 

2 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 161, mentions only 23. 

3 The inf. with zpiv is common in Hom. See Monro, p. 158. 

4 Bénard, I’ormes verbales en Grec d’aprés le Texte d’Hérodote, 1890, p. 
196. See also Sturm, Die Entwick. der Konstrukt. mit piv, 1883, p. 3. 


1092 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


temporaneous action is described by é 74, especially in Luke. 
Cf. Lu. 1: 21, & 7 xpovifew. See Prepositions with Infinitive for 
further remarks. Subsequent action is set forth by pera 76 as in 
Mt. 26 : 32; Lu. 12:5, ete. In Ac. 8: 40, éws rod éXetv, we have 
the prospective future. 

(k) The Absolute Infinitive. This idiom is very common in 
Homer, especially as an imperative and in the midst of impera- 
tives... R. Wagner? notes that in Homer this use of the inf. oc- 
curs with the nom. The papyri still show examples like 6 édetva 
7@ deiva xalpev.? Gerhard?‘ holds that in such cases there is ellipsis 
of Néye. The Attic inscriptions® frequently have the absolute 
infinitive as imperative. Deissmann (Light from the Anc. Kast, 
p. 75) notes that, as in German, it is common in edicts and no- 
tices. Cf. imperatival use of infinitive in modern French. He 
quotes from the ‘‘ Limestone Block from the Temple of Herod at 
Jerusalem’ (early imperial period): Myféva addoyer7 elaropebvecbar 
EVTOS TOD TeEpL TO Lepov TpUPaxTou Kal epBorou, ‘ Let no foreigner enter 
within,’ etc. See also Epictetus, IV, 10, 18, wa 6€ ratra yevnrat, 
ov pKpa defacbar ovd€ uikp&v amorvxety. The imperatival use was 
an original Indo-Germanic idiom.® It flourishes in the Greek 
prose writers.’ Burton® and Votaw® admit one instance of the 
imperatival inf. in the N. T., Ph. 3:16, 7G at7G crovxetyv. But 
Moulton” rightly objects to this needless fear of this use of the 
inf. It is clearly present in Ro. 12:15, xaipew, craiew. The case 
of Lu. 9:3 is also pertinent where unre éxev comes in between 
two imperatives. Moulton himself objects on this point that 
this inf. is due to a mixture of indirect with direct discourse. 
That is true, but it was a very easy lapse, since the inf. itself 
has: this timperativaleusess In 16h 23 411-52 Vihear 
there is the nominative case and the whole context besides the 
accent to prove that we have the optative, not the aorist ac- 
tive infinitive. See Mode for further discussion. Moulton" 
quotes Burkitt as favouring the mere infinitive, not ée, in 
Mt. 23:28, ratra 6€ moufioar Kaxetva wu) adetvar, after the Lewis 
Syriac MS., and also xavyaéa$ac—in 2 Cor. 12:1 after &. The 

1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 162. 
2 Der Gebr. des imper. Inf. im Griech., 1891, p. 12. 
3 Reinach, Pap. grecs et démotiques, 1905. 
* Unters. zur Gesch. des griech. Briefes, Phil. Zeitschr., 1905, p. 56. 
5 Meisterh., p. 244. 
§ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 516. °-Infv in BiblAGkiapas. 
id. 


W.-M., p. 397. 10 Prols pb a70; 
SNA Mi ands De patcoe 4 Ib. p.1248: 


VERBAL NOUNS (ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1093 


imperatival use of the inf. was common in laws and maxims and 
recurs in the papyri.! So A. P. 86 (i/A.D.) é£etvar, puc8oar. Rader- 
macher (N. 7. Gr., p. 146) quotes Theo, Progymn., p. 128, 12, 
dépe fnretv, where the inf. is used as a deliberative subj. would be. 
He gives also the Hellenistic formula, eis divauw etvar tiv euhy, 
Inscr. Pergam., 13, 31; 13, 34. Hatzidakis? notes that in the 
Pontic dialect this construction still exists. The epistolary inf. 
has the same origin as the imperatival inf. It is the absolute inf. 
This is common in the papyri. See Ac. 15 : 23; 23 : 26; Jas. 1: 1, 
xaipev. The nom. is the nominative absolute also. Cf. 2 Jo. 10, 
where xalpew is the object of Aeyere. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., 
p. 146) notes how in the later language the ace. comes to be used 
with the absolute inf., as in C. Inscr. lat. V. 8733, dovve avrwy= 
dotvat avrév. It is just in this absolute inf. that we best see the 
gradual acquirement of verbal aspects by the inf. It is probably 
the oldest verbal use of the inf. The construction in Heb. 7:9, 
ws €os eizety, 1S but a step further on the way. There is but one 
example of this absolute inf. with ws in the N. T.4 Cf. rod zode- 
pijocae in Rev. 12:7, where it is an independent parenthesis. 

(l) Negatives. The ancient Greek used yy chiefly with the inf. 
except in indirect assertion where ov of the direct was retained. 
But we see ov with the inf. after verbs of saying as early as Ho- 
mer, dis obx brouetvat, Iliad, XVII, 174. Thus od won a place for 
itself with the inf., but many verbs retained un as verbs of 
swearing, hoping, promising, etc. But special phrases could have 
ov anywhere and strong contrast or emphasis would justify ov.° 
Votaw® finds 354 instances in the Greek Bible where the inf. it- 
self is modified by the negative. Of these 330 have u# and the 
rest have compounds of uy. The anarthrous inf. with uy he notes 
59 times in the O. T., 32 in the Apocrypha and 47 in the N. T., 
139 in all. The articular inf. with un he finds in the O. T. 186 
times (70d 99, 76 37), in the Apocrypha 21 times (70d 10, 76 11), in 
the N. T. 35 times (70d 15, 76 20), 192 in all (rod 124, 76 68). With 
the anarthrous inf. the negative more frequently occurs with the 
principal verb as in od 6€\w. We do. have ov in infinitival clauses, 
as will be shown, but in general it is true to say that the inf. 
directly is always negatived by wy in the N. T. This is true of 


1 Tb., p. 179. 2 Hinl., p. 192. § Moulton, Prol., p. 203. 

4 For the variety of uses of the absolute inf. in ancient Gk. see Goodwin, 
M. and T., pp. 310 ff. 

5 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 414. 

6 Inf. in Bibl. Gk., p. 58. 


1094. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


all sorts of uses of the inf. So the subject-inf. uses yy, as xpetr- 
Tov Hv avrots uy émeyvuxevar (2 Pet. 2:21), both the anarthrous 
as above and the articular as in Lu. 17:1. The object-inf. 
likewise has wy, as in Lu. 21:14, dere Ev rats Kkapdiars buay ph 
ampouederav. For the articular accusative with uy see Ro. 14: 18. 
We have it with indirect commands as in Mt. 5: 34, Aeyw byty 
uy dudcat, and in indirect assertion as in Ac. 23:8, éyovow py 
Elva avacracw pyre ayyedov pnre tvedua. We have it with rod un 
as in Jas. 5:17, 70d un BpeEar, and with prepositions as in 2 Cor. 
4:4, eis ro ph abyacar. With verbs of hindering and denying the 
negative uy is not necessary, but it was often used by the ancients 
as a redundant negative repeating the negative notion of the 
verb, just as double negatives carried on the force of the first 
negative. It was not always used. When the verb itself was 
negatived, then py) od could follow.1. But we do not find this 
idiom inthe N.T. Examples of the N.T. idiom have already been 
given in this chapter. The variety in the N. T. may be illus- 
trated. See Lu. 23': 2 xkwdtovta dopovs Kaicape didovar, (Ac. 4 : 17) 
arednowucda atrots unkere Nadetvy, (Gal. 5:7) Tis buds evexoWer adn- 
Geia wy) elOecOar, (Ro. 15 : 22) evexorrouny rod edOetv, (Lu. 4: 42) 
KaTELXOV ab’Tov Tov m1) TopevecOar, (Mt. 19 : 14) pu Kwdrvere aita éOetv 
apos pe, (1 Cor. 14:39) 7d Aadety wr KwArvere, (Ac. 14:18) pores 
KaTéravoay Tovs SxAoUs TOD pw Ove avtots,-(Ac. 8:36) Ti KwAvEL pe 
BarrticOjvar, (10:47) unre TO vdwp divatar KwADoal Tis TOD wn BaT- 
tioOjvar, (20:20) otdév brecredaunv Tod wy davayyetd\a. Rader- 
macher (N. 7. Gr., p. 149) illustrates ‘‘the Pauline 76 wu» with the 
infinitive’? by Sophocles’ Electra, 1078, 76 re wh Bere érotua, and 
the inser. (Heberdey-Wilhelm, Reisen in Kilikien, 170, 2), 76 undev’ 
aidov — ereccevevKeitv. We may note also Ac. 4: 20, ob duvdueba pr 
Aadetv, Where the negative is not redundant. Cf. also Jo. 5:19, 
od dtvarat rovety ovdev, Where the second negative is redundant, but 
it repeats the o’. Some MSS. have a redundant negative uy with 
eldevac in Lu. 22 : 34 (cf. 1 Jo. 2 : 22 after 671) and with rpoore7- 
vat in Heb. 12:19. So AP read avrideéyorres in Lu. 20 : 27. 

Even in indirect discourse the same negative is repeated, as in 
Ac. 26:26, AavOdver aitov roltwy ob reifouar oifév. Here oifév 
strictly goes with \avbavew in spite of its position after zei@ouat, 
but ob is construed with veiMouar, and so otfév is used rather than 
unfev or pydev. But in Mk. 7: 24, ovdéva HOeXev yrdvar, it is not 
best to explain otééva with the inf. in this fashion. This looks 
like the retention of the old classic use of od with the inf. which 

1 See Thompson, Synt., pp. 425 ff. 


ee 


a ee ge ee ee ke 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOZ) 1095 


the grammars are not willing to allow in the N. T.!. Epictetus 
uses ot with the inf. as in IV, 10, 18, ot pexpa d€Eacar ovbE pwiKpav 
amrotvxetv. Asamatter of fact we have a number of other examples 
of ov with the inf., too many to rule out without ceremony. There 
is the case in Heb. 7:11, ris Ere xpeia xara rHv TAEW Medxioedex 
éTepov aviotac@at Kal ov Kata THY Takw EeyeoOa; It is true that od 
comes just before xara tiv Tak, but it is rather forced to deny it 
any connection with Néeyecdar. See also Ro. 8:12, ddecrérac ov 7H 
gapkt Tod Kata oapkxa (7v, where, however, ov occurs outside of rod 
and is directly concerned with 77 capxi. Other examples of sharp 
contrast by means of ot are found, as in Ac. 10: 40 f., €6wxey abrov 
éudavyn yevecOar, ob} mavTl TS ANa@ aAAA WapTvoL; Ro. 7:6, wore dov- 
every Ev KavOTHTL TVEbMATOS Kal Ov TadaLoTHTL yoaumatos; Heb. 13 : 9, 
BeBarodobar o} Bpwuacw (but here no contrast is expressed). In 
Ro. 4:12, 16, with ets 76, we find ot uovov — adda. kal. 

(m) "Av with the Infinitive. This classic idiom has vanished 
from the N. T. save in 2 Cor. 10:9, ws av exgoBety. Even here it 
is not a clear case, since éx@oBetv depends on 66m and ws av comes 
in as a parenthetical clause, ‘as if’ (‘as it were’). 

The treatment of the infinitive has thus required a good many 
twists and turns due to its double nature. 

III. The Participle (n petoxy). 

1. Tor VERBALS IN —TOS AND —tTéos. These verbals are not ex- . 
actly participles inasmuch as they have no tense or voice. They 
are formed from verb-stems, not from tense-stems, and hence 
are properly called verbal adjectives.2 In the broadest sense, 
however, these verbals are participles, since they partake of both 
verb and adjective. Originally the infinitive had no tense nor 
voice, and the same thing was true of the participle. For con- 
venience we have limited the term participle to the verbal ad- 
jectives with voice and tense. The verbal in —7os goes back to 
the original Indo-Germanic time and had a sort of perfect passive 
‘idea.? This form is like the Latin -tus. Cf. yrwrds, ndtus; ayvw- 
tos, ignotus. But we must not overdo this point. Strictly this 
pro-ethnic -tos has no voice or tense and it never came to have 
intimate verbal connections in the Greek as it did in Latin and 
English.t| Thus amatus est and ayarnrés éorwv do not correspond, 
nor, in truth, does ‘he is loved’ square with either. ‘Even in 
Latin, a word like tacitus illustrates the absence of both tense 

1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. 


2 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 262. 
§ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 200. 4 Moulton, Prol., p. 221. 


1096 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 

and voice from the adjective in its primary use.”! Already in 
the Sanskrit voice and tense appear with some of the participles, 
but ‘‘the division-line between participial and ordinary adjec- 
tives is less strictly drawn in Sanskrit than in the other Indo- 
European languages.”’? The ambiguity due to the absence of 
voice in the verbal in —ros was inherited from the original Indo- 
Germanic time.? It becomes, therefore, a lexical, not a syntactical 
problem to decide in a given instance whether the verbal is 
“active” or ‘‘passive”’ in signification. In itself it is neither. A 
similar problem is raised in compound adjectives like @eo-uaxor 
(Ac. 5: 39), ‘fighting God.’ In modern Greek the verbal in —ros 
is rare and is little more than an adjective (Thumb, Handb., p. 
151), though the new formation in —aros has more verbal force. 
This ambiguity appears in Homer and all through the Greek 
language. Blass® overstates it when he says that in the N. T. 
“the verbal adjective has practically disappeared, with the ex- 
ception of forms like évvarés, which have become stereotyped as 
adjectives.”” As a matter of fact the verbal in —7os is still com- 
mon in the N. T. as in the xow# in general. Take, for instance, 
ayarnros, ayvwros, advvaTos, AaKaTAYVWTOS, AvaUapTHTOS, aVEKTOS, dopa- 
Tos, AmLoTOS, ATOPANTOS, ApEgTOs, ApKETOS, YEevYNTOs, YpaTTOs, dLdaKTOs, 
duvatos, evAoynTOs, CeagTOs, Oavpacros, OvnTos, OedrvEevoTos, dpatos, Tabn- 
TOS, TapeloakTos, TicTOs, POapTos, xpynoTos, etc. It is true® that the 
tendency is rather to accent the adjectival aspect at the expense 
of the verbal idea of these words. But this also was true at the 
start, as we have just seen in the Sanskrit. The point to note 
is that the verbal does not denote voice. In Ac. 14:8; Ro. 15: 
1, adtvarov is ‘incapable,’ whereas usually it is ‘impossible,’ as 
in Mt. 19:26=Mk. 10:27, etc. In Ro. 8:8, therefore, it is 
doubtful whether 76 aédtivarov 70d vouov is the ‘impotency’ or the 
‘impossibility’ of the law.’?. There is no’ notion of tense or of 
Aktionsart in these verbals in —ros and so ayarnrés does not dis- 
tinguish® between dyamramevos, ayarnfels and jyarnuevos. Moul- 
ton thus properly notes the fact that in Mt. 25:41 we have 
kaTnpauevot, “having become the subjects of a curse,’ not xardpa- 
ro, ‘cursed.’ It is interesting to note xapa@ avexdadjTw Kal dedo- 
faouevy in 1 Pet. 1:8, but here avexdadyros is active in sense, 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 221. 4 Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 761. 
2 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 347. 5 Gr; of Ne Lr Gk pea 

3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 200. . 

® Cf. Viteau, Essai sur la Synt. des Voix, Revue de Philol., p. 41. 

7 Moulton, Prol., p. 221. 8 Ib. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1097 


‘inexpressible.’? The ambiguity comes also in our English parti- 
ciple ‘borne’ used for aipouevov in Mk. 2:38, and the punctiliar 
‘brought’ used for évexOetoay in 2 Pet. 1:18. With these Moul- 
ton! contrasts npuevoy (‘taken away’) in Jo. 20:1. It is worth 
while to study a few more examples from the lexical point of 
view. In general? the passive sense is more common, as in ayary- 
Tos (Mt. 3:17); e’Oeros (Lu. 9 : 62); didaxrds (Jo. 6 : 45); Oeomvev- 
otos (2 Tim. 3 : 16); Aeodidaxros (1 Th. 4:9); yparrés and xpumrés 
(Ro. 2:15 f.).2 Here (Ro. 2:15 f.) ra xpurra is used just like a 
substantive (neuter adjective in plural). But fearos (Rev. 3 : 15) 
is active in sense as is aot’veros (Ro. 1:31), though actvOeros next 
to it (paronomasia) is made from the middle cvvtifewar (‘cove- 
nant’). Luverds, sometimes passive in sense in the old Greek, is 
always active in the N.T., as in Mt. 11:25, but Ovn7os (Ro. 6: 
12) is ‘liable to death,’ not ‘dying,’ as ra@yros (Ac. 26 : 23) is 
‘capable of suffering.’ Cf. the Latin adjectives in —bilis. 

The verbal in —réos is later than that in —ros and does not oc- 
cur in Homer. It is probably a modification of the verbal —7os to 
express the idea of the predicate-infinitive, like ‘this is not to eat 
(to be eaten).’® It is really a gerundive and is used in the per- 
sonal or impersonal construction, more commonly the latter.® 
The personal is always passive in sense, while the impersonal 
is active and may be formed from transitive or intransitive 
verbs.” It expresses the idea of necessity. It was never as com- 
mon as the verbal in —7os and is not unknown in the papyri,® 
though not frequent. It is more like the verb (and participle) than 
the verbal in —ros in one respect, that it often uses the cases of the 
regular verb. This is seen in the one example in the N. T. (Lu. 
5 : 38) ofvoy véov eis doxovs BAnreov. It is the impersonal construc- 
tion, though the agent is not here expressed. This example of 
—réov in Luke is asurvival of the literary style (cf. Viteau, ‘ Essai 
sur la Syntaxe des Voix,’’ Revue de Philologie, p. 38). See Theo, 
Progymn., p. 128, 12, et yaunréov. 


1 Ib., p. 222. 2 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 707. 

3 In Sans. the verbal adjs. in -fé4 are sometimes called passive participles 
(Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 340). This form does not belong to the tense 
system. 

4 Moulton, Prol., p. 222. 

5 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 184, 525. 7 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 368 f. 

6 Riem. and Goelzer, Synt., p. 707. 8 Moulton, Prol., p. 222. 

9 But even with —7os this sometimes appears as in dcdaxrol deod (Jo. 6 : 45) 
where we haye the ablative. Cf, Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. 


1098 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2. HisTorY OF THE PARTICIPLE. 

(a) The Sanskrit Participle. This was more advanced in its 
development than the Sanskrit infinitive, which had no voice or 
tense. In the Veda the aorist, present, perfect and future tenses 
have participles.1. The distinction in the structure of the parti- 
ciple as compared with the other verbal adjectives lies Just in 
this point. The mere verbal is formed on the verb-stem, while 
the participle is formed on the tense-stem.? In the Sanskrit also 
both voices (active and middle) show these participles. Thus 
already in the original Indo-Germanic tongue if appears prob- 
able that the participle existed with voice, tense, Aktionsart and 
government of cases.2 The Greek participle is thus rooted in this 
pro-ethnic participle as seen by the very suffixes —nt-, —meno-, 
—wos— (—us).4 

(b) Homer’s Time. Already in Homer and Hesiod the parti- 


ciple occurs as a fully developed part of speech. It occurs on an _ 


average of 84 times per page of 30 lines. In Hesiod the parti- 
ciple is chiefly attributive, while the predicate participle is less 
common than in Homer.® This use of the participle as the prac- 
tical equivalent of the hypotactic clause is a purely Greek develop- 
ment (copied by the Latin to some extent) within historical times.” 
The participle is a literary device, and flourished best with 
writers of culture who were ¢uAoueTroxor.2 Broadus used to call 
the Greek “‘a participle-loving language,’ and, taken as a whole, 
this is true. Certainly the participle had its most perfect develop- 
ment in the Greek. The aorist participle died in the Sanskrit 
and did not appear in the Latin. It is the aorist active participle 
which made the participle so powerful in Greek. The English, 
like the Sanskrit and the Greek, is rich in participles, though the 
German is comparatively poor. ‘“‘We gain a certain grandeur 
and terseness by the construction, a certain sweep, a certain zepr- 
Born, Such as Hermogenes recognises as lying in the participle.’’? 
This wealth of participles gives flexibility and swing to the lan- 
guage. 
(c) The Attic Period. In Herodotus the participle jumps to 
1 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 202. 2 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 262. 
$ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 521 f. 
* Brug., Indoger. Forsch., V, pp. 89 ff.; Giles, Man., p. 473; Moulton, Prol., 
. 221. 
; 6 Williams, The Part. in the Book of Acts, 1909, p. 7. 
6 Bolling, The Part. in Hesiod, Cath. Univ. Bull., 1897, III, p. 423. 


7 1h § Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr.; p. 505. 
° Gildersl., Stylistic Effect of the Gk. Part., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1888, p. 142. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATO2) 1099 


173 times per page of 30 lines.!. But Sophocles has it only 9 
times on the same scale. Williams? runs the parallel on with 13 
for Thucydides, 122 for Xenophon, 10} for Plato, 10} for De- 
mosthenes. It is thus in the historians and orators and not the 
poets, that we see the participle in its glory. : 

(d) The Kown. Here we note a sharp difference in the several 
styles of writing. The Atticists like Josephus with 20, and 2 
Maccabees with 232, lead in conscious imitation of the ancients. 
They go beyond them in fact. But the writers of the literary 
xown follow close behind, as Polybius with 174, Strabo with 134 
and Plutarch with 14. Certainly there is no sign of decay here. 
But in the LXX, Exodus, Deuteronomy and Judges give only 
64 while? the papyri show 6%. This confirms the judgment 
that the vernacular was not fond of the participle and found it 
clumsy. Jannaris* quotes striking passages from Thucydides, 
Plato and Demosthenes which illustrate well the clumsiness and. 
ambiguity of the participle in long, involved sentences. Even in 
the older Greek in unconventional or unscholarly composition the 
accumulation of participles is shunned. The clearer and easier 
analysis of co-ordinate or subordinate clauses was used instead.>: 
In the N. T. we see the participle used on the whole more fre- 
quently than in the LXX and the papyri. The Hebrew had a 
certain restraining influence on the participle in the LXX. In 
the vernacular papyri the participle was held back on the prin- 
ciple just stated above. It is Luke who makes most frequent 
use of the participle with 162 in the Gospel and 17} in the Acts 
per page of 30 lines.© But 1 Peter follows close behind with 152 
and Hebrews with 14. In the other Gospels Matthew has it 
124, Mark 112 and John 102.7 James has it 10 per page, while in 
the Epistles and Revelation it drops back to 8 and 9. On the 
whole it is much as one would expect. The more literary books 
lead (after Paul with only 9 per page average in Gal:,.1 Cor., 
and Rom.).8 The historical books surpass the Epistles, while 
Hebrews here reveals its hortatory, sermonic character. For 
’ a succession of participles see Ac. 12:25; 23:27; Heb. 1:3 f.;: 
Mk. 5:15. The details of the N. T. situation will come later. 

(e) Modern Greek. The participle more and more came to. be 


1 Williams, The Part. in Acts, p. 7. 
2 Ibo. +0, © Ib; \p. 505. 


aL: -§ Williams, ete) in Acts, p. 23. 
4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 504. PEF 


8 Ib., p. 22. Williams did not count 2 Cor. and the ee Pauline ati 


1100 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


scholastic and dropped out of the vernacular.!. In particular 
was this true of the circumstantial participle. The classic Greek 
by means of the participle developed the periodic style (Aéécs 
KateoTpauuevn) and is seen at its highest in Isocrates. See, for 
example, the “Ciceronian period” in Isocrates, p. 82. Jebb? con- 
trasts this with Aéés eipouern, simply tacking clause to clause as in 
Mt. 7:25, 27 and colloquial repetition of finite verbs as in Jo. 1: 
A7;7:4. But Brdeere, BAerere, BA€rere (Ph. 3: 2) has rhetorical ef- 
fect. In the vernacular modern Greek, therefore, we see a retreat 
of the participle all along the line. It is not dead as the infinitive, 
but is dying, though some vernacular writers are bringing back 
the use of the participle for literary purposes (Thumb, Handb., 
p. 168). The analytic tendency of modern language is against 
it. See Jebb’s remarks for the various devices used instead of 
the participle. The only participles left in modern Greek are the 
indeclinable present active in —ovras (cf. gerund in Latin), some 
middle (or passive) parts. in —oluevos or —auevos and perfect pas- 
sives like deuevos (no reduplication).? A few are made from aorist 
stems like idwuévos (Thumb, Handb., p. 150). The use of the part. 
in the modern Greek is very limited indeed. 

3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PARTICIPLE. 

(a) Originally an Adjective. The infinitive was originally a sub- 
stantive, as we have seen. In the Sanskrit it did not acquire 
voice and tense, though it had the verbal idea of action. The 
participle, as we have seen, had made more progress in the San- 
skrit, but it was also originally an adjective. It never got away 
from this original adjectival idea.t’ But we are not left to history 
and logic to prove this point. It so happens that some participles 
in form never became participles in fact. They are merely ad- 
jectives. Homer shows a number of such words.> Cf. &o-pevos. 
We see remnants of this usage in the N. T. like éxav (Ro. 8 : 20), 
a&xkwy (1 Cor. 9:17). Other participles come in certain uses to be 
only substantives (adjectives, then substantives), though the true 
participial use occurs also. Cf. apxwv, ‘a ruler’ (Mt. 20 : 25); 
yyotmevos, ‘a governor’ (Ac. 7: 10); 7a brapxovra tudv, ‘your belong- 
ings’ (Lu. 12:33). In general ‘the adjective represents a qual- 
ity at rest, the participle represents a quality in motion.’”’® But 


1 Jann’, Histe Gk Grape: 2-V-and) D., Handbs-p. oes. 
* Thumb, Handb., p. 167. Cf. also Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 242. 

‘ Brug., Griech«Gr.spoce: 

® Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 54. Cf. Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 681. 

§ Bolling, The Part. in Hesiod, Cath, Uniy. Bull., 1897, III, p. 422. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1101 


not all verbs express motion. The mere adjectival notion is more 
common in the Latin, as in preteritus, quietus, tacitus, etc. In 
Mt. 17:17, yevea amoros kal dveotpaypevn, the verbal adjective and 
participle occur together. 

(b) The Addition of the Verbal Functions. These functions are 
tense, voice and case-government. ‘here was originally no no- 
tion of time in the tense, nor does the tense in the participle 
ever express time absolutely. It only gives relative time by sug- 
gestion or by the use of temporal adverbs or conjunctions.! The 
verbal idea in the participle thus expands the adjectival notion 
of the word. But the addition of these verbal functions does not 
make the participle a real verb, since, like the infinitive, it does 
not have subject.’ 

(c) The Double Aspect of the Participle. The very name parti- 
ciple (pars, capio) indicates this fact. The word is part adjective, 
part verb. Voss calls it mules, which is part horse and part ass.* 
Dionysius Thrax says: Meroyn éore Nees peTeXovoa THs TOV PnuaTwv 
kal Ths TQv ovouatwv idorntos. In the true participle, therefore, we 
are to look for both the adjectival and the verbal aspects, as in 
the infinitive we have the substantival and the verbal. The em- 
phasis will vary in certain instances. Now the adjectival will be 
more to the fore as in the attributive articular participle like 6 
kad@v.2 Now the verbal side is stressed as in the circumstantial 
participle. But the adjectival notion never quite disappears in 
the one as the verbal always remains in the other (barring a few 
cases noted above). One must, therefore, explain in each in- 
stance both the adjectival and verbal functions of the participle 
else he has set forth only one side of the subject. It is true that 
the verbal functions are usually more complicated and interest- 
ing,® but the adjectival must not be neglected. 

(d) Relation between Participle and Infinitive. As already ex- 
plained, they are closely allied in use, though different in origin. 
Both are verbal nouns; both are infinitival; both are participial. 
But the participle so-called is inflected always, while the infinitive 
so-called has lost its proper inflection. The infinitive, besides, ex- 
presses’ the action in relation to the verb, while the participle ex- 
presses the action in relation to the subject or the object of the 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 169. 
ZBL. 5 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. 
3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 53. 6 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 163. 


7 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 242. In general, on this point, see Goodwin, 
M. and T., p. 357. 


1102 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


verb (or some other substantive or pronoun).! The distinction 
between the participle and the infinitive thus becomes quite im- 
portant. Thus in Lu. 16:3, érarrety aioxivoua, the idea is ‘I am 
ashamed to beg and do not do it,’ while éra:t&v aicxbvouar would 
be ‘I beg and am ashamed of it.’? Cf. the analytic expression 
in 2 Tim.1:12. In Xenophon, Mem., 2, 6, 39, we have aicxtvo- 
par Neywr. So &pxoua in Attic Greek took the infinitive as a rule, 
linking the infinitive with the verb. But sometimes the parti- 
ciple occurred, linking the action to the subject (or object) and 
so contrasting the beginning with the end.’ In the N. T. all 
the examples have the present infinitive except Lu. 13:25 
éotavar. In Lu. 3:23, apxouevos woel érdv tTpiaxovra, we have 
neither with dpyduevos. Cf. Lu. 14 : 30, jpéaro oixodouetv. Rader- 
macher (N. T. Gr., p. 169) compares dp£fduevos ééerifero (Ac. 11: 
4) with aptauevn — xatréxouar (Xen. of Eph., p. 388, 31). On the 
other hand, in the N. T. zatouac occurs only with the participle, 
as in Lu. 5:4, éraboaro NadGv. Cf. Ac. 5:42; 6:13; Eph. 1: 16; 
Col. 1:9; Heb. 10:2. But in Ac. 14:18 note xateravoay rod uH 
Ovev, which well illustrates the difference between the inf. and 


the part. The use of éréXecev dcataoowy (Mt. 11:1) Blass* calls 


unclassical. The part. alone occurs with évxaxéw (Gal. 6:9; 2 
Th. 8:18). Note also éréuevov éowrGvyTes (spurious passage in 
Jo. 8:7), but dovroe Staredetre (Ac. 27:33) without dvres. CE. 
Ac. 12:16, éréuevev kpotwv, and Lu. 7:45, ob dvédurev Katadidodoa. 
Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 169) finds the part. with émipévw 
in ‘vulgar literature.’’ He observes that many of these neater 
classical idioms with the part. do not appear in the N. T. 
Contrast with this the inf. in Ac. 20 : 20, 27, ot yap bmecreNaunv 
ToD un avayyetAar. There is no example of the inf. with daivouac 
in the N. T., but the part. occurs in Mt. 6:16, 18 (vynorebwr). 
The adjective alone is seen in Mt. 23:27, 28. Cf. also Ro. 
7:18. It is hardly on a par with the participle in Mt. 6:17 
in spite of Blass’s insistence. Thoroughly classical also are 
mpoepbacey a’tov Neywr (Mt. 17: 25) and \afov Eevioavres (Heb. 13: 
2), specimens of literary style. The infinitive with zpodbdvw 


occurs in Clem., Cor., Il, 8, 2. The part. with rvyxdvw does. 
not occur in the N.T. In the later xown the inf. takes the - 


place of the participle with AarOavw, tabouar and ¢Odvw (Rader- 
macher, N. T. Gr., p. 169). The part. is found with trapxw 
1 Cf. Schoemann, Die Lehre von den Redet. nach den Alten, 1862, p. 34. 


2 Robertson, Short Gr., p. 194. 4 Ib. 
+ Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk.) p. 245. 5 Tb. 


ee  —  — ——— 


eS ee ee ee ee 


. 
| 





VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1103 


(Ac. 8:16) and zpovrapyw (Lu. 23:12). It is doubtful if the 
participle belongs to the verb in 1 Tim. 5:18, apyai pavOdvovow 
meprepxouevat, but, if so, it is not to be understood as like the inf.! 
In Ph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 5:4, the inf. occurs with yavOavw according 
to classic idiom. At any rate, if wepepyouevac (1 Tim. 5:18) is a 
circumstantial part., something has to be supplied with dpyat. 
The part. in 1 Tim. 1:12, micrév we jyjcaro Oéuevos, is certainly 
circumstantial. The distinction between the inf. and the part. 
comes out sharply in indirect discourse also. The inf. is more 
objective. Thus note jxovcay totro atrov merounkévat 7d onpeiov 
(Jo. 12 : 18) and dxovowev yap twas mepirarodyras (2 Th. 3 : 11). 
The participle is a descriptive adjective even though in indi- 
rect discourse (cf. Lu. 4 : 23; Ac. 7:12). See 1 Cor. 11 : 18 for the 
inf. again. In Mt. 7:11, otéare dduara ayaba diddvac, the inf. with 
of6a means ‘know how to give.’ But in Lu. 4:41, jédecav rov 
Xp.orov avrov eivat, it is mere indirect discourse. For the part. see 
2 Cor. 12 : 2, of6a — aprayevta tov roodrov (cf. Mk. 6 : 20). In Ac. 
3:9 note eldev a’rov mepirarotvra. Here we have the same root, 
though a different sense. Ovéa is common with 67. But ywooKkw 
occurs both with the inf. as in Heb. 10 : 34, yuvwoxovres Exe éav- 
Tovs Kpeicoova Urapév, and the participle as in Heb. 138 : 23, yuww- 
oKeTe TOV GOEApOY HuadV Tiudfeov arore\vuevoy. Cf. Lu. 8:46, eva 
éyvwv divauy é€€eXndAvOviavy, where the tense and participle both ac- 
cent the vivid reality of the experience. But note the inf. in Mt. 
16:18. The same thing is true of duodoyew as in Tit. 1:16, Bor 
duoroyovory eidevar, and 1 Jo. 4: 2, 6 duodoye?t "Incody &v capki €XndvOdTa 
(cf. 2 Jo. 7). Cf. also Ac. 24:10 6vra ce Kkpitiy Exiordamevos and 
doxumatw in 1 Th. 2:4 and 2 Cor. 8:22. Note difference between 
iva eUpwow Katnyopety aitod (Lu. 6:7) and ebpicxe aitods xabebdovtas 
(Mk. 14:37). Cf. Indirect Discourse. Further examples of the 
supplementary participle come later. These sufficiently illustrate 
the difference between the use of inf. and part. 

(e) Method of Treating the Participle. The hybrid character of 
the participle has led to a great deal of diversity in its treat- 
ment in the grammars. Prof. Williams? gives an interesting 
summary in his monograph. None of them are satisfactory be- 
cause they do not follow a consistent plan. Part of the divisions 
are from the adjectival, part from the verbal point of view. They 
are not parallel. Thus we have Kiihner’s complementary, attrib- 
utive, adverbial participles; Goodwin’s attributive, circumstan- 
tial, supplementary; Burton’s adjectival, adverbial, substantival; 

1 W.-M., p. 436. 4 ‘The Part. in Acts, pp. 1 ff. 


1104. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Jannaris’ adjectival and adverbial; Blass’ attributive and in 
additional clause; Hadley and Allen’s attributive and _predi- 
cate; Delbriick-Brugmann’s external, objective, adverbial. Then 
Williams! adds another that is no better, ascriptive, adverbial, 
complementary. Thompson? gives the attributive and the supple- 
mentary participle after saying that the nominal and the verbal 
classification is more elastic. The only way to get symmetry in 
the treatment of the participle is to follow the line of its double 
nature (adjectival and verbal) and discuss the adjectival functions 
and the verbal functions separately. See the discussion of the 
infinitive. That is to say, each participle must be considered as 
both adjectival and verbal. Not all the adjectival aspects will 
be true of any one participle nor all of the verbal, but each one 
will have some adjectival and some verbal functions. Thus alone 
can one get a clear statement of the many participial combina- 
tions and permutations. As an adjective the participle is attrib- 
utive (anarthrous or articular) or predicate. It may even be 
substantival, especially with 6. It is always declinable. Asa verb 
there is always voice and tense and there may be cases. But any 
given anarthrous predicate participle may be either supplementary 
(complementary) or circumstantial (additional) or wholly inde- 
pendent (as indicative or imperative). The articular participle is 
ruled out of this three-fold alternative, though it still has voice, 
tense and governs cases. The articular participle is always at- 
tributive (or substantival). The lines thus cross and recross in 
the nature of the case. But a clear statement of all the essential 
facts can be made by taking the adjectival and the verbal aspects 
separately. In any given instance there is thus a double problem. 
Both sides of the given participle must be noted. 

4, ADJECTIVAL ASPECTS OF THE PARTICIPLE. 

(a) Declension. The free declension of the participle in num- 
ber and gender and case (cf. per contra the infinitive) makes the 
task of noting the adjectival aspects comparatively simple. There 
are anomalies of agreement in these three points as with other 
adjectives. Thus in Rev. 3:12 7 xavaBaivovoa in apposition with 
THs Kawnys “Iep. does not conform in case. There is a difficulty 
of both case and gender in zemvpwuévns in Rev. 1:15. See also 
TAHGos Kpagovres (Ac. 21:36) where the number and gender both 
vary. In Mk. 4:31 note 6s — dv ravtwy rdv orepudtwv Where bv 
takes the gender of orépya. Cf. also Av Kxabjuevac (Mt. 27: 61). 


1 The Part. in Acts, p. 5. 
2 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 249. 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘oNOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOZ) 1105 


But these matters are discussed adequately in chapter on The 
Sentence. , 

(b) Attributive Participle. 

(a) Anarthrous. The article is not of course necessary with 
the attributive participle any more than with any other attrib- 
utive adjective. Thus we have téwp fav (Jo. 4:10), ‘living water,’ 
which is just as really attributive as 76 téwp ro fav (Jo. 4:11). 
When the article is used there is no doubt about the participle 
being attributive. When it is absent, it is an open question to 
be examined in the light of the context. Note also 1 Cor. 13: 1, 
xadkos nxav H KbuBadrov adadafov. This construction (the anar- 
throus attributive) is not so common as the other uses of the 
participle,! and yet it is not wholly absent from the N. T. See 
nxos womep epouerns mvons Braias (Ac. 2:2) and Ovpa jrvewypery 
(Rev. 4:1). It is not always easy to draw the line between the 
anarthrous attributive participle and the predicate participle of 
additional statement. Cf. avip yeyerynuevos év Tapod, avarebpap- 
pevos b€ €v TH TONE Ta’Ty (Ac. 22:3). If 6 occurred before these par- 
ticiples, we should have the articular-attributive participle which 
is equivalent to a relative. So in Ac. 10:18, we have 6 émxadot- 
pevos Ilérpos, but in 10: 32, ds emuxadetrac Tlerpos. Cf, Lu. 6: 48, 
Suods eat avOpwrw oikodouodyre oixiay, With Mt. 7: 24, avdpt doris 
@Kodounoev avTod Thy oixiay. See also Lu. 6:49. Cf. Ro. 8 : 24, 
édrls BAerouern ovk éotw edmis. Cf. Mt. 27:33. The problem is 
particularly real in Mk. 5 : 25, 27. W.H. indicate by the comma 
after é\Motca that they regard the participles with yuv7 (obca, ra- 
Jotca, daravncaca, whedrnbeica, EMovca) up to that point as attribu- 
tive. They describe the woman who comes. Then the sentence 
proceeds with the predicate-circumstantial participles (axovoaca, 
é\odca) before fWaro. Luke (8 : 43) makes the matter plainer by 
putting a relative clause after the first participle. The anar- 
throus attributive participle is closely bound to the substantive 
or pronoun even when it is an additional statement. See Mt. 
12:25, maca Bacrreia pepiobetca Kab’ éavTqs eépnuodrar. See also 
Lu. 6:40; 2 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:15. In Mt. 18:19, wavrés dxovov- 
tos, we probably have the genitive absolute and so predicate cir- 
cumstantial, but even here airod occurs, though remote. Cf. ras 6 
axovwv (Mt. 7:26) and was darts axover (7: 24), where we see how 
nearly these constructions approach each other.’ But the anar- 


1 Goodwin, M. and.T., p. 330. 44> Blass, Grvolt Ny To Gks p.242. 
3 This use of ras without art. occurs occasionally in class. Gk. See K.-G., 
Li-0.008 tf. 


1106 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


throus indefinite participle is clearly found in Jas. 4:17, etéore 
ovv Kadov Tovey Kal gu) movodyTt, duaptia atta éorw. This passage 
may throw some light on Mt. 12:25. In Mt. 13:35, 6a rod 
mpodyrov deyovros, we probably have the articular attributive 
participle, since the Greeks did not always place the attributive 
participle between the article and the substantive.t The use of 
éxwy is interesting in Rev.15 : 1, efdov ayyédous extra Exovras mANyas. 
The anarthrous indefinite participle is seen also in a few con- 
structions like mpocerifevro micrevovtes TO Kupiw (Ac. 5: 14), where 


the participle means ‘believing men’ and has 7\74n in apposition 


with it. See also dw) Bodvros (Mk. 1:3, LXX), é£eXeboetar jyot- 
uevos (Mt. 2:6, LXX), ov éorw cvviwy and otk éorw éexf&nrav (Ro. 
3:11, LXX) where 6 is more common, éxevs Exe? Kpatovvras (Rev. 
2:14). It is worth noting in this connection also the fact that 
occasionally a preposition occurs with an anarthrous participle 
(cf. infinitive). So yxwpls kxnptocovros (Ro. 10:14). Here the 
idea is not ‘without preaching,’ but ‘without one preaching,’ 
‘without a preacher.’ For ‘without preaching’ we must have 
xwpls Tod Knptocev. See once more xalpe pera XarpovTwy, Kate 
mera KAavovTwy (12:15) and émt owdvras (1 Pet. 3:12). In 1 
Cor. 15:27, éxrds tod taroragéavtros, we have the usual articular 
construction. 

(8) Articular. The articular participle occurs a few times in 
Homer.? In general the Book of Acts has the articular participle 
in about the same proportion as the great Attic writers.’ All 
articular participles are, of course, attributive. But the matter 
has some points of interest and cannot be dismissed with this 
general statement. The examples are very numerous. The sub- 
stantives may be expressed as in tv Hroiuacuerny buly Baordrelay 
(Mt. 25 : 34); of ypauparets of ard “Iepocodtuwv kataBavres (Mk. 3: 
22). Like other articular adjectives, the participle may come be- 
tween the article and the substantive, as in 79 byrawovon didacka- 
Nia (1 Tim. 1:10); rod dawvouévov aorépos (Mt. 2 : 7); ris mpoKerevns 
ai7@ xapas (Heb. 12:2). Cf. Jude 3. The substantive may pre- 
cede and the article may be repeated, as 76 téwp 76 Cav (Jo. 4:11); 


TO oGpua TO yevnoouevoyv (1 Cor. 15 : 37); 7G Oe 7G Siddvre (1 Cor. 15: ° 


57).. Cf. Mt.26%: 283727 44-8 Jase5 3 15.Ro)2) 1 Ose nevi eel ene 

the article is repeated as in 12:40 (apposition) when the nom- 

inative reminds us of the common anacoluthon in Revelation. 
1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 330. 


* Vogrinz, Gr. des hom. Dialektes, 1889, p. 184. 
§ Williams, The Part. in the Book of Acts, p. 46. 


Te 


EL a  — 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1107 


With proper names note ‘Ingots 6 Neyouevos Xpiotés (Mt. 1: 16); 
6 éruxadovpevos Ilérpos (Ac. 10: 18).. Cf. 1 Th. 1:10; 2 Tim. 1: 
8f. For a long passage see 6 — éidadoxwy (Ac. 21:28). The crder 
of the words is not insisted on and in long passages the participle 
may follow without the repetition of the article, as in Mt. 6 : 30, 
TOV XOpTOY TOD aYpoD onMEpoY OVTA Kal avpLoy eis KAiBavoy BaddoueEvor. 
Dee HMSO MACHA US io2e2004, OfeHeb, 2:)2:; Heb: 12.: 3, 
where in the long clause the participle with rocatrny comes in be- 
tween rov and broueuernxora and a good distance from dpridoylav. 
Sometimes the article is used with the participle, but not with 
the substantive, as in zavdlois tots & dyopa Kabnuévors (Lu. 7: 
32); xpvalov Tod amodAvupevov (1 Pet. 1:7); dvouwa 7d dedouevov (Ac. 
4:12); words apiOuds 6 mioteboas (Ac. 11:21); aoddol rrdvou of 
bt Ouodoyodrtes (2 Jo. 7); advOpwror of — apvotuevor (Jude 4, where 
note the series of participles and one adjective aceSets parallel 
with the participles). Cf. also 1 Cor. 2:7. The articular parti- 
ciple also occurs with pronouns,! as in avd 6 épxduevos (Mt. 11: 
3); Twds Tovs rerodras (Lu. 18:9); Tus 6 cvdaywyGv (Col. 2 : 8); 
avtots Tots mustevovow (Jo. 1:12); od 6 xpivay (Jas. 4:12); Tues 
of tapacoovres (Gal. 1: 7); woddol of dpovodyres (Ph. 3:18 f.). 
Particularly in address do we find the articular participle; as in 
Mt. 7:23; 27:40; Lu. 6: 25 (but note dative in 6 : 24); Ac. 2: 
14; 13:16. The use of the articular participle with was is com- 
mon, as mas 6 dpyiCouevos (Mt. 5 : 22); ras 6 dxotwv (Mt. 7: 26), 
mas 6 Neywv (7:21). This is equal to the relative clause ras darts 
(Mt. 7:24). In Ro. 2:1 ads 6 xpivwy is used with a@vOpwre. Cf. 
mavres ot axovovtes in Ac.9:21. Here also 6 zopOjoas is continued 
by kal édnAvber as if it were a relative clause. The articular parti- 
ciple sometimes occurs where it is followed by an infinitive. Here 
it is still further complicated, but it is clear. See rv weddovcay 
ddéay atroxadudOjvar (Ro. 8 : 18); ra doxodyra wedn — brapyew (1 Cor. 
12 : 22). Cf. also 2 Pet. 3:2. The use of 6 dy in Acts calls for 
special remark. In Ac. 13:1, xara ry otcay éxxdnoiay, We see this 
idiom, which Moulton? translates ‘the local church.’ Note 14: 138 
D, 700 dvros Atos IIpordédews (or pd Toews). Cf. Ramsay’s remark 
(Ch. in Rom. Emp., p. 52, quoting J. A. Robinson), that in Acts 
6 dy “introduces some technical phrase, or some term which it 
marks out as having a technical sense (cf. 5 :17; 13 :1; 28 :17), and 
is almost equivalent to rod dvouafouevov.’? An ingenious person 
might apply this in Eph. 1:1 to the text with & ’E¢éow absent; 
but the usual view needs no defence against such an alternative. 
1 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 243. 22 Prolyspr 225. 


1108 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


With ai ofca in Ro. 13:1 we may compare Par. P. 5 (11/B.c.), 
&h’ lepéwy kal tepecdy trav dvtwv xal oladv. So N. P. 49 (ili/a.p.), 
tov ovros pnvos ‘the current month.’ The passage in Ac. 5:17 
reads % otca aipeots, and 28 : 17 has robs évras 7av lovdaiwy mpwrous. 
Moulton agrees, we may note, with Sanday and Headlam (in 
loco) in taking 6 apy él ravtwy (Ro. 9 : 5) as referring to Jesus. As 
is well known, the difficulty here is a matter of exegesis and the 
punctuation of the editor will be made according to his theology. 
But it may be said in brief that the natural way to take 6 dv and 
feds is in apposition to 6 Xpords. It is a very common thing in 
the N. T., as already noted, to have 6 and the participle where a 
relative clause is possible. But this idiom is common in the older 
Greek. See Ac. 10:18, 32, and chapter on Article. It remains 
then to speak of the frequent use of the articular participle with- 
out a substantive or pronoun. This idiom is too common for ex- 
haustive treatment, but some examples are given. Cf. Mt. 10: 
AO, 6 dexouevos twas Ee O€xXETAL, Kal O Eve OEXOuEVOS OEXETAL TOV ATOOTEI- 
NavTa we. Note also 6 dexduevos and the next verse and és ap 
motion in verse 42. See further Mt. 10:37; Ac. 10:35; Rev. 1: 
3. The question of the tense is interesting in some of these ex- 
amples, as in 6 ebpwy thy puxnv abtod arodéce airyv in Mt. 10 : 39, 
but that will be discussed a bit later. Like a relative clause, the 
articular participle may suggest! the notion of cause, condition, 
purpose, etc., as in Mt. 10 : 37, 39, 40, 41; Lu. 14:11; Ro. 3:5. 
But this notion is very indefinite. 

(c) Predicate Participle. From the adjectival standpoint all 
participles that are not attributive are predicate. This aspect of 
the participle must be elucidated further. The verbal aspect 
comes into special prominence with all the predicate participles. 
They will be touched very lightly here and receive full discussion 
under Verbal Aspects. It may be said at once that all the supple- — 
mentary and circumstantial participles are predicate. One must - 
not confuse the articular participle in the predicate like od e 6 
épxouevos (Lu. 7:19) with the real predicate participle. Cf. Lu. 
16:15; 22: 282 The predicate participle is simply the adjective 
in the predicate position. That is, it is not attributive. There 
are obviously many varieties of the predicate participle. But the 
predicate adjective has had adequate treatment. Cf. éve ye tapp- 
tnuevoy (Lu. 14:18). Cf. also Heb. 5:14; Ac. 9: 21. 

(d) The Participle as a Substantive. The adjective, though a 
variation from the substantive, is sometimes used as a substantive 

1 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 167. 21D aD LOU. 


VERBAL NOUNS (‘ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1109 


as in 76 ayalov. It is not strange, therefore, that the parti- 
ciple also shows substantival uses. These are sometimes anar- 
throus, as In dpxwy (Mt. 9:18), yyotuevos (Mt. 2:6). But, as a 
rule, the participle as a substantive is articular. Cf. Lu. 12 : 33, 
Ta trapxovtTa vuav, Where the genitive shows the substantival 
character of this participle. Cf. further 2:27 76 eiOcpévoy rod 
vouov, (1 Cor. 7:35) mpds 7d buav abr&v cupdepov, (Ph. 3:8) dra 7d 
drepexov THs yrooews, (Mt. 14 : 20) 76 repiocedov Trav KAacpaTwr, (Ro. 
7:23) 7 dvr, (Heb. 12 : 11) pds 76 rapdv, etc. There are also the 
many examples where 6 and the part. is used without a subst. or 
pron., as in Mt. 10: 39, 6 epwyv and 6 amodéoas (cf. 6 ayabés, 6 Ka- 
kos). The substantive use of the participle is a classic idiom.! 
The use of the neuter participle as an abstract substantive is not 
so common in the N. T. as in the ancient Greek.? But see further 
To yeyoves (Lu. 8 : 56), ra yuvdpmeva (9: 7), TO arodwdds (19 : 10), ra 
épxoueva (Jo. 16:13), 7d vdv Exov (Ac. 24:25), ra pH dvta, Ta SvTA 
(1 Cor. 1:28), 7d avdAotpevoy (14:7), 7d dedoEacpevov (2 Cor. 3: 10f.), 
70 doxodv (Heb. 12 : 10), etc. In Lu. 22 : 49 note 76 écduevov. One 
is not to confuse with this idiom the so-called “substantive parti- 
ciple” of some grammars, which is & term used for the substanti- 
vizing of the verbal force of the participle, not the adjectival. 
Thus Burton* calls the supplementary participle like that in 
Ac. 5:42, otk ératovro didackovres, and in Lu. 8: 46, éyrwr divayv 
éfeAnAvOviay am’ éuod, the “substantive participle.” I confess that 
I see nothing to be gained by applying “substantive” to the 
purely verbal aspects of the participle. Confusion of thought is 
the inevitable result. See 5, (d), (6). 

(e) The Participle as an Adverb. The formation of adverbs 
from participles is due to its adjectival function. Cf. dvtws (Mk. — 
11:32), duodroyoupévws (1 Tim. 3:16), brepBadddvrws (2 Cor. 11: 
23). Besides, the participle itself (cf. neuter adjective wont, etc.) 
-sometimes has an adverbial force. In particular note ruvx0v (1 
Cor. 16:6). See also ériBadrav éxdarey (Mk. 14:72). This ob- 
scure participle expresses coincident action (cf. Moulton, Prol., 
p. 131). Cf. 7\Oav oreboavres (Lu. 2:16), oreboas xaraBnOc and 
orevoas KkatéBn (19:5f.). We cannot always draw a distinction 
between this use and the circumstantial participle of manner. 
The verbal and the adjectival standpoints come together. A 
number of the grammars apply the term ‘adverbial’’ to all 
the circumstantial participles.t But it is more than doubtful if 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 331. SNe Pe Miandr Ls ps 175:4: 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p..244. 4 So Burton, N. T. M.and T., p. 169 f. 


1110 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


one gains as much as he loses thereby. It is true that logi- 
cally a sort of adverbial relation may be worked out, an adverbial 
addition to the sentence.! But it does not help much from the 
syntactical point of view to insist on this fact in the exposition of 
the circumstantial participle. As to form the circumstantial par- 
ticiple is still adjectival. The adverbial notion is inferential and 
purely logical. There is something, however, to be said for the 
adverbial aspect of the redundant participle in BNémrovres BdEreTe 
(Mt. 18:14, LXX), which is on a par with dxof axovcere. Both 
are attempts to translate the Hebrew inf. absolute. Moulton? 
has found the idiom in A’schylus and Herodotus, but the N. T. 
usage is clearly due to the LXX, where it is very common. Cf. 
also idav efdov (Ac. 7:34), evdoyGv elAoynow (Heb. 6:14), from 


the LXX again. Blass (Gr. of the N. T. Gk., p. 251) calls this 


construction ‘thoroughly un-Greek.’’ There are other pleonastic 
participles like the common dmoxpifels efrev (Mt. 3 : 15) which is 
somewhat like the vernacular: ‘“‘He ups and says’? (Moulton 
Prol., p. 15f.). Cf. also rodro eimayv Neyer (Jo. 21:19), aredOaw 
nérpaxev (Mt. 13:46), ‘he has gone and sold.’ So also dvacras 
ndbev (Lu. 15: 20), ‘he arose arid came.’ Once again note AaBodca 
évecpuppey (Mt. 18:33), ‘she took and hid.’ This idiom is more 
Aramaic than Hebraic and is at any rate picturesque vernacular. 
But it is also Greek. Pleonasm belongs to all tongues. Rader- 
macher (N. 7. Gr., p. 179) quotes Herod. VI, 67, 10, efze das; 
VI, 68, 5, én — Xeywv. Mr. Dan Crawford finds in the Bantu 
language ‘‘dying he died”’ for the irrevocableness of death. We 
now turn to the verbal aspects of the participle, which are more 
complex. 

5, VERBAL ASPECTS OF THE PARTICIPLE. 

(a) Voice. There is nothing of a distinctive nature to say about 
the voice of the participle in addition to what has already been 
said (see ch. on Voice). The voices run in the participles pre- 
cisely as in the verb itself. We find the voice in the earliest Greek 
as in the Sanskrit. All the nuances of the voices appear in the 
participle. Cf. the active in ddacxwv (Lu. 13 : 10), fav (Jo. 4 : 10); 
the middle in rpocdexouevors (Lu. 12 : 36), émixadecdpuevos (Ac. 22: 
16), cmacdpevos (Mk. 14:47); the passive in durobuevos (Mt. 19: 
22), THv amoxexpuupevny (1 Cor. 2:7), dmode\vpévoy (Heb. 13 : 23), 
excotpageis (Mk. 5:30), xwdvdéevres (Ac. 16:6). We may note 
in particular éve we aapyrnuévov (Lu. 14:18 f.), écecbe prcobmevor 
(Mt. 10 : 22) and écecbe Aadodvres (1 Cor. 14:9). In Mk. 5:26, 

1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 523. «7 Prol tpi iy fo: 


1 etal 





VERBAL NOUNS ((ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATO®) 1 Bi Bat 


tafodoa bd toANGY iatpdv, the active participle has the construc- 
tion of the passive, but this is due to the verb zacxw, not to the 
voice. Cf. also Gal. 4:9, yvovres Pedy waddov b€ yrwobEertes bd Oeod. 

(b) Tense. 

(a) Timelessness of the Participle. It may be said at once that : 
the participle has tense in'the same sense that the subjunctive, 
optative and imperative have, giving the state of the action 
as punctiliar, linear, completed. In the beginning! this was all 
that tense meant in the participle. The participle was timeless. 
Indeed the participle in itself continued timeless, as is well shown 
by the articular participle.2, Thus in Mk. 6: 14, ’Iwavns 6 Barricwr, 
it is not present time that is here given by this tense, but the gen- 
eral description of John as the Baptizer without regard to time. 
It is actually used of him after his death. Cf. of ¢nrodyres (Mt. 
2:20). In Mt. 10:39, 6 cepa aroreoe, the principal verb is future 
while the participle is aorist, but the aorist tense does not mean 
past or future time. So in Mt. 25 : 20 and 24 6 \aBwy and 6 e€idn- 
ows have no notion of time but only the state of the action. But, 
the tenses of the participle may be used for relative time. In 
relation to the principal verb there may be suggested time. Thus 
6 ebpwy aroXeoer above implies that ebpwy is antecedent to amodéce 
which is future. In Ac. 24:11, avé8nv rpocxvyjowr, the principal 
verb is past, but the participle is relatively future, though abso- 
lutely past. The relative time of the participle approximates 
the indicative mode and is able to suggest antecedent (aorist, 
present, perfect tenses), simultaneous (aorist, present tenses) and 
subsequent (present, future tenses) action. The tenses of the 
participle must be studied with this distinction in mind. But 
this notion of relative time ‘‘is deeply imbedded in the nature of + 
the participle and the use is universal.’’* Certainly this notion 
of relative time is more obvious in the Greek participle than in 
the Latin or in the modern languages.*' In the chapter on Tense 
the participial tenses were treated with reasonable completeness, 
but some further remarks are necessary at this point. A word 
needs to be said about the idiom oiros jv 6 eimwyv (Jo. 1:15), 
ovros nv 6—Kabjuevos (Ac. 3:10), where the principal verb is 
thrown into the past. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 522. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 126. He notes Heb. 10: 14, robs ay.afouevous, as a good 
ex. of the timelessness of the part. 

$ Gildersl., Synt. of Class. Gk., Pt. I, p. 139. 

4 W.-M., p. 427. 


, 


1112 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(8) The Aorist. The Aktionsart of the aorist participle is suf- 
ficiently illustrated in the discussion of the aorist tense. There is, 
of course, no reason for not having the constative, ingressive or 
effective aorist in the participle. Schaefer? argues that in most 
cases the participle uses the effective aorist. That may be true, 
though there is nothing in the nature of the participle itself to 
cause it. Blass? thinks that the aorist participle contains the idea 
of completion, but even so that notion may be merely constative 
or ingressive. Goodwin‘ holds that the aorist participle generally 


_ represents the action as antecedent to the principal verb. Bur- 
_ ton® has it more nearly correct when he insists that the aorist par- 


ticiple conceives of the event indefinitely or simply. So Blass® 
denies that the aorist tense implies antecedent action. It is usu- 
ally assumed that the proper use of the aorist participle is ante- 
cedent action and that only certain verbs (as exceptions) may 
occasionally express simultaneous action. But this is a misappre- 
hension of the real situation. It is doubtless true, as Burton’ 
notes, that the antecedent use furnishes the largest number of 
instances, but that fact does not prove priority or originality of 
conception. ‘‘The aorist participle of antecedent action does 
not denote antecedence; it is used of antecedent action, where 
antecedence is implied, not by the aorist tense as a tense, but in 
some other way.’’® Moulton® is equally explicit: ‘‘The connota- 
tion of past time was largely fastened on this participle, through 
the idiomatic use in which it stands before an aorist indicative to 
qualify its action. As point action is always completed action, 
except in the ingressive, the participle naturally came to involve 
past time relative to that of the main verb.’ { It is probable that 
the original use of the aorist participle was that of simultaneous 
action. From this was developed quite naturally, by the nature 
of the various cases, the antecedent notion. Cf. vnoreboas éreivacey 
(Mt. 4:2) where the fasting expressed by the participle is given 
as the reason for the hungering expressed by the principal verb. 
For further examples of antecedent action see Mt. 2:14; 2:16; 
27:3; 2 Cor. 2:18. For the articular aorist see Mt. 10 : 39; Lu. 
12:47; Jo.5:15. While this came to be the more common idiom 


1 Schaefer, Das Partizip des Aoristes bei den Tragikern, 1894, p. 5. 
eal by: > Greof Ne TvGk plore 

4 M. and T., p. 48. So Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48. 

5 UN. TT .2M eandela no: 

6 GruotlyNeEsGkeepalor 5 Ib: 

7 Nien po ° Prope ous 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1113 


from the nature of the case, the original use of the aorist participle 
for simultaneous action continued. One has no ground for as- 
suming that antecedent action is a necessary or an actual fact 
with the aorist participle! The aorist participle of simultaneous 
action is in perfect accord with the genius and history of the 
Greek participle. For numerous examples of both uses see the 
chapter on Tense. A good instance is seen in Mt. 27:4, juap- 
Tov tapadov’s aiva a0Gov. So also brodtaBay efrev (Lu. 10:30). See 
Ac. 2:23, rotrov mpoomnétavres aveikare, where the slaying was 
manifestly done by the impaling on the cross. The two actions 
are identical per se. Moulton (Prol., p. 131) observes that when 
the verb precedes the aorist participle it is nearly always the 
participle of coincident action. He (Prol., p. 1382) cites O. P. 
530 (11/A.D.), €& Gv dwoers — AUTPwWoacd ov Ta iuatia. It so happens 
that the N. T. shows a great number of such examples. See Mk. 
15:30 c&cov xataBas, (Lu. 2:16) A\Oavy oretcarvtes, (Ac. 10 : 33) 
Kadas éroinoas tapayevouevos. Cf. Mt. 26:75. In Ac. 10: 29, 7dOor 
perarreupbeis, the participle is antecedent in idea. Acts, however, 
is particularly rich in examples of the coincident aorist participle 
which follows the verb. See 10:39; 11:30; 13:33; 15:8, 9; 
Pere ooo 415-820. LO satis im point of tact a 
characteristic of Luke’s style to use frequently the coincident 
participle (both aorist and present) placed after the principal 
verb. This fact completely takes away the point of Sir W. M. 
Ramsay’s argument? for the aorist of subsequent action in Ac. 
16:6, where, however, it is more probably antecedent action, as 
is possible in Ac. 23:22. The argument made against it under 
Tense need not be repeated here.* Burton assents* to the no- 
tion of the aorist of ‘‘subsequent”’ action in the participle, but no 
real parallels are given. I have examined in detail the N. T. ex- 
amples adduced and shown the lack of conclusiveness about them 
all. See chapter on Tense. It is even claimed that subsequent 
action is shown by the participles (present as well as aorist) in 
AGeoesO On Lie orlOwel8, 14.222) 17226; 18 : 23; 28,14, but 
with no more evidence of reality. Actual examination of each 
passage shows the action to be either simultaneous or antecedent. 
See also Lu. 1:9, Aaxe Tod Oupwadcar cicehOav eis Tov vadv, where it 
is obviously coincident. The same thing is true of Heb. 11: 27, 
karéXurey Alyurrov, un doBnbeis. Cf. also Ac. 7:35 dv jpyjoayro 
1 Moulton, Prol., p. 131. 2 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 212. 


3 See Ballentine, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1884, p. 787, for discussion of N. T. exx. 
CN cl Meand<le,. p265. 


1114. A GRAMMAR OF ‘THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


eixévres, (13:22) efrev paptupjoas. A case like 1 Pet. 1:20f. is 
not, of course, pertinent. However, the common use of the aorist 
participle in indirect discourse (as with all the supplementary 
participles) without any notion of time is to the point. So Ac. 
9:12, efdev avdpa eloeNOovta kal éerievta. SO Cewpovy tov Laravayv 
recovra (Lu. 10:18). The action: is purely punctiliar with no 
notion of time at all. It is true that the articular participle is 
occasionally used (see chapter on Tense) for time past to the time 
of the writer, but future to the time of the principal verb. As 
a matter of fact this aorist participle is timeless, as is shown by 
the use of 6 rapado’s in Mt. 10:4 and 6 mapaédidols in 26:25. So 
6 elroy in Jo. 5:12; 6 rornoas 5:15; 4 adeivaca 11:2. It is the 
action alone that is under consideration, not the time of its 
performance. See, per contra, 6 yvobs — kal ph éToudoas 7 mown- 
cas dapnoerat (Liu. 12:47) where the aorist participle gives the 
simple action with a future verb. Cf. Lu. 6:49 for the articular 
aorist part. with the present indicative. Burton! feels the weak- 
ness of his contention for “subsequent” action in the aorist 
participle when he explains that it is “perhaps due to Aramaic 
influence.’ There is no need for an appeal to that explanation, 
since the fact does not exist. It is only in the circumstantial par- 
ticiple that any contention is made for this notion. It is certainly 
gratuitous to find subsequent action in Ro. 4 :19, uy acbevnoas tH 
mioTe. Katevonoev, NOt to mention 4:21; Ph. 2:7; Heb. 9:12. 
Burton reluctantly admits that, though in 1 Pet. 3:18 fwozoiy- 
Geis is “‘clearly subsequent to aréebaver,”’ yet it “is probably to be 
taken together with @avarwhels as defining the whole of the pre- 
ceding clause.” This latter view is, of course, true, since the order 
of the participles is @avatwheis, Cworonfeis. The timelessness of the 
aorist participle is well shown in Jo. 16 : 2, 6 dmoxreivas [buds] d6£n 
Aatpelav mpoodepev 7H Oecd. Cf. also ayayovra — rederdoar (Heb. 
2:10). This coincident use of the aorist participle is by no 
means so rare in the ancient Greek as is sometimes alleged 
The action was specially likely to be coincident. if the principal 
verb was also aorist.* Like the other articular participles, the 
aorist participle may be the practical equivalent of the relative. 
So in Lu. 12:8 f. ds av déuoroyjoe and 6 dpyncdpevos are used side 
by side. 
4 Nee. VC anda 06: 
2 See Leo Meyer, Griech. Aor., p. 125. 


* Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 140. See Seymour, The Use of the Gk. Aorist 
Part., Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc., XII, p. 88 f. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) ele 


(y) The Present. As the aorist participle is timeless and punc- . 


tiliar, so the present participle is timeless and durative. The 
participle is thus, like the infinitive, ahead of the present indica- 
tive, which does not distinguish between punctiliar and durative 
action. A careful treatment of the force of the present participle 
has been given under Tense. The real timelessness of this parti- 
ciple is shown in the fact that it is used indiscriminately with 
past, present or future tenses of the indicative. So mtwdodprres 
épepov (Ac. 4:34); amobvncxwv edd\oynoev (Heb. 11:21); xairep av 
vids Euabev (Heb. 5:8); pepmuvdy dbvarar (Mt. 6 : 27); écecbe Nadodv- 
tes (1 Cor. 14:9). The articular present especially shows the 
absence of time. So of doxodyres ovdev mpocavébevto (Gal. 2 : 6); 
mpoceTiber Tos swouevous (Ac. 2:47); 6 dexouevos buds eue d€xETaL 
(Mt. 10:40); éc0iere Ta: raparieueva (Lu. 10:8); 6 Breruv & 7h 
Kpudaiw amodwce (Mt. 6:18). There will be Aktionsart in this 
participle also. Some of these words are really punctiliar (6€xo- 
wat, for instance). But, in general, the present participle gives 
linear action. The present participle may have relative time. 


This relative time is usually simultaneous or coincident. This : 


is only natural. Sometimes, however, this relative time may be 
antecedent action, a classic idiom.! Examples of this idiom were 
given under Tense, but add Jo. 9:8, of Oewpodyres 7d mpdrepor, 
where the adverb of time helps to throw the partigiple back of 
éXeyov, aS apte With BAerw makes the verb later than tu¢dds Sy in 9: 
25. Cf. also Gal. 1: 23, 6 dtaxwv quds ore viv ebayyediferar, Where 
both participle and verb have adverbs of time by way of contrast. 
For other instances like these see Mt. 9: 20=Mk. 5: 25=Lu. 8: 
Bb Womor eo Acres LOE 22133 Colo 1: 2131 Tim? 12138, ete: 
There are also undoubted instances of the present participle to 
express the notion of purpose, futuristic in conception, though 
present in form. Add to the instances already given the follow- 
ing: Mk. 3:31, ¢&@ ornxovres aréorerkayv Kadodvres. Here the first 
participle is only noticeable as the usual linear action (with aorist 
indicative). The second participle, however, is practically pur- 
pose. ‘They sent to him calling him.’ ‘They sent to call him.’ 
So also Lu. 18:6 7\Mev fnradv, (13:7) Epxouae fnrdv. It is not 
strictly true that here the present participle means future or 
subsequent time. It is only that the purpose goes on coincident 
with the verb and beyond. This prospective present part. (cf. 
present ind.) appears in Ac. 21:3, jv amodoprifduevov tov youor. 
‘The ship was appointed to unload her cargo.’ Cf. Mt. 6:30; 
1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 47; Gildersl., Synt., Part I, p. 139. 


< 


1116 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1133: 26328; Lut O: ele Corm 5.5/5 acto uel een meme 
The future is ‘simulated’! also by the present participle when 
it is used for conative action. It is, of course, not the participle 
that brings out this notion. See (Mt. 23 : 14) ovdé robs eicepxope- 
vous adlere eicedOetv, (27:40) 6 Katadtwy rov vadv, (Ac. 28 : 23) zel- 
dwv abrots. The notion of repetition (iterative present) occurs 
also as in Ac. 2:47, rpocerifer tovs swfoueévous, ‘kept adding those 
saved from time to time.’ So wwdodvres éhepov kal eriBovy (Ac. 4: 
34). ‘They would from time to time sell and bring and place 
at the feet of the apostles.’ There is thus a sharp contrast from 
the specific instance of Barnabas, of whom it is said: twdjcas 
iveyxev (4:37). It is not clear, however, why the present parti- 
ciple occurs in 3:8, é£adddpevos Earn kal meprewarer, unless it is to 
note that he kept on leaping and walking (alternately). Cf. this 
notion in verse 8, wepitarav kal adddouevos. Cf. also in 5:5, dxobwv 
mrecwy e€ebvéev, where reowr is antecedent to the verb, but dxobwy is 
descriptive (linear). The notion of distribution is perhaps pres- 
ent in Heb. 10 : 14, rods ayratouevous, ‘the objects of sanctification.’ 2 
Certainly 6 x\érrwy is iterative in Eph. 4:28. Cf. Ac. 1:20; 
Col. 2:8. It is interesting to note the difference between the 
present and the aorist participle in Mt. 16: 28, éws av téiwow Tov vidv 
ToD avOpwrou épxouevovy, and in Ac. 9: 12, efdev avdpa eiceNOdvTa. The 
perfect participle of the same verb and in the same construction 
occurs in Mk. 9:1, éws adv tdwow tiv Bacirelay Tod Beod EAXndvOViav 
ev duvauer. The three tenses of the participle of zit7w may also 
be illustrated by the punctiliar notion of the aorist in reodvra in 
Lu. 10:18, the durative notion of murrovrwy in Mt. 15: 27 and 
of rimrovres in Mk. 13:25, the perfect notion of rerrwxdra in 
Rev. 9:1. 

(6) The Perfect. This tense brings little that is distinctive in 
the participle. Cf. rereNecwpevor (Jo. 17: 23), wemounxdres (18: 18), 
mpotpatws éedndvbora (Ac. 18:2), Kkexomiaxws (Jo. 4:6), rerrwxdra 
(Rev. 9:1), édndvO67a (1 Jo. 4:2), 6 eikndws (Mt. 25:24). The 
distinction between intensive and extensive was drawn under 
Tense. Some of the intensive uses have lost the notion of 
completion (punctiliar) and hold on to the linear alone in the 
present sense. Cf. éorws eiuc (Ac. 25:10), efdms (Mt. 12 : 25) 
with which contrast of éyrwdres (2 Jo. 1), cuvedvins (Ac. 5: 2), 
teOvnkos (Lu. 7:12), wapecrnxws (Jo. 18:22). The periphrastic 
use of the perfect participle in past, present and future time 
has been sufficiently illustrated already. So has the rare com- 

1 Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 140. 2 Moulton, Prol., p. 127. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATO®) 1117 


bination of perfect and present participle in Eph. 4:18; Col. 
1:21. The perfect participle also is either articular or anar- 
throus, attributive or predicate. For the predicate use see in 
particular Lu. 13:6 ouxny efxév tis reputevuevnv, (Heb. 5: 14) ra 
aidOnrnpia yeyuuvacpeva éxovTwy. It needs to be noted again that 
the perfect participle has no time in itself. In the nature of the 
case the act will be antecedent except where the tense has lost 
its true force as in éorws, reOvnkws, eidws. But it is only relative 
time, not absolute, and the leading verb may itself be punctiliar, 
linear or perfect, in the past, present or future.!. Just as the 
present participle may suggest antecedent action and so be a sort 
of “imperfect” participle (past time), so the perfect participle is 
sometimes? used where a sort of past perfect sense results. The 
action was finished and is now no longer the fact, though the 
state represented by the perfect once existed. So émi 7 cup BeBy- 
kore avTS in Ac. 3:10. Cf. Mk. 5:15, Oewpodow rov datmoriCduevov 
Kabnuevoy tuatiopevov Kal owdpovodyta, Tov éoxnKoTa TOV eyLava, Kal 
éhoBnOnoav. This is a most instructive passage. The historical 
present and the aorist indicative here occur side by side. The 
attributive and the predicate participles appear side by side. The 
present and the perfect participles come together. Of the two per- 
fect participles, one, iuaticpevor, is still true (punctiliar plus linear) 
and describes the man’s present state; the other, tov éoxnKora, is 
no longer true and describes the state of the man before Jesus 
cast out the demon, which casting-out is itself in the past. This 
participle is therefore a sort of past perfect. Cf. also Jo. 8:31. 
Another striking example is Jo. 11:44, €&\Me 6 reOvnkas dede- 
pevos. Here dedeuevos is still true, though reOyynxws is not. Lazarus 
had been dead, but is not now. We see the same situation in 1 
Cor. 2:7, tiv amoxexpuyypernv. The widsom of God is no longer 
hidden. The point is still clearer in Ro. 16 : 25 f., wvornpiov xpo- 
vous aiwvious ceorynuevov davepwhevtos dé viv, Where the long silence is 
now expressly said to be broken. Note the sharp contrast in the 
aorist participle with viv. This distinction between the perfect 
and aorist participle is often clearly drawn. See 2 Cor. 12: 21 
TOV TponpapTynKoTwY Kal wn meTavonoavTwy, (1 Pet. 2:10) of otk 7Xen- 
pevot viv dé éXenBevtes. The sme act may be looked at from either 
standpoint. One may not always care to add the linear aspect 
to the punctiliar. Cf. 6 yeyernuevos and 6 yevynfeis in 1 Jo. 5:18, 
Tov éoxnkota Tov deyrova in Mk. 5:15 and 6 datuonobeis in 5: 18, 


1 Cf. Gildersl., Synt., Pt. I, p. 142. 
2 Cf. Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 72. 


1118 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


6 AaBov in Mt. 25:18 and 6 eiAndws in 25: 24. Cf. eyrav dbvamy 
éfeAndvOutav am’ euod (Lu. 8:46) and émcyvods tiv €& abtod dbvauw 
éfeModcavy (Mk. 5:30). Adverbs of time may occur with the 
perfect as with other tenses of the participle. Cf. Jo. 19:33, 46n 
reOvnxéra. There is a sort of harmony in 6 éwpaxas pewapripnKer 
(19:35). The difference between the perfect and present tenses 
after efSov is strikingly shown in Revelation. Cf. efdov ras Puyxas 


tov eodayuevwv (6:9), addAov ayyedov avaBaivovta (7:2), dorepa ex 


Tod ovpavod wemtwkora (9:1). Cf. also Mk. 5:33, GoBnOetca kal 
Tpéuovoa, eldvia. One must not confuse the perf. part. in Gal. 
2:11 and Rev. 21:8 with a present like YyrAadwuérw in Heb. 
12 : 18 (‘touchable’). 

(ce) The Future. The future participle, like the future tense in 
general, was later in its development than the other tenses. It 
is usually punctiliar also and has something of a modal value 
(volitive, futuristic) like the subjunctive (aorist).!. See discussion 
under Tense. The future participle is always subsequent in 
time to the principal verb (cf. the present participle by sugges- 
tion), not coincident and, of course, never antecedent. Hence 
the future participle comes nearer having a temporal notion than 
any of the tenses. But even so it is relative time, not absolute, 
and the future participle may occur with a principal verb in the 
past, present or future. This idiom grew out of the context and 
the voluntative notion of the future tense.2 This point is well 
illustrated by the parallel use of ué\\wy to express intention. Cf. 
6 Tapadwowr abrov (Jo. 6 : 64) and 6 peddAwy abrov mapadiddvar (12 : 4). 
As already shown, the future participle is much less frequent in 
the N. T. (as in LXX) than in the xown generally (as in the 
papyri). Another rival to the future participle is épxédpyevos 
(Jo. 1:9), 6 éoxduevos (Lu. 7:19). Both perrAw and épxouar (cf. 
elu) are anticipatory presents.? Cf. &ecr&ra and pwéddovta in Ro. 
8:38. Nearly all the N. T. examples of the future participle 
(see chapter on Tense for discussion) are in Luke and Paul and 
Hebrews (the three best specimens of literary style in the N. T.). 
But see Mt. 27:49, cwowv; Jo. 6: 64, 6 rapadwowp; 1ePetese 
13, 6 kaxwowv. For the Gospel of Luke see 22:49, 76 écduevor. 
The rest of his examples are in the Acts, as 8:27, mpockv- 
vnowv, (20:22) ra cuvavtncovra, (22:5) a&fwv, (24:11) rpockurh- 
owv, (24:17) roujnowv. For Paul see Ro. 8 : 34, 6 xataxpuwdv (a 

1 Cf. Delbriick, Synt. Forsch., IV, p. 97. 


2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 523. 
* There is an expectant note in 76 éxvvyduevov (Mt. 26 : 28). 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1119 


question of editing, but cf. 6 dro#avwy in verse 34), 1 Cor. 15 : 37, 
TO yevnoouevov. For Heb. see 3:5, trav AadnPnoouerwy, (13 : 17) 
amodwaovtes. We find as in Heb. 13:17. In conclusion one must 
note that the future part. disappeared wholly from the later 
Greek. The modern Greek does not know it at all. Instead it 
uses va and the subjunctive.! But in general in the N. T. the 
participle is still used in thorough accord with the ancient idiom 
so far as the tenses are concerned.” In the papyri I note it more 
frequently than in the N. T. Cf. xoworoynodpuevov, P. Goodsp. 4 
(ii/B.c.); ra — [c|rabnodueva, P. Th. 33 (B.c. 112). 

(c) Cases. There is no need to tarry here to prove the verbal 
force of the participle as to cases. Precisely the same cases occur 
with the participle as with the finite modes of the verb. Cf. 
éxBadov mavtas (Mk. 5:40) and kparnoas ris xerpds Tod matdiou (5: 
41). These illustrations illustrate the point and that is enough. 

(d) The Supplementary Participle. The term supplementary 
or complementary is used to describe the participle that forms 
so close a connection with the principal verb that the idea of the 
speaker is incomplete without it. The participle does not differ 
in reality from the adjective in this respect, and it is still an 
adjective like miorés pevee (2 Tim. 2:13). But it is the verbal 
aspect of the participle that is here accented. The participle fills 
out the verbal notion. 

(a) The Pertphrastic Construction. The general aspects of this 
idiom were treated in chapter on Tense (cf. also Conjugation of 
Verbs). It is only necessary here to stress the close connection 
between this participle and the principal verb as in jy éxBadrdAwvy 
datuoviov kwpov (Lu. 11:14). In Ac. 19 : 36, déov éoriv buds Katerrad- 
meévous brapxewv, We have two examples of this idiom. Cf. Lu. 
13:11. Sometimes we find the periphrastic participle alone 
without the copula as in éfdy (Ac. 2: 29), ei déov (1 Pet. 1: 6). 
But note éfov jv (Mt. 12:4) and déov éoriv (Ac. 19: 36). So mpeéroy 
éoriv (Mt. 3:15). Particularly interesting is eiow yeyovores (Heb. 
7:23). The periphrastic participle, as already noted, was far 
more common in the N. T. and the LXX than in the older Greek. 
But the reverse is true of certain verbs frequently so used in the 
Attic. Radermacher* thinks that the commonness of the peri- 
phrastic participle in the N. T. is due to the rhetorical tendency. 


i Ci veboan Vandel) DaceD. 

2 The fut. part. is rare in the inser. Cf. Granit, De Inf. et Partic. in Inscr. 
Dial. Graec. Questiones Synt., 1892, p. 122. 

* Nw eGk p66: 


1120 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


This might apply to Hebrews, but surely not to the Synoptic Gos- 
pels and Acts. Moulton (Prol., p. 226) admits that the Semitic 
sources of part of the Gospels and Acts account for the frequency 
of the periphrastic imperf. (cf. Aramaic). Certainly the LXX is 
far ahead of the classic Greek and of the xow7 in general. The 
papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 226) show it often in fut. perfects and 
in past perfects. Schmid (Attic., III, p. 113 f.) finds it rare in 
literary cow save in fut. perfects. Moulton finds periphr. imperf. 
in Matthew 3 times, Mark 16, Luke 30, John 10, Acts (1-12) 17, 
Acts (13-28) 7, Paul 8. And even so some of these examples are 
more adjectival than periphrastic. Cf. Ph. 2:26. See p. 888. 
(8) A Diminution of the Complementary Participle. This de- 
crease is due partly to the infinitive as with apxouat, doxew. See 
discussion in this chapter on Relation between the Inf. and the 
Participle. But it is due also to the disappearance of the per- 
sonal construction and the growth of the impersonal with 67: or 
wa. In Mk. 2:1, eiceMav rad cis Kadapvaodp be’ nuepav nxovaby 
bre €v olkw éotiv, the personal construction is retained even with 
the circumstantial participle. Cf. also 2 Cor. 3:3, davepotvmevor 
Ort EoTe ErtaToNy Xptotov. But it is vanishing with the verbs where 
it was once so common. See under Infinitive, 5, (e), for further re- 
marks. Jannaris! has made a careful study of the facts in the later 
Greek. It may be noted that otxouac does not occur at all in the 
N. T., though the LX X (and Apocrypha) has it 24 times, twice 
with the inf. It disappeared from the vernacular. As to rvyxdavw 
it occurred only once with the participle (2 Macc. 3:9). It has 
the inf. as well as iva (va) in the later Greek, though it is very 
abundant with the participle in the papyri.2 Cf. r[uy]yxaver Netdos 
pewv, P. B. M. 84 (ii/a.p.). But tvyxavw didros without dy occurs 
also in the kown (Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 169). Curiously 
enough davfavw appears once with the participle in the LXX 
(Tob. 12: 13) as in the N. T. (Heb. 13:2). In the xow# the inf. 
supplants the part. as it had already gained a foothold in the old 
Greek.’ Note also the adverb as in AdOpa éxB8addovorr (Ac. 16: 37). 
Piavw continued in use through the xow7, but with the sense of 
‘arrive,’ ‘reach,’ not the idiomatic one ‘arrive before.’ This latter 
notion appears in zpoddavw (cf. mpodauBavw), which has it once 
only in the N. T. (Mt. 17: 25), while the inf. is seen in zpoé\aBev 
uvpioat (Mk. 14:8). As early as Thucydides the inf. is found with 
d¢avw, and see also 1 Ki. 12:18. It is common in the xow7.4 The 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 493. § Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 493. 
2 Moulton, Prol., p. 228. 4 Ib., p. 494. 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATO®) 1121 


tendency to reverse the construction by using one of these verbs 
in the participial form is seen in rvx6v (participial adverb) in 1 
Cor. 16:6. It is possible that dativouar still shows the participial 
construction in Mt. 6:16, 18, but not in Ro. 7:13, where the 
participle is circumstantial, not complementary. The impersonal 
construction gains! on the personal in the xow7. In the N. T. we 
no longer have 6fNos eiui nor davepds eiut. But we do have ebpeby 
éxovoa In Mt. 1:18. “Apyouae has lost the part. in the N. T., but 
tbrapxw holds on to it, but not in the sense of ‘begin,’ rather of 
‘existing.’ Cf. both adjective and part. in Jas. 2:15 and 1 Tim. 
4:3. It tends to sink into the level of eiui as an auxiliary verb 
with the periphrastic participle, as in Ac. 8:16; 19:36. The same 
thing is true of zpovrapxw in Lu. 23:12, but not in Ac. 8:9 where 
payevwv is circumstantial. We have seen that zavoua is true to 
the part. (cf. Lu. 5:4; Ac. 5:42, etc.) and that the part. occurs 
also with émpévw (Jo. 8:7), reAXew (Mt. 11:1), and that draTerew 
has the adj. without ay (Ac. 27:33). Cf. also écaXetrw in Lu. 7: 45. 
See also the part. with éyxaxéw in Gal. 6:9; 2 Th. 3:18. The 
part. with xaprepew in Heb. 11:27 is circumstantial, as is that 
with dvéxouae in 1 Cor. 4:12 and with xayurw in Heb. 12:3. The 
doubtful participle with pavéavw in 1 Tim. 5:13 has already been 
discussed (Relation between Inf. and Part., 3, (d)). Moulton? 
is positive that the absolute construction advocated by Weiss is 
intolerable and that we must either admit the supplementary 
participle here or boldly insert e?vac with Blass. Moulton? is 
probably right in opposing the incorrectness of the part. with e 
mpaoow in Ac. 15:29, €& dv dtarnpodyres éavTovs eb mpagere. At 
bottom this is the same idiom as we have in 10:33, kadd@s éroin- 
cas mapayevouevos. Cf. also Ph. 4:14; 2 Pet. 1:19; 3 Jo. 6. Blass‘ 
is right in including here ri movetre Nbovtes (Mk. 11:5), ri rrovetre 
kdatovtes (Ac. 21:13), juaprov rapadols (Mt. 27 : 4). 

(y) Verbs of Emotion. As a matter of fact it is not beyond 
controversy that the part. with these verbs of emotion is the 
supplementary and not the circumstantial participle. At any 
rate the idiom comes to the border-line between the two con- 
structions. I do not wish to labour the point and so treat the 
construction as complementary. The connection is not, however, 
so close with these verbs as is true of those in the two preceding 
lists. Indeed, the connection varies with different verbs and with 
the same verb in different contexts. It seems clear enough in 


Sillty 3 Ib., p. 228 f. 
2 Prol., p. 229, “Gr, of Nw. Gk. p.246. 


1122 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ac. 16:34, nyaddtdoaro remiorevkws, and in 2 Pet. 2:10, ob rpéuov- 
ow Brachnuotyres. The examples with ayavaxréw (Mt. 21: 15, etc.) 
and yaipw (Mt. 2:10, etc.) all seem to be circumstantial.1. The 
same thing is true of \vréw. The participle does not occur in the 
N. T. with aicxtvoua. The step over to the circumstantial parti- 
ciple of manner or cause is not very far to take.? 

(5) Indirect Discourse. This participle is clearly supplementary 
and in the N. T. is usually connected with the object of the prin- 
cipal verb. The nom.’ of the part. éxovca appears with the pas- 
sive eipéOn in Mt. 1:18 as noted above. The active in the N. T. 
would have had 67: and the ind., if the reference was to Mary. 
The classic Greek could have said etpev éxovoa, but the N. T. 
Greek, evpev 67 Exe. Cf. also ebpeBels ws GvOpwros in Ph. 2:8. 
But 1 Tim. 5:13 has to be noted. This subject was treated in 
detail under Indirect Discourse (see Modes). See that discussion 
for details about the different verbs, some of which, besides the 
participial construction, may instead use the inf. or é7. and the 
indicative. Here it is sufficient to give enough illustrations of 
this participle in indirect discourse with verbs of mental action 
to show the real complementary nature of the participle. The 
tense, of course, represents the tensé of the direct. With most 
of these verbs (especially* oféa, uarOavw, duodroyew) the participle 
is giving way to the inf. or 67, but still the idiom is common 
enough to attract notice in all parts of the N. T. Cf. yetvwoxe 
caurov é€ov7a, P. B. M. 356 (i/a.p.). It is common to explain this 
participle as the object of the principal verb after the analogy of 
the inf. in indirect discourse. So J annaris® calls it “the objective 
participle” and Burton® ‘‘the substantive participle as object.” 
Blass’ more correctly perceives that it is the substantive or pro- 
noun that is the object while the participle is a predicate adjec- 
tive agreeing with this object. It is easy to see this point where 
no indirect discourse occurs, as in Heb. 7: 24, dmapdBarov xe rhv 
tepwatynv, Where éxw does not mean to ‘opine’ and where the 
verbal adj. occurs. But see the participle in 5:14, ray ra ducOy- 
THpia yeyumvacueva éxovtwy, or, Still better, Lu. 14:18, exe pe rapy- 
Tnuevov, Where éxw means ‘consider’ and we have the participle. 


1 Blass, Groof Ni DL, Gk. 245: 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 495. 

3 Blass, ib., p. 247. 

* The pap. show the same tendency. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 229. See Ra- 
dermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 169. 

> Hs Gk Gr. phaor 

S No DeMeandy. anai7o: 76Gro OfSN AEL atria 





VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1123 


Cf. Mk. 3:1; Ac. 9:21, tva dedeuévous abrods ayayn. See also 24: 27. 
Then note Ph. 2:3, &ddAndovs Hyobuevor brepexovtas.1 The addition 
of ws does not change the real construction as in rods NoyrCoueévous 
Nuas ws KaTa oapka mepiratovytas, 2 Cor. 10:2; as exOpov iyetobe, 
2 Th. 3:15. In principle it is the double accusative, too common 
with some verbs, only the second acc. is a predicate adj., not a 
substantive. Cf. Ro. 10:9 (margin of W. H.), éav duoroynons 
kiptov “Incody, and 2 Jo. 7, duoroyobvres “Incody Xpiorov épxdpevov ev 
capxt. ‘The presence or absence of the copula does not materially 
change the construction when an adj. or substantive is the second 
acc. Thus note 2 Cor. 8:22, dv eoxiudcapyey orovdatoy dyra, and 
Mk. 6: 20, eldas aitov avdpa dixacov. So we have no part. after 
ErvoveIT) Gl OU Vite 20 1s 00,09) °AC.18 223° 177216. Blass? 
calls this an ‘‘ellipse’”’ of the participle, an idiom common in 
classical Greek. It is hardly necessary to appeal to the ‘‘ellipse”’ 
to explain it. The predicate force of dvta comes out well in 
Ac. 8:23. If no substantive or adjective is used, the participle 
is itself the full predicate and represents the predicate of the 
direct discourse. Cf. Mk. 12:28 dkotvoas attév cvvfnrotvtwr, (Lu. 
8:46) éyvwr divamy é£edAndvOvtav ax’ Euod. The point to note is that 
even here in indirect discourse, where the participle represents the 
verb of the direct, the participle is still an adjective though the 
verbal force has become prominent. The examples are too nu- 
merous to discuss in detail or even to quote in full. As represen- 
tative examples see Mt. 16:28 after efdov (€pxouevov, but Mk. 9: 
1 has édnAvévtav), Mk. 5:30 after érvywaookw, 7:30 after ebpicxw 
(cf. also Lu. 23 : 2), Lu. 10:18 after dewpew (cf. in particular Ac. 
7:56), Jo. 1:38 after @edouar, 7:32 after axolw, Ac. 19:35 after 
ywookw, 24:10 after éricrayar, Heb. 2:9 after Brerw, Heb. 13 : 23 
after yuwwoxw, 2 Cor. 8: 22 after doxuatw, Ph. 2: 3 after Fyéoua, 
2 Jo. 7 after duodoyew. The punctiliar idea is present as in ze- 
covra in Lu. 10:18, or the linear as in éyyifovcay (Heb. 10 : 25), 
or the perfected state as in rertwxora (Rev. 9:1). Cf. also Ac. 
2:11; 24:18; Mk. 9:38; 1 Jo.4:2. Burton® explains as “the 
substantive participle” (see 4, (d)) also Jo. 4 : 39, 77s yuvaixds wap- 
tupovons, and Heb. 8:9, év juepa éertAaBouevov pov. ‘The first ex- 
ample is really the attributive participle like rod rpodnrov Neyortos 
(Mt. 21:4). The second example is more difficult, but it is a 
quotation from the LXX (Jer. 31:32) and is not therefore a 
model of Greek. The pou has to be taken with juepa and the 


1 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 359 ff. 
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 246. Se Neale; aNd bss Del 1O. 


1124 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


participle would be a circumstantial temporal use. It is prob- 
ably suggested by the original Hebrew, as Moulton (Prol., p. 47) 
admits. Cf. Barn. 2 : 28, & jpepa evreckapevou cov atta. Cf. emi 
mapovow tyuerv, B. G. U. 287 (a.p. 250). The reference of Burton 
to Josephus, Ant. 10, 4. 2, does not justify the interpretation which 
he gives. 

(e) The Circumstantial Participle or Participial Clauses. 

(a) The General Theory. There is but one difference between 


‘the supplementary and the circumstantial participle. It lies in 


~ 


the fact that the circumstantial participle is an additional state- 
ment and does not form an essential part of the verbal notion 
of the principal verb. The circumstantial participle may be re- 
moved and the sentence will not bleed. It is still a true parti- 
ciple, predicate adjective as well as circumstantial addition to the 
verb. In point of agreement the circumstantial may be related 
to the subject of the principal verb or the object, or indeed any 
other substantive or pronoun in the sentence. It may have also 
an independent construction with a substantive or pronoun of its 
own (genitive or accusative absolute) or have no substantive or 
pronoun at all. Once again the participle may be so indepen- 
dent as to form a sentence of its own and not merely be a sub- 
ordinate clause. See the section on The Independent Participle 
asaSentence. Here we are dealing with the independent participle 
in a subordinate clause with various stages of independency from 
mere addition and agreement with a substantive or pronoun to 
complete isolation though still subordinate. Some of the gram- 
mars, Burton! for instance, call this the ‘adverbial’ participle. 
There is a slight element of truth here, but only so far as there is 
a sort of parallel with the subordinate conjunctional clauses which 
are adverbial (cf. é7e, Wva, ws, etc.). But it is distinctly misleading 
to treat this participle as adverbial. In fact, there is a constant 
tendency to read into this circumstantial participle more than is 
there. In itself, it must be distinctly noted, the participle does 
not express time, manner, cause, purpose, condition or conces- 
sion. These ideas are not? in the participle, but are merely sug- 
gested by the context, if at all, or occasionally by a particle like 
dua, els, Kkairep, more, viv, ws. There is no necessity for one 
to use the circumstantial participle. If he wishes a more pre- 
cise note of time, cause, condition, purpose, ete., the various 
subordinate clauses (and the infinitive) are at his command, 
besides the co-ordinate clauses. The vernacular increasingly 
LNT. Mo andcly ppt 2 Blass, Grivof N.aGieai pn 24; 


VERBAL NOUNS (*ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1125 


preferred the co-ordinate or the subordinate clause with con- 
junctions to the rather loose circumstantial participle.! We see 
the triumph of this analytic tendency in the modern Greek.? 
But it remains true that the participial clause was one of the 
great resources of the Greek language and in contrast the Latin 
seems very poor.* The English comes next to the Greek in its rich 
use of the circumstantial participle. Moulton‘ notes the failure 
of the English, even with the help of auxiliary verbs, to express 
the precise difference between dicas and dedvkws (6 AaBwy and 6 
eitAnows, for instance, in Mt. 25:18, 24). He rightly also calls 
attention to the weakness of the Greek because of its wealth of 
participles, since so much ambiguity is possible. Does a given 
circumstantial participle bear the notion of ‘because’ or ‘al- 
though’? Only the context can tell, and men do not always in- 
terpret the context correctly. One more remark is necessary. 
By means of the circumstantial participle the sentence may be 
lengthened indefinitely. Good illustrations of this freedom may 
be seen in the periodic structure in Thucydides, Isocrates, Lysias 
and Demosthenes. But the N. T. itself has examples of it as is 
seen in 2 Pet. 2: 12-15, Bracdnuotytes, adikobmevor, Hryovmevor, évTpu- 
Pavres. 

(8) Varieties of the Circumstantial Participle. Here are treated 
only those examples which have syntactical agreement in case 
with some substantive or pronoun in the sentence. It may be, 
repeated that this participle does not express the ideas called by 
the usual classification into participles of time, manner (means), 
cause, purpose, condition, concession. Hence it is proper to group 
the examples together. The classification is only justified by the 
context and occasional use of a particle. The same classification 
is possible also for the absolute use of the participial clause. The 
examples are too numerous for exhaustive treatment. A few 
must suffice. 

Time. It is not the tense that is here under discussion, though 
naturally the different tenses will vary in the way that time is 
treated (antecedent, simultaneous, future), as already shown. 
The point more exactly is whether a given circumstantial parti- 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 499. 

2 Jebb, in V. and D., p. 333. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 229. 

4 Ib. Cf. Alexander, Partic. Periphrases in Attic Orators (Am. Jour. of 
Philol., IV, p. 291 f.). 

5 Certainly we cannot admit the idea that the part. itself has different 
meanings. Cf. Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 158. 


1126 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ciple occurs in a context where the temporal relation is the main 
one rather than that of cause, condition, purpose, etc. It is usu- 
ally a mistake to try to reproduce such participles by the English 
‘when,’ ‘after,’ etc., with the indicative. To do this exaggerates 
the nuance of time as Moulton! observes. It is generally sufficient 
to preserve the English participle or to co-ordinate the clauses 
with ‘and.’ The slightness of the temporal idea is well seen in 
the pleonastic participles dvacras (Mt. 26 : 62), dzoxpi eis (Mt. 3: 
15, very common in the Synoptic Gospels. John usually has 
amexplOn kat erev as in 1:49), dred\dav (Mt. 13:46), AaBav (18: 
31, cf. verse 33), topevdévtes (21:6). Here the notion is temporal, 
but very slightly so. Cf. also rpooGels etrey in Lu. 19:11. The use 
of dpéduevos as a note of time is seen in Mt. 20: 8f.; Lu. 23: 
5; 24:47; Ac. 1:22. In Ac. 11:4, apEduevos THeértpos é€erifero abrots 
xabeEfs, the part. is slightly pleonastic,? but note contrast with 
kabeEjs as with éws trav rpwrwy in Mt. 20:8. Cf. epxopuevo[s| Epxou, 
P. Th. 421 (iii/a.p.). Sometimes the temporal idea is much more 
prominent, as in d.rodevoavtes (Ac. 17:1), EXOdv Exetvos EdeyEer Tov 
koopov (Jo. 16:8). Soalso Mt. 6:17, od 6é yncrebwy Grewar. Here 
the descriptive force of the participle is distinctly temporal. In 
examples like Mk. 1:7 ki~as toa tov tudvta, Ac. 21:32 mapa- 
AaBayv orpatiwras KaTédpayev éx’ avrovs, there is precedence in order 
of time, but it is mere priority with no special accent on the 
temporal relation? Ci; Mtr 2163515 2 nw A Gar24 aot we 
have some interesting examples of the participle. In d:adeyouévov 
avrod we see the temporal notion of ‘while’ with the genitive 
absolute. In rod yéd\dovtos the temporal notion in this attribu- 
tive part. is due to weddAw. In yevouevos it is mere antecedence with 
amexpi0n (almost simultaneous, in fact). In 76 voy éyov the attribu- 
tive participle again has the temporal idea due to the words 
themselves. In yeradkaBav we have antecedence emphasized by 
kapov. In dua kal éd\rifwy we have the linear notion stressed 
by dua. In qukvérepov airov petateurouevos duit ait the note 
of repetition in ruxvdrepov reappears in participle and verb. An 
interesting example is also seen in Heb. 11:32, érudetWa pe diy- 
yotpevov 6 xpovos, where in a poetic way time is described as going 
off and leaving the writer discoursing about Gideon and the rest. 
In 1 Pet. 5 : 10, ddtyov rabévras, the adverb of time makes it clear. 
The note of time may appear in any tense of the participle and 
with any tense in the principal verb. It is not always easy to 


+ Proll specu: 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 249. $ -Tb., p. 248. 


ee ee ee ee ee ee  ee  eeEEeEeEeEEEEeEeeeEeEeEeEeEeEeE—eEeEeEEell 


en 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1127 


discriminate between the temporal participle and that of at- 
tendant circumstance or manner. Moulton! and Blass? make 
no distinction. These two uses are the most frequent of all. A 
good example of this ambiguity occurs in Ac. 21:32, where 
tapadaBwv (cf. \aBwv in ancient Greek) may be regarded as merely 
the attendant circumstance. So also the notion of occasion 
wavers between time and cause. Cf. dxovovres (Lu. 4:28). For 
ws with this participle see 1 Cor. 7: 29 ff. 

Manner. The ancient use of éxwyv in the sense of ‘with’ occurs 
in Mt. 15:30 éyovres ued’ eavtdv ywrobs, Mk. 14:3 Exovca addBa- 
atpov pvpov, Ac. 21:23 ev’ynv exovtes ad’ eavtav. Cf. also dépwy in 
Jo. 19:39. In Jo. 18:3 we have \aBwy used in practically the 
same sense as wera In Mt. 26:47. Cf. also AaBav in Mt. 25:1. 
In Lu. 1: 64, Adare edAoyv, the part. is one of manner, as in Mt. 
19 : 22 arndOev vTobmevos, (Mk. 1:22) ws ekouciay Exwv, where ws 
makes the point plainer, (1:4) xnptoowv, where the participle is 
not the periphrastic construction with éyévero, (1: 5) é£ouodoyotpe- 
vot, (Ac. 3: 5) éretxev abtots rpocdoxay tt (a picturesque bit of descrip- 
tion), (2 Th. 3:11) pundev epyatouévous add rreEprepyafouevous (a real 
pun). It is hard to tell how to classify a participle like that in Gal. 
6:3, undev dv. It makes sense as temporal, causal or modal. But 
there is no doubt in a case like Lu. 19:48 é£expéuero abtod axobwv 
or Ac. 2:13 duaxdevasovres EXevyor Or ws olK dépa dépwy (1 Cor. 9: 
26). This notion of manner appears in the participles that 
have an adverbial notion like ozetoas (Lu. 19 : 5 f.), émuBadov (Mk. 
14:72), rvxov (1 Cor. 16 : 6), Bd€erovres (Mt. 13 : 14); rpocbels etrev 
(Lu. 19:11). Cf. also dvaBdelas efrev in verse 5. So also the 
pleonastic participles like aoxpieis (see above) may be looked at 
either as temporal or modal or even adverbial. See further xpe- 
pacavtes (Ac. 5:30), cvpBiBarwy (9 : 22) as good examples of the 
modal participle. Burton*? makes a separate division for the 
participle “of attendant circumstance,’ but this is not neces- 
sary and leads to overrefinement. ‘These examples are either 
temporal as in éfeovres (Mk. 16:20), éxXe~auévous (Ac. 15: 
22) or modal as do£afduevos (Lu. 4:15), dvadrtaBav (2 Tim. 4: 11) 
or pleonastic as damexpiOncav deyouca (Mt. 25:9). Blass’ term 
“conjunctive” (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 249) throws no particular 
light on the point. In 1 Tim. 1:18 dyvody is manner. In Ac. 


1 Prol., p. 230. ZUCSTs OLE N fb wrka De eae: 

3 N. T. M. and T., p. 173. Cucuel and Riemann (Régles Fondamentales 
de la Synt. Grecque, 1888, p. 110) consider this notion an “exception,” but it 
is not necessary to do that. 


1128 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


18:18, Ketpdmevos, we have in truth both the temporal and the 
modal. But it is easy to split hairs over the various circumstan- 
tial participles and to read into them much more than is there. 
Cf. 2 Cor. 4:1 f. See Barricovres and didackovres in Mt. 28 : 19 f. 
as modal participles. So ayvoév in 1 Tim. 1:13. Cf. xara a&yvoav 
in Ac. 3:17. 

Means. It is usual! to distinguish means from manner in the 
participle. There is a real point, but it is not always clear where 
manner shades off into means. But some instances are clear. 
Cf. Mt. 6 : 27, ris peptuvdv divarar mpoobeivac; So also pavrevoyevy 
in Ac. 16:16. Thus the maid furnished the revenue for her 
masters. In Heb. 2:10 ayayovra and 2:18 weipacbeis we may 
also have instances of this notion, but the first may be temporal 
and the second causal. Jannaris? blends the treatment of man- 
ner and means and notes how this participle disappears in the 
later Greek. 

Cause. The ground of action in the principal verb may be sug- 
gested by the participle. Cf. dikatos dv cal uy OéX\wv adTHY devryuaTi- 
car €BovrnOn, Mt. 1:19; juaprov rapado’s aia, 27:4; éxapynoay tdovtes, 
Jo. 20: 20. As a matter of fact this idiom is very frequent. 
Cfs further Mt.:2:3;.10;sJo m4 Ab Ze ACS ae eee 
24:22, eldws — eizas, Ro. 6:6, yuwwoxovres, and 9, eiddres; 2 Pet. 
3:9: Coli 123 f.; 1 Tim. 4283) Jase2 = 25) Korasavith this parti-= 
ciple see 1 Cor. 7 : 25, as jAenuevos. In Ac. 24:22 eldvs may be 
taken as ‘wishing to know,’ though Felix may also have actually 
had some knowledge of Christianity (cf. Paul’s appearance before 
Gallio). So also eiéws (24:22) may mean ‘wishing to know.’ 
The N. T. no longer has are, otov, ota with the part. as classic 
Greek did. In Jo. 5:44 a causal participle AauBavovres is co- 
ordinate with ¢nreire. 

Purpose. The use of the participle to express aim or design 
has already been discussed several times from different points of 
view (Tense, Final Clauses, Tense of the Participle). This fine 
classic idiom is nearly gone in the N. T. Purpose is expressed 
chiefly by ta or the inf. For the future part. of purpose see 
Mt. 27749; Ac? 832741227 5;0245;:110 17) #in Hebel sen gas 
arodwaovres, there is as much cause as purpose. Blass‘ wrongly 
accepts doracéuevor in Ac. 25:13. The present part. is also used 
in the sense of purpose where the context makes it clear. So 
Ac. 3:26, aéore\ev airov ebdoyotyra. Cf. Lu. 13:6f.; Ac. 15: 


1 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 333. 3 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 335. 
2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 504. 4-Gr. of Nes Gkarpe 24s: 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1129 


27; Ro. 15:25. But it. is not absent from the papyri. -Cf. P. 
Goodsp. 4 (11/B.c.) amwecradxapev — kowvodoynobuevrov aor. So also 
the present part., P. Oxy. 275 (A.D. 66), dtaxovod[y|ra kat rovo[d]vra. 

Condition. The use of the conditional disappeared more 
rapidly than the temporal and causal in the later Greek.! It is 
only the protasis, of course, which is here considered. It is still 
a common idiom in the N. T. In Mt. 16:26 we have édy trop 
Koapov ddov Kepdnon, While in Lu. 9 : 25, we find kepéjcas tov Koopov 
ddov. Here it is the condition. of the third class plainly enough. 
See moujoas éon, xrr., in B. G. U. 596 (4.p. 84). In 1 Cor. 11: 29, 
uu Ovaxpivwv, it may be the first class condition with e that is the 
equivalent, but one cannot always be certain on this point. Cf. 
Ro. 2 : 27, redodca; Gal. 6:9, un exAvduevor; 1 Tim. 4:4, AauBave- 
pevov; Heb. 2:3, auednoavres; 7:12, werareuevns. Moulton? de- 
nies that the participle stands in the N. T. for a condition of the 
second class (unreal condition). In Lu. 19:23, xayo dav odv 
TOKW av ato érpaka, the participle is part of the apodosis, while 
the condition is implied in the preceding question. Moulton? 
rightly notes that one can no longer decide by the presence of pA 
with the participle that it is conditional or concessive, since pj 
has come in the xown to be the usual negative of participles. 
There is no instance of av with the participle in the N. T., 
though Moulton (Prol., p. 167) quotes one in a xow7 inscr., 
I. M. A. i, 174, dtxatdrepov ay cwhevra (in a despatch of Augus- 
tus). For as av see Particles with Participles. 

Concession. This is also a frequent construction. Cf. Mt. 
14:9, Aurnbeis. The context calls for the adversative idea in 
7:11, wovnpot dvres. See further Mt. 26:60; 14:5; Mk. 4:31; 
JO a MeecellaJdswos 4: AC. 13928" Ro. 1: 21) 32: 9:22: 
1 Cor. 9:19; Jude 5. To avoid ambiguity the Greek often 
used particles to make the concessive idea plain, and this idiom 
survives in the N. T. Cf. xai ye —trapxovta (Ac. 17:27), kai 
to. yevnOevrwy (Heb. 4:3), kaiwep more frequently as in Ph. 3:4; 
Eebevor se isogeleul/ 2 Pet. 1:12), In; Heb, -11:12° we..also 
have kal tadra vevexpwuévov. Kairovye occurs only with the finite 
verb as in Jo. 4:2.4. So xairo in Ac. 14:17. It is worth while 
to note the survival of ob with xai ye in Ac. 17:27.5 Moulton 
(Prol., p. 231) admits Wellhausen’s (Hinl., p. 22) claim that Aare? 
Bracdyuet (Mk. 2:7) is an Aramaism for two Aramaic participles, 

1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 502. ; 4 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 248. 


2 Prol., p. 230.. “8 Moulton, Prol., p. 230. 
) 
8 Ib., p. 229. 


1130 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“the second of which should appear as a participle’ as in 
Lu. 22:65, Bracdnuotytes EXeyov. But W. H. punctuate dAadre?; 
PrAacgnet. 

(y) The Absolute Participle in Subordinate Clauses. It is not 
strange that the participle should have been used in clauses that 
stand apart from the rest of the sentence. There it has its adjec- 
tival agreement. It is but a step further than the ordinary cir- 
cumstantial participle which makes an additional statement. All 
the varieties of the circumstantial participle can appear in the 
absolute participle. 

Nominative Absolute. It is possible thus to explain some ex- 
amples of anacolutha in ancient Greek! and the N. T., though 
Blass? demurs. Cf. 6 muctebwr eis Eué — rotapol ex THs KoLALas abTod 
pevoovow (Jo. 7:38); ervyvovres, 6€ — hurt eyevero pla éx TavTwvr (Ac. 


19: 34); 6 vuxdv dwow aitG (Rev. 3:21). Cf. also rv OedovTwy and . 


of katécbovres (Mk. 12:40). So Mk. 7:19; Rev. 2:26. At any 
rate it is the nominativus pendens, and there is not any special 
difference. In the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 169) the 
nominative absolute with the participle occurs, though rare, and 
usually a conjunctional clause has supplanted the genitive ab- 
solute. 3 , 

Accusative Absolute. This construction was used with im- 
personal verbs or phrases like déov, éf6v, wapdv, etc. It was prob- 
ably an appositional addition to the sentence.’ It has nearly, if 
not quite, disappeared from the N. T. The adverb rvxo6v (1 Cor. 
16:6) is really an instance of it, but not so éov in Ac. 2: 29, 
where éoriv is probably to be supplied. Cf. éov av (Mt. 12 : 4) 
and déov éoriv (Ac. 19:36). Cf. also ob cuudépov per in 2 Cor. 
12:1. But a possible accusative absolute is yrworny ovra (Ac. 
26 : 3), though it is very rare to see the accusative absolute with 
a substantive of its own.‘ In such instances it was usual to have 
also ws or domep.© The accusative is an old idiom, appearing in 
the oldest Greek title known to us.6 But it came to be rather 
common in Thucydides.’ It was rare in the Attic orators. Luke 
avoids the accusative absolute in Ac. 23:30, by an awkward’ 

3 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 259. 

2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 251. He calls it “antiquated.” It was never very 
common. 

3 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 524. 
4 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 339. 5 Thompson, Synt., p. 261. 
6 Deiss., Exp. Times, 1906, Dec., p. 105. 


7 Lell, Der Absolut-Akkusativ im Griech, bis zu Arist., 1892, p. 17. 
8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 252. 


frees - 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOZ) 1131 


use of the genitive. absolute, unvubeions d€ wou ErrBoudns eis Tov av- 
dpa éoecbar. The papyri use é£dvros rather than éfov... We do not 
have the acc. absolute in Ph. 1:7, since dyads dvras is a resumption 
(apposition) of tuas before. 

Genitive Absolute. It is by no means certain that the case 
is always genitive. Indeed, it is pretty clear that some of these 
examples are ablative. Probably some are real genitives of 
time.2. The Sanskrit uses chiefly the locative in these absolute 
constructions. It is possible that the Latin ablative absolute 
may sometimes be locative or instrumental? The use of the 
true genitive in the Greek idiom is probably to be attributed 
to expressions of time in the genitive case with which parti- 
ciples were used. Then the temporal circumstantial participle 
was right at hand. It is in Attic prose, particularly the ora- 
tors, that we see the highest development of the idiom. The 
accusative absolute was just as idiomatic as this genitive-ablative 
construction, but it did not get the same hold on the language.® 
See Cases for further remarks. The xown shows a rapid extension 
of the genitive absolute. ‘“‘In the papyri it may often be seen 
forming a string of statements, without a finite verb for several 
lines.”® In the N. T. different writers vary greatly, John’s Gos- 
pel, for instance, having it only one-fourth as often as the Acts.” 
The most frequent use of the idiom is when the substantive (or 
pronoun) and the participle stand apart with no syntactical con- 
nection with any part of the sentence. Cf. Mk. 4:17, era yevo- 
pevns OrlWews 7} Suewypuod dra TOv Noyor evOls cxavdarifovrar; Ac. 12: 18, 
yevouerns 5€ Huepas Hv Tapaxos ox OdAtyos; 18:20; 7:5; Eph. 2 : 20; 
Mk. 8 :1; 2 Pet. 3:11; Heb. 9 : 6-8, 15, 19. These are perfectly 
regular and normal examples. But sometimes the genitive abso- 
lute occurs where there is already a genitive in the sentence. So 
Mt. 6: 3, cot 6€ rovotytos — apiotepa cov; Jo. 4:51; Ac. 17:16. In 
Mk. 14:3 we find a double gen. absolute dvros attot — xataxeuevov 
avrod. Even in the classical Greek the genitive absolute is found 
when the participle could have agreed with some substantive or 
pronoun in the sentence.’ It was done apparently to make the 


1 Oix é£dvros, P. Oxy. 275 (a.p. 66). 

2 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 524. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 167 f. 

4 Cf. Spieker, The Genitive Abs. in the Attic Orators, Am. Jour. of Philol., 
VI, pp. 310-348. 

5 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 251. 6 Moulton, Prol., p. 74. 

7 Gildersl., Styl. Effect of the Gk. Part., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1888, p. 153. 

8 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 338. 


1132 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


participial clause more prominent. The papyri show illustrations 
of the same thing,’ as in B. U. 1040 (ji/a.D.) xaipw 674 wor tadTa 
éroinoas, éuod werapedouevov rept undevds. It is fairly common in the 
N.T. We have it even when the part. refers to the subject of 
the verb, as in Mt. 1:18, prnorevdetons rijs untpos atrod Mapias — 
ebpeOn Exovoa. In Ro. 9:1 the construction is regular, though po 
and pov occur. In Mt. 8:1 we find karaBavros abtot — jxodov6n- 
cav aro. Cf. 5:1; 9:18; 17:22; 2 Cor. 4:18, etc. Likewise 
the genitive and the accusative come together as in Jo. 8 : 30, 
avrod Aadobyros — éxiorevoay eis a’rov. Cf. also Mt. 18:25; Ac. 
28:17. Quite unusual is Ac. 22:17 where we have pou troorpe- 
Wavrt, mpocevxouevov wou and yevéobar pe. The N. T. occasionally 
uses the participle alone in the genitive absolute according to the 
occasional classic usage.” In the papyri it is more frequent than 
in the N. T.2 In particular note the common é£évTos, P. Oxy. 275 
(a.p. 66). Cf. also dyAwOevros, B. U. 970 (ii/a.D.). See Mt. 17: 14, 
éMovrwy; 17:26, elrdvros; Ac. 21:31, §nrotvrwv. In Lu. 12: 36, 
éMMdvros Kal KpovcavTos elOews avoi~wow attd, we have the genitive 
participle although ai7@ is present. Cf. B. G. U. 423 (ii/a.p.) 
dre pou Kuvduvebcavros eis O4Xaccav ~owoe, Where pe the object of 
éowoe is not expressed. 

(f) The Independent Participle in a Sentence. There is no 
doubt that the use of the absolute participle (nominative, ac- 
cusative, genitive-ablative) is a sort of ‘‘implied predication.’’4 
It remains to be considered whether the participle ever forms an 
independent sentence. We have seen that the inf. is occasionally 
so used. It is but a step from the independent clause to the in- 
dependent sentence. Did the participle take it? The nominative 
absolute as a sort of anacoluthon appears in the ancient Greek. 
Cf. Plato, Apol. 21 C, kat diadreyouevos ait, EO0EE you 6 avhp evar 
copés. As the genitive-absolute, like other circumstantial par- 
ticiples, retreated before the conjunctional clauses, there was 
an increasing tendency to blur or neglect the grammatical case 
agreements in the use of the participles. The N. T., like the xow7 
in general, shows more examples of the anacoluthic nominative 
participle than the older Greek.> The mental strain of so many 
participles in rapid: conversation or writing made anacolutha 


1 Cf. Moulton, Prol., pp. 74, 236; Cl. Rev., XV, p. 437. 
2 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 338. 


® Moulton, Prol., p. 74. This idiom is common in Xen. Roche, Beitr., p. 
128. 


* Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 167... 5 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 259. 








VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1133 


easy.1 “Hence even writers of systematic training could not but 
occasionally blunder in the use of the circumstantial participle.” 
Jannaris had thus concluded that the late Greek showed an in- 
dependent use of the participle as anacoluthon.2 Blass? would 
go no further than this. Viteau‘ found abundant illustration of 
the independent use of the anacoluthic participle in the LXX. 
Viteau explains it as a Hebraism. But Moulton® claims that the 
subject is removed from the realm of controversy by the proof 
from the papyri. Thumb® finds the idiom in classical Greek and 
in the xowy (in the LXX, N. T., papyri, inscriptions, etc.). It is 
easy to be extreme on this point of dispute. In the chapter on 
Mode (the Imperative) adequate discussion appears concerning 
the participle as imperative. That discussion need not be re- 
peated. It may be insisted, however, again that the participle 
in itself is never imperative nor indicative, though there seem to 
be examples in the N. T., as in the papyri, where, because of 
ellipsis or anacoluthon, the participle carries on the work of 
either the indicative or the imperative. In examples like 2 Cor. 
1:3, evrdoynrds 6 eds, either éoriv or €orw May be supplied with 
the verbal adjective. It must not be forgotten that this is the 
work of the interpreter to a large extent rather than of the 
grammarian. The manuscripts often vary in such examples 
and the editors differ in the punctuation. But the grammarian 
must admit the facts of usage. The papyri and the N. T. 
show that sometimes the participle was loosely used to carry 
on the verbal function in independent sentences.’ Cf. amroorv- 
yobvres Td Tovnpdv, KoAAwpEvo. TS ayabG (Ro. 12:9), for instance, 
where we have a complete sentence without connection with 
anything else. The preceding sentence is 4 ayarn avuréxpitos 
(an independent sentence itself) and it is followed by a series of 
independent participles (verses 10-13). In verse 14 we have 
abruptly etAoyéetre — xal pr) Katapacbe (imperatives) and then the 
absolute infinitive yaipev (imperatival also). The point seems to 
be incontrovertible. Cf. also Col. 3:16. It is only necessary to 
‘add a word about the independent participle in the midst of in- 
dicatives, since this use is far more frequent than the imperative 
idiom just noted. In general it may be said that no participle 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p 505. 4 Le Verbe, pp. 200 ff. 
2 Ib., pp. 500, 505. 5 Prol., pp. 180 ff., 222 ff. 
2 Gr.,0f GEO NiT:; pe 283. 6 Hellen., p. 131. 


7 Moulton, Prol., p. 180, cites Meisterh., pp. 244-246, for the use of the 
imp. part. in decrees. It is the nominativus pendens applied to the part. 


1134 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


should be explained in this way that can properly be connected 
with a finite verb. In Ro. 12 : 6, exovres de, it is clear that we can- 
‘not carry on the participle as subordinate to éxowev or éowev in the 
preceding verses. W. H. boldly start a new sentence. In either 
case, whether we have comma or period before, we must take 
éyovres aS imperatival or indicative, on the one hand, or, on the 
other hand, supply éoveév or Guev as rovetre is Supplied in Ro. 138: 
11 with kal «idd7es Tov Karpov! But other examples leave no such 
alternative. We may first summarize Moulton’s satisfactory ex- 
position of the matter. There is a striking similarity between 
the third person plural indicative and the participle in the Indo- 
Germanic tongues (*bheronti, ferunt, depovor, bairand, etc.). The 
frequent ellipsis of est in the Latin perfect and passive is to be 
noted also. The probability that the Latin second plural middle 
indicative is really a participle which has been incorporated into 
the verb inflection (cf. sequamint and érouevor) is also suggestive. 
This fact may point to the prehistoric time when the Latin used 
the participle as indicative. The papyri re-enforce the argument 
strongly. We quote a bit from Moulton?: “Tb. P. 14 Gi/s.c.), 
Tat obv anuatvouevan “Hpate mapnyyedkores évwriov, ‘I gave notice in 
person’ (no verb follows). Tb. P. 42 (2b.), 7dcxnueévos (no verb fol- 
lows). A. P. 78 (ii/A.D.), Blavy macxwv éxdorore, etc. (no verb).” 
This may serve as a sample of many more like it. Moulton 
(Prol., p. 223) adds that use of the part. as ind. or imper. in the 
papyri is “not at all a mark of inferior education.’ See 1 Pet. 2: 
12 where éxovres does not agree with the rapoixovs. We may now 
approach the passages in dispute between Winer? and Moulton.! 
Moulton passes by Winer’s suggestion that in 2 Cor. 4:13 
éxovres is to be taken with mucrebowev. This is probable, though 
awkward. So in 2 Pet. 2:1 the participles can be joined with 
Tapecagovow. But in Ro. 5:11 it is, Moulton argues, somewhat 
forced to take ob povov 6é, ada Kal Kavxa@pevor Otherwise than as 
independent. If we once admit the fact of this idiom, as we 
have done, this is certainly the most natural way to take it here. 
Moulton is silent as to oreAAdpevor In 2 Cor. 8 : 20. Winer connects 
it with ovveréupayev in verse 18 and he is supported by the punc- 
tuation of verse 19 as a parenthesis by W. H. But even so in 
verse 19 we have od pdvov 6€ adda Kal xetporovnbels (cf. Ro. 5:11) 
stranded with no verb. Moulton also passes by Heb. 6:8 and 2 
Pet. 3:5. In Heb. 7:1 Moulton follows W. H. in reading 6 (not 


1 Moulton, Prol., pp. 180, 183 f. * We Ths pooolt 
2 Ib:, pp. 223 f. ** Proll p.wers: 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1135 


ds) cuvavtjoas on the authority of C*LP against NABC?2DEK 17. 
So he sees no necessity for taking épunvevouevos as an indicative. 
In Heb. 8:10; 10:16, Moulton takes é.é0vs as parallel with em- 
ypayw, whereas Winer would resolve érvypayw into a participle. 
Here Moulton is clearly right. In Ac. 24: 5, ebpovres yap, we have 
anacoluthon as both Winer and Moulton agree. Moulton adds: 
“Luke cruelly reports the orator verbatim.’? Moulton omits to 
comment on Winer’s explanation of the parenthetical anacolu- 
thon in 2 Pet. 1:17, \aBav yap. It is a violent anacoluthon and 
Winer does not mend it. Note 2 Cor. 5:6, 0appotvres, where after 
a parenthesis we have @appoduey 5€ (resumptive). But Moulton 
takes 2 Cor. 7:5 Od:Bduervo. as an example of the “indicative” 
participle. So does he explain Ro. 12:6 éyovres, and éxwy in 
Rev. 10:2. In Ac. 26:20 the MSS. vary between arayyé\\wv 
and amnyyeddov. In Heb. 10:1 éxwv will also be independent if 
divavrac be read. In Ph. 1:30 €xortes has tytvy above and halts 
in the case agreement. On the whole, therefore, we may con- 
clude that, while every instance is to be examined on its merits, 
a number of real examples of the idiom may be admitted in the 
N. T. Viteau! has entirely too large a list of such instances. 
Many of them admit a much simpler explanation as in Ph. 
1:30 above. In Revelation, it is true, there is more than usual 
laxity in the agreement of the participle, especially when it is in 
apposition. There is also a change from nominative to accusative 
between idot and efdov as in Rev. 4: 1-5; 7:9; 14: 1-8; 14:14, 
etc. But there are real examples in Rev., as kat éywr (1:16), 
heywr (11:1). With all this development along a special line we 
must not forget that the participle is both adjective and verb. 
Blass? has a careful discussion of “‘the free use of the participle.” 
In Col. 1:26 he notes that the participle aoxexpuypevov is con- 
tinued by the indicative é¢avepwOyn. Cf. Jo. 5: 44. 

(g) Co-ordination between Participles. Blass* uses the term 
“conjunctive” participle instead of a special use of the “cir- 
cumstantial”’ participle. It is not a particularly happy phrase. 
But it does accent the notion that this participle, though an 
addition to the principal verb, is still joined to it in gram- 
matical agreement. Blass‘ shows clearly how identity of action 
may be expressed by two finite verbs, as well as by the pleonas- 
tic participle of identical action. Cf. Jo. 1:25 kal jpwrnoav adbrov 
kal etrav (Mt. 15:23 npwrovy deyovres), 12:44 expat kai efrev 

1 Le Verbe, pp. 201 ff. e Grn of Nel Gk spe 247; 
2°GreofoN La Gksp..284f: 4 Ib., p. 250. 


1136 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(Mt. 8:29 &patav A€yorres), 13: 21 Euapripnoer xa etre (Acw13: 
22 cixev paptupnoas), 18:25 npvncato Kai etrev (Mt. 26:70 jpv7- 
gato de€ywv), where John prefers the particularity of the finite 
verb. But see also Lu. 6:48, écxavey kai eBabvver, ‘he dug and 
deepened’=‘he dug deep.’ Cf. Jo. 8:59. There remains the 
relation of participles to each other when a series of them comes 
together. There is no rule on this subject beyond what applies 
to other words. Two or more participles may be connected by 
kat as in Ac. 3:8, wepiutatav Kal dddouevos Kal aivdv Tov Oedv. But we 
have asyndeton! in Ac. 18:23, dvepxopuevos tiv Tadrarixny xwpar, 
oTnpifwy Tovs pabnras. Cf. Lu. 6 : 38, wérpov Kadov remvecpévoy ceca- 
Nevuevoy wrepexxuvvduevovy Swoovow. Sometimes xai occurs only 
once as in Mk. 5:15, xaOquevov tuaticpevov kal awhpovodyta. There 
may be a subtle reason for such a procedure as in Ac. 18 : 22, 
katedOop eis Katoapiay, avaBas kal domacdpuevos, where the first parti- 
ciple stands apart in sense from the other two. Cf. also Mk. 5: 
32. In a list of participles one may be subordinate to the other 
as in Mk. 5:80, émvyvols & éavtd tiv EF abrod Sivamw e£eNodcay 
értotpadeis. This accumulation of participles is only occasional 
in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mt. 14:19; 27:48; and, in particu- 
lar, Mk. 5 : 25-27), but very common in Acts and the Pauline 
Kpistles. Blass? concedes to Luke in Acts ‘‘a certain amount of 
stylistic refinement” in his use of a series of participles, while 
with Paul it is rather ‘‘a mere stringing together of words,’ an 
overstatement as to Paul. Luke was not an artificial rhetorician 
nor was Paula mere bungler. When Paul’s heart was all ablaze 
with passion, as in 2 Corinthians, he did pile up participles like 
boulders on the mountain-side, a sort of volcanic eruption. Cf. 
2 Cor. 3:8-10; 6:9f.; 9:11ff. But there is always a path 
through these participles. Paul would not let himself be caught 
in a net of mere grammatical niceties. If necessary, he broke 
the rule and went on (2 Cor. 8:20). But Moulton? is right in 
saying that all this is ““‘more a matter of style than of gram- 
mar.” It is rhetoric. . 3 

(h) Od and wy with the Participle. It is worth noting that in 
Homer‘ od is the normal negative of the participle, uf occur- 
ring only once, Od. 4. 684, and in an optative sentence of wish. 
It cannot be claimed that in Homer yu has won its place with 
the participle. In modern Greek uj alone occurs with the pres- 
ent participle (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). It is generally said that 

- Gry Of NWO Gker peau: *. Prols ps23lk 
2 Ibs p.25l: 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 262 f. 





VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1137 


in classical Attic ot is always the negative of the participle unless 
condition or concession is implied when the negative is uy. But 
if one looks at all the facts up to 400 B.c. he will go slow before 
he asserts that uy is proof that the participle shows a conditional 
or concessive force.! Jannaris? claims the rule only for Attic, 
“though even here ov is not rarely replaced by y7,”’ that is to 
say, the rule does not apply even in Attic. The use of “replaced”’ 
is wholly gratuitous when it is admitted that the rule does not 
apply outside of Attic. It is so hard to be historical always even 
in an historical grammar. If one takes the long view, from 
Homer with its one use of yy to the modern Greek with nothing 
but uw, he sees a steady progress in the use of yn which gradually 
ousted ov altogether. The Attic marks one stage, the xown an- 
other. It is true that in the Attic there is a sort of correspondence 
between ov and the participle and the indicative with ov on the 
one hand, while, on the other, uy and the participle correspond to 
the subjunctive or the optative with wy. But od occurred in 
Homer with the subj. and u7 persisted with the indicative. The 
lines crossed and the development was not even, but on the whole 
un gradually pushed ov aside from the participle. In the N. T., 
as in the xown generally, the development has gone quite beyond 
the Attic. In the Attic the use of od was the more general, while 
in the xow7 the use of uy is normal. In the N. T. there is no need 
to explain yw with the participle. That is what you expect. Cf. 
Lu. 12:33 wu madaotyera, Jo. 5:23 6 wh Tywdv, Ac. 17:6 uA 
evpovres, Heb. 11:13 pu xowocduevor. In the N. T. it is od that 
calls for explanation, not uw. But it may be said at once that the 
N. T. is in thorough accord with the xowy on this point. Even 
in a writer of the literary xowy like Plutarch*® one notes the in- 
roads of uy. The papyri go further than Plutarch, but still have 
examples of ov, like ov kexourouevar P. Par. (B.c. 163), tov odk & 
Nevkats éobjow ev OedTpw Kabicavta O. P. 471 (ii/A.D.), obd€rw merdn- 
pwxotwy O. P. 491 (ii/A.D.), od duvduevos A. P. 78 (ii/a.D.).4 Moul- 
ton® thinks that in many of these papyri examples there is ‘‘the 
lingering consciousness that the proper negative of a downright 
fact is ov.”’ In general it may be said of the xowy that the pres- 
ence of od with the participle means that the negative is clear-cut 


1 Howes, The Use of uy with the Part., Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901, 
pp. 277-285. 

2 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 430. = Blass, ‘Gr. of N, T.’Gk:, p. 255. 

4 See further exx. in Moulton, Prol., p. 231. 

5 Prol., p. 232. 


1138 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and decisive. Cf. Mt. 22:11 otk &édedupévov Evduya yayou, (Lu. 6: 
42) ob Brérwv, (Jo. 10:12) 6 pcOwrds Kal odk dv rorunv, (Ac. 7: 5) 
ok bvTos at’Tt@ réxvov, (17:27) Kai ye ob paxpay — brapxovta, (26: 
22) obdév exrds heywv, (28:17) obdev rounoas, (1 Cor. 4: 14) otk &- 
tperuv, (9 : 26) ws olk aépa d€pwv, (2 Cor. 4:8) add’ ob orevoxwpob- 
pevot, (Ph. 3:3) Kai ovx év capki memoores, (Col. 2:19) kai ob 
kpatav, (Heb. 11:1) rpaypatwr od Brerouevrwv, (11: 35) ob mpocdetdue- 
vou, (1 Pet. 1:8) ovx iddvres, (2:10) of otk Hrenuevor. In all these we 
have no special departure from the Attic custom, save that in Ac. 
17: 27 the participle is concessive. But we have just seen that the 
Attic was not rigid about od and uw with the participle. In two 
of the examples above ov and uy come close together and the con- 
trast seems intentional. Thus in Mt. 22:11 we have otk évéeév- 
pevoy evduua yayuou, While in verse 12 we read pi) exw evdvya yapov. 
The first instance lays emphasis on the actual situation in the 
description (the plain fact) while the second instance is the 
hypothetical argument about it. In 1 Pet. 1:8 we read 6év ovk 
idovres dyaTaTe, eis Ov ApTe wy OpavTes TLiaoTEvoYTEs 5€ AyadNaTe. Here 
ov harmonizes with the tense of iédvres as an actual experience, 
while un with épaévres is in accord with the concessive idea in con- 
trast with miorevovres. Cf. Hort in loco who holds that the change 
of particles here is not capricious. ‘‘ Though Blass thinks it arti- 
ficial to distinguish, it is hard to believe that any but a slovenly 
writer would have brought in so rapid a change without a rea- 
son.”! It may be admitted further that ‘‘in Luke, Paul and 
Hebrews we have also to reckon with the literary conscious- 
ness of an educated man, which left some of the old idioms even 
where yy had generally swept them away.’’? See also 7a mw xabn- 
xovra (Ro. 1:28) and Text. Rec. ra ob avnxovra (Eph. 5:4). Cf. 
un and od in Ac. 9:9. Blass? notes that the Hebrew x is regu- 
larly translated in the LXX by ov without any regard to the 
Greek refinement of meaning between od and uA with the par- 
ticiple. Hence in the N. T. quotations from the LXX this 
peculiarity is to be noted. Moulton‘ observes also that, while 
this is true, the passages thus quoted happen to be instances 
where a single word is negatived by ov. Cf. Ro. 9:25 riyv oik 
nyarnuevnv, (Gal. 4:27) 7 ovk Tixrovoa, 7 ok wdivovoa. A case like 
Ac. 19:11, ob ras tvxovcas, is, of course, not pertinent. It is a 
“common vernacular phrase,’’® besides the fact that od is not the 
1 Moulton, Prol., p. 232. 4 Prol., p. 232. 


ait Tye ed dog oe Ba 
8 GY OLAN sal atk eee 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOT ‘PHMATOS) 1139 


negative of the participle! any more than it is in Ac. 19:11; 28: 
21. Moulton? also rules out ot« éfov (2 Cor. 12 : 4) on the ground 
that it is the equivalent of the indicative. The copula is not ex- 
pressed. But note otx eé&dvros, P. Oxy. 275 (a.p. 66). On this 
count the showing for od with the participle is not very large in 
the N. T. Luke has o@ five times with the participle (Lu. 6 : 42; 
Ac. 7: 5; 17: 27; 26 : 22: 28:17). Paul leads with a dozen or so 
(Ro. 9: 25; Gale 4: 27 twice; 1 Cor. 4:14; 9:26; 2 Cor. 4:8, 
Oeee he 3k3;3Colee2= 19; sie Thee? 34); Hebrews has two (11: 
1, 35) and Peter three (1 Pet. 1:8; 2:10; 2 Pet. 1:16, ob — 
adda). Matthew has only one (22:11), and note wu) évwr in the 
-next verse. The MSS. vary also between the negatives as 
in Mt. 22:11, where C*D have un which Blass? adopts with 
his whimsical notions of textual criticism. At any rate Mat- 
thew, Luke (Gospel) and John use yy almost exclusively with 
the participle, while Mark, James, the Johannine Epistles and 
Revelation do not have ot at all with the participle. In Ro. 
8 : 20, obx éxofca, the old participle is merely an adjective as in 
Heb. 9:11. In Ro. 9 : 25, rov ob Aadv, the negative occurs with a 
substantive (quotation from LXX). The ancient Greek would 
usually have added évrva. 

(i) Other Particles with the Participle. The ancient Greek? 
had quite a list of adverbs (particles) that were used with 
the circumstantial participle on occasion to make clearer the 
precise relation of the participle to the principal verb or substan- 
tive. Some of these (like Gaze, otov, ota) no longer occur with the 
part. in the N. T. But some remain in use. These particles, 
it should be noted, do not change the real force of the parti- 
ciple. They merely sharpen the outline. The simplest form of this 
usage is seen in the adverbs of time like 76 rpdrepov (Jo. 9 : 8); 
wore (Gal. 1:23. Cf. Eph. 2:18; Lu. 22 : 32); ruxvorepov (Ac. 24 : 
26). In Mk. 9 : 20; Jo. 5 : 6 note other expressions of time. More 
idiomatic is the use of et@is as in eiceNOodoa etOs (Mk. 6 : 25). Cf. 
also #6n dias yevoueyns (Mk. 15:42), ere wy (2 Th. 2:5) and 
apt. €Oovtos Tipobeov (1 Th. 3:6). Blass® denies that agua with the 
participle in the N. T. suggests simultaneousness or immediate 
sequence. He sees in Gua xal édmifwy (Ac. 24 : 26) only ‘withal 
in the expectation,’ not ‘at the same time hoping.’ I question 


1, Blass, Gr. of N. 2Gk., p.1255 f: 2°Prol:, ps 2ol. 

3 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 255. Cf. Gildersleeve, Encroachments of uA on od 
in later Gk., Am. Jour. of Philol., I, p. 45 f. 

4 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 340 ff. Gr OleN: ae Gree coc: 


1140 A GRAMMAR OF THE: GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the correctness of Blass’ interpretation on this point. Cf. also 
dua avevtes (27:40); rpocevxduevor Gua Kal rept nudv (Col. 4:3), 
where it requires some overrefinement to refuse the classic idiom 
to Luke. Under the concessive participle we saw examples of 
kal ye (Ac. 17:27), xairo. (Heb. 4:3), xairep (Heb. 5:8, ete.). 
There is also the use of déuws in the principal sentence to call at- 
tention to the concessive force of the participle (1 Cor. 14:7). 
So olrws points back to a participle of time or manner (Ac. 20: 
11). Worth noting, besides, is cal rodro as in Ro. 13:11, though 
here a finite verb may be implied. So also kal ratra vevexpwpévov 
(Heb. 11:12). There remain as, woel, domrep. The use of wel 
(Ro. 6:13) and of dorep (Ac. 2:2) is limited to condition or 
comparison. It is only with as that there is any freedom or 
abundance. Blass! notes the absence of the accusative abso- 
lute with as in the N. T. and its absence from the future parti- 
ciple save in Heb. 13:17, where it is not strictly design. There 
is nothing specially significant in the phrase ov ws, ‘not as if,’ in 
Ac. 28:19; 2 Jo. 5. The N. T., like the classical Greek, uses ws 
without the participle in abbreviated expressions like ws 7 kupi 
(Col. 3:23); as év jueéoa (Ro. 18:18); as dc’ judy (2 Th. 2: 2), 
etc., where the participle is easily supplied from the context.? 
In some instances one must note whether the particle does not 
belong with the principal verb. But, common as s is with the 
participle, it does not change the nature of the participle with 
which it occurs.2 The participle with as may be causal, tempo- 
ral, conditional, manner, etc. Then again ws may be used to 
express the notion of the speaker or writer as well as that of one 
who is reported. In truth, ws implies nothing in itself on that 
point. The context alone must determine it.4 The various uses 
of ws itself should be recalled. There may be nothing but com- 
parison, aS in ws éfovciay éxwy (Mk. 1:22); ws otk dépa dépwr 
(1 Cor. 9:26), So also Mk. 6: 34; 2 Cor. 6:3 9:f.;1 Pet. 2 ; 13; 
16. In Lu. 22:26 f. observe as 6 dvaxovav. The causal idea is 
prominent in ws 7Aenuevos (1 Cor. 7:25). Cf. Heb. 12:27 and 
D in Ac. 20: 18, as weAXov. The concessive or conditional notion 
is dominant in 1 Cor. 7:29f.; 2 Cor. 5:20, &s rod Ac0d awapaka- 
Nodvros 6’ judv. So also in Ac. 3:12; 28:19; 2 Jo. 5. In Lu. 
16:1, as dtacxoprifwy, the charge is given by Jesus as that of the 


1Griof-NiDSGkipeeose 2 Th. 

* Fuhrer, De Particulae #s cum Participiis et Praepositionibus punctae 
Usu Thucydideo, 1889, p. 7. 

* Goodwin, M. and T., p. 343, 


VERBAL NOUNS (’ONOMATA TOY ‘PHMATOS) 1141 


slanderer (6ce8\76n) and the context implies that it is untrue (only 
alleged).! Pilate makes a similar use of ws aroorpédovta tov adv 
in Lu. 23:14. He declines by the use of as to accept the cor- 
rectness of the charge of the Sanhedrin against Jesus. For a 
similar use see ws peddovras (Ac. 23 : 15); as weddwv (23 : 20); rpo- 
dace ws weAdovTwy (genitive absolute 27: 30). But in 2 Cor. 5: 
20 (see above) Paul endorses the notion that he is an ambassador 
of God and as is not to be interpreted as mere pretence. God 
is. speaking through Paul. There is no instance of ay with 
the participle in the N. T. as appears in classic Greek. Winer? 
notes two instances of as av with the participle in the LXX 
(2 Mace. 1:11; 3 Macc. 4:1). To these Moulton’ adds another 
(2 Macc. 12:4) and a genitive absolute example in the papyri, 
Par. P. 26 (ii/B.c.), as av ebraxrnOnoouevwv. Cf. also 2b., ws av bid 
THs NuuAs Suadvouevor. The insers. show it also, O. G. I. 8. 90, 23 
(ii/B.C.), as av — ovveornxvias. Blass* finds a genitive absolute 
with as av in Barnabas 6:11. ALl this is interesting as fore- 
shadowing the modern Greek use of cay as a conjunction.® 


1 Cf: Blass; Gr. of N. T. Gk., ‘p. 253. 
2 W.-M., p. 378. SGT OULN ss in GO Kis Dayeoor 
ae Pros DutOd: 5 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 167; Hatz., Hinl., p. 217. 


CHAPTER XXxI 
PARTICLES (AI I1APAOHKAIT) 


I. Scope. The word particle is a Latin diminutive, particula 
(cf. French particule) from pars. It is a small part of something. 
Longinus terms this part of speech rapa@qxn with the notion that 
it was a word placed beside another. No portion of syntax is 
treated with so little satisfaction in the grammars. The gram- 
marians are not agreed as to what parts of speech should be 
called “particles.” Riemann and Goelzer! treat under this term 
(Les Particules) negative particles, particles of comparison and 
prepositions. Jannaris? includes prepositions, conjunctions and 
negative particles. Kiuhner-Gerth*® here discuss conjunctions, 
prepositions and the modal adverbs, though they use the phrase 
“die sogenannten Partikeln.’’ Blass* almost confines the dis- 
cussion of particles to conjunctions. He makes the two terms 
equivalent: ‘Particles (Conjunctions).’? Winer® uses the word 
broadly to cover all adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. 
Monro® limits the designation to certain conjunctions and ad- 
verbs ‘“‘that are mainly used to show the relation between other 
words and between clauses.’’? But he does not treat all conjunc- 
tions (paratactic and hypotactic) nor all modal adverbs. He 
passes by prepositions. Brugmann’ sees clearly that, as there is 
no real distinction between adverbs and prepositions, so there is 
no fast line (‘“‘keine feste Grenze’’) between “‘particles” and other 
adverbs. All languages have a large group of words that pass 
over into the category of particles, but Brugmann cuts the Gor- 
dian knot by declaring that it is not a function of scientific gram- 
mar to delimit these words. That is a matter of subjective 
standpoint. He takes little interest in the various subdivisions 
of the particles, but he extends the term to its widest sense to 


1 Synt., pp. 802-820. 5 W.-Th., pp. 356-512. 
* Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 365-483. 6 Hom. Gr., pp. 240-269. 
3 II, pp. 113-347. 7 Griech. Gr., pp. 525-550. 
4 Gr. of N. ‘T..Gk apps 259-275: 
1142 


= iy ua 





PARTICLES (AI IHAPAOHKAI) 1143 


cover all modal adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. Brug- 
mann notes that many of these particles go back to the Indo- 
Germanic time and hence their etymology is unknown. He treats 
the particles from the standpoint of their origin so far as known. 
Hartung! takes a much narrower view of particles. He discusses 
the paratactic conjunctions and the intensive particles. He? con- 
ceives that the greater portion of the particles have no mean- 
ing in themselves, but are merely modifications on other words 
or on whole sentences. This is not strictly correct. We are 
not always able to discover the original import of these words, 
but it is probable that they originally had a definite meaning. 
It is true that the particles are all subordinated to other words 
in various ways. In a broad way it may be stated that there 
are four classes of words (verbs, nouns, pronouns, particles) 
in the sentence. From this point of view the word particle 
covers all the adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and _ inter- 
jections. But it is impossible, as Brugmann holds, to make a 
perfectly scientific treatment of the particles without much over- 
lapping. The interjections in one sense do not belong to gram- 
mar. The negative and the interrogative particles cannot be 
properly treated under adverbs, though they are adverbs. So 
also conjunctions are adverbs, but a good deal more. Intensive 
particles again are adverbs, but more. It is not worth while to 
recount the story of the adverbs and the prepositions at this stage. 
They are particles, but they have received sufficient discussion 
in special chapters. In the same way the construction of hypo- 
tactic conjunctions came in for somewhat careful treatment in 
connection with subordinate sentences under Mode. Hence, hy- 
potactic conjunctions do not here demand as much discussion as 
the paratactic conjunctions. One has to be, to a certain extent, 
arbitrary in this field, since the ground is so extensive and so 
much remains to be done. There is still need of a modern and 
exhaustive treatise on the Greek Particles. It was in 1769 that 
the Dutch scholar Hoogeveen? wrote his book. He was followed 
by Hartung. Klotz® reworked the writings of Devarius. In 


1 Lehre von den Partikeln der griech. Spr., Tl. I, 1832; Tl. IT, 1833. 

2 Ib., TI. I, p. 37. Schroeder (Uber die formelle Untersch. der Redet., 1874, 
p. 35 f.) writes well on the obscurity of the origin of particles and the use 
of the term. 

§ Doctrina Particularum Linguae Graecae. Ed. Secunda, 1806. 

4 See above. 

5 De Graecae Linguae Particulis, vol. I, 1840; II, 1842. 


1144 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1861 Biumlein produced his Untersuchungen tiber griech. Parti- 
keln. Paley! has carried the work on, as has Navarre.? There 
are, to be sure, a great number of monographs on special groups 
or on single particles. “If any particular section of Greek gram- 
mar were taken as a specimen to illustrate the historical evolu- 
tion of the Greek language, no better representative could be 
selected than the section of the particles.”4 Jannaris speaks thus, 
not because the grammars have treated the particles with such 
skill, but because the particles best show the growth and decay 
of parallel words before other new synonyms that are constantly 
coming into existence. The particles come to a sharp point and 
gradually lose the edge and whittle down into platitudes. Then 
they give way to others with more freshness. In general, the 
particles mark the history of the effort to relate words with each 
other, clause with clause, sentence with sentence, paragraph 
with paragraph. They are the hinges of speech, the joints of 
language, or the delicate turns of expression, the nwances of 
thought that are often untranslatable. We must here confine 
our attention to Intensive Particles, Negative Particles, Interrog- 
ative Particles, Conjunctions and Interjections. This order is 
chosen for logical reasons simply, not because this was the order 
of development. That we do not know. The particles that are 
linked to single words logically come before conjunctions which 
have to do with clauses and sentences. Interjections stand apart 
and so are put last in the list. Some of the particles are employed 
with words, clauses and sentences (like a&pa, 6€, odv), so that a strict 
division on this basis is not possible.® 

II. Intensive or Emphatic Particles (tapaOfKkat €poatikat or 
TapaTAnpwHLAaTLKOL obvberpor according to Dionysius Thraz). 

1. Lrurrations. Here again there is no absolute agreement 
as to what particles are considered ‘‘emphatic” or “intensive.” 
Winer, indeed, has no separate discussion of the intensive par- 
ticles like ye, ep. He admits® that, while the Greek of the N. T. 
uses adverbs well in an eztensive sense, it is defective in the in- 
tensive use. Adverbs of place, time, manner, all come in abund- 
ance in the N. T. Thompson’ follows Winer in the absence of 
discussion of the intensive particles. The intensive particles, in 


1 The Gk. Particles, 1881. 

2 tudes sur les particules greeques, R. E. A., VII, pp. 116-130. 

’ Cf. Hiibner, Grundr. zu Vorlesungen iiber die griech. Synt., pp. 70-87. 
4 Jann., Hist. Gk Grp. aGo: 6 W.-Th., p. 462. 

5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 240. 7 Synt. of Attic Gk. 


Nr FE, eterna ien:, 


PARTICLES (AI MIAPAOHKAI) 1145 


fact, as a rule receive poor handling in the grammars.! But 
Paley? properly sees that they are “‘an elaborately finished part 
of a most complex and beautiful machinery.”’ Poetry, especially 
tragic poetry, uses these emphatic particles more than other 
kinds of writing. In Homer “they sustain and articulate the 
pulses of emotion. By them alone we can perceive that Greek 
was the language of a witty, refined, intellectual, sensitive and 
passionate people. It would be impossible in any book to tabu- 
late the delicate shades of meaning, the subtle, intricate touches 
of irony or pathos, the indescribable grace and power which the 
particles lend to many of the grandest passages in ancient litera- 
ture.’’? It is only by a close study of the entire context that these 
can be felt. They can never be fully translated from one lan- 
guage to another. Thus it is impossible to reproduce in English 
the various shades of meaning of yey and dé when in contrast. 
“The attempt to translate a particle leads to curious results. 
Dr. Cyril Jackson used always to render Tpdés pa by ‘the Tro- 
jans, God help them,’ and a former head-master of Eton always 
distinguished between oo, ‘Sir, to ‘you’, and rou, ‘at your service’”’ 
(Coleridge, Greek Classic Poets, p. 221).4 Indeed, it is not pos- 
sible to put into mere written language all that the look, the 
gesture, the tone of voice, the emphasis of the accent carried 
when heard and seen. Cf. a Frenchman in conversation. The 
spoken vernacular thus has all the advantage of the written style. 
All the vernacular cannot be reproduced on the page. Cf. the 
charm of the actual speech of Jesus and Paul. The N. T. is in 
the vernacular xowy, but even so it does not reproduce to any 
great extent the witchery of the old Greek particles. Time has 
worn them down very much. Still, we do find them here and 
there. There is a good example in Ph. 3:8, adda yey ot ye Kal 
wyotvua. So also ef qws Hon more (Ro. 1:10) and zi er Kaya ws 
(337); Ci. P»B. M. 42 (e.c. 168) ob pv GX’ evel kai and O. P. 
1164, 5 (vi/vil A.D.) od py 6é€ adda cai. This shows that Paul 
at least knew how to indicate the finer shades of thought by 
means of the Greek particles. Blass> notes that, in comparison . 
with the Semitic languages, the N. T. seems to make excessive 
use of the particles, poor as the showing is in comparison with 
the classic period. ‘‘ Modern Greek has lost the classical Greek 
wealth of connective and other particles which lend nicety and 
1 Paley, The Gk. Particles, p. vi. ilhey 


ab pike § Gr. of N. T: Gk;, p. 259. 
8 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 195. 


1146 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


precision of thought. Only kai (otre, otdé), 7 and the less com- 
monly used conjunctions a\d\a, 7Ajnv, duws have been retained. 
The loss of yap, &pa has been compensated by new formations; 
but the ancient Greek ré, 6€, perv — 6€, pevTor, unv, odv (yodr), Ert, 
én, yé, wéo have left no successors”? (Thumb, Handb., p. 185). 
The papyri seem barren of intensive particles in comparison with 
the older Greek. Jannaris! observes how these postpositive par- 
ticles (yé, 67, wév, wép, roc and their compounds) tend in the 
later Greek either to disappear or to become prepositive. The 
N. T. is in harmony with this result. The same thing occurs 
with &pa, which sometimes becomes prepositive, but that is not 
true of yap, 6€, obv. Dionysius Thrax? has a very extensive list 
of “expletive particles” or raparAnpwyatiKkol obvdecpor (Eloi 6é otbe" 
dn, Pa, vv, Tov, Tol, Onv, ap, OATa, TEP, TH, UNV, GV, avd, Vvov, ody, KEV, YE, 
add, unv, Toivuy, Tovyapody). Some of these (like apa, ovv, adda, 
and one might add yap, 6€) are so prevailingly conjunctival that 
they are best treated under conjunctions. Others (like xe, pa) 
belong to earlier stages of the language. The discussion of ap 
could have come here very well, since it is undoubtedly intensive 
whatever its actual meaning, whether it is blended with e into 
éav or used with és, darts, tva, drws, ws, etc., or used with the verb 
itself in the apodosis of a condition. It is a modal adverb of em- 
phasis (now definite as in Rev. 8: 1, now indefinite as in Mt. 23: 
18). It is like a chameleon and gets its colour from its environ- 
ment or from its varying moods. This fickleness of meaning is 
true of all the intensive particles. Indeed, Dionysius Thrax is 
rather slighting in his description of these words, dcou rapérres ovdév 
a@pedety dvvavrar oUTEe uv XwprobevTes NUVUalvovtac. He contradicts his 
disparagement by the use of unv in this very sentence. 

The adverbial nature of the intensive particles is well shown 
by the variety of usage of the modal adverb otzws. See Thayer’s 
Lexicon for the N. T. illustrations, which are very numerous 
(som? 200). In Jo. 4:6, éxabefero ottws ért 7H anyvi, we have a 
good example of the possibilities of o}tws. The local adverb zob 
-dwindles from ‘somewhere’ (Heb. 2:6) to ‘somewhat’ in Ro. 
4:19. Cf. also 67 zov (‘surely’) in Heb. 2:16. Some of the 
temporal adverbs also at times approach the emphatic particles. 
Cf. rd Nourdv in Ph. 3:1; 4:8 (see Kennedy in loco) almost? =obv. 
But in the N. T. ap7. and #6 are always strictly temporal. How- 

1 Hist. Gk. Gry, p.400; 


* Cf. Uhlig’s ed., p. 96, and Schol. Dion. Thrax in Bekk. An., 970. 10. 
$ So mod. Gk., Thumb, Handb., p. 184. 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAT) 1147 


ever, toTé sometimes loses its notion of ‘once upon a time’ (Gal. 
1:23) and fades into that of ‘ever’ as in 1 Cor. 9:7; Eph. 5: 
29. In én wore (Ro. 1:10; Ph. 4:10) it is more the notion of 
culmination (‘now at last’) than of time. But in wu wore the notion 
of time may be wholly gone before that of contingency (‘lest per- 
chance’), as in Lu. 12:58. In the N. T. we find undoubted in- 
stances of the non-temporal use of viv and vuvi where the sense 
differs little from 67 or otv. Some of the passages are in doubt. 
But the logical and emotional use, as distinct from the temporal, 
is clear in Jo. 15:22, 24 where viv de gives the contrast to the 
preceding conditions, ‘but as it is.’ Cf. also 1 Jo. 2: 28, kai viv, 
texvia, Where John’s emotional appeal is sharpened by the use of 
vov. Cf. likewise kai viv dedpo in Ac. 7:34 (LXX). Cf. kai viv, 
B. U. 530 (i/a.p.). In general, the N. T. language, like the Eng- 
lish, leaves most of the emotion and finer shades of thought to 
be brought out by the reader himself. ‘‘The historical books of 
the N. T., and especially their dialogues and discourses, are only 
fully and truly intelligible to us in reading them in high voice in 
the original Greek text, and in supplying the intonation, the 
gestures, the movement, that is to say, in reconstituting by the 
imagination the scene itself.’’! 

2. THE N. T. ILLUSTRATIONS. 

(a) Te. We may begin with ye. The origin of ye is by no 
means certain. In the Boeotian, Doric and Eleatic dialects it is 
ya. It seems to correspond? to the k in the Gothic mi-k (German 
mi-ch). Cf. Greek éue-ye. Brugmann sees also a kinship to the 
g in the Latin ne-g-otiwm, ne-g-legere, ne-g-are. Hartung? con- 
nects it with the adverb ¢a. It may also be the same word 
as the Vedic Sanskrit gha, which is used in the same way.’ Cf. 
further qui in the Latin qui-dem. It is not so common in the 
Kown as in the classic Attic (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 29). Its 
function is to bring into prominence the particular word with 
which it occurs. It is enclitic and so postpositive. The feelings 
are sharply involved when ye is present. It suits the Greek,® 
which “delights in pointed questions, irony and equivocal assent.” 
But there is no English equivalent and it frequently cannot be 
translated at all. Hartung® sees in ye a comparative element, while 


1 Viteau, Etude sur le grec, 1896, p. ii. 

2 Cf... Brug,, Griech, Gri. p. 541. 

3 Partikellehre, I, p. 344f. Cf. K.-G., II, pp. 171-178. 
sakOReG all apils de 5 Paley, The Gk. Particles, p. 14. 
6 Partikellehre, I, p. 326. 


1148 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


kai is cumulative and arithmetical. As a matter of fact, ye brings 
to the fore the idea of the word with which it is used, but adds 
no distinctive notion of its own! Hiibner? calls it a concessive 
particle on a par with dues. But that is not always true of 
vé. The distinction made by ye may be either the least im- 
portant or the most important (Thayer). The resultant idea 
may be ‘at least,’ this much if no more, a concessive notion. 
We find this to be the significance of ye in Lu. 11:8, 61a ye ry 
avadlay avrod. Here, however, the ye more properly belongs to 
avavdiay, since that is the point, not the preposition 6.4. The 
same slight variation from the classic idiom appears in 18: 
5, dua ye TO Tapexe por KoTov THY xnpay Tabtnv. ‘The concessive 
minimizing idea comes out clearly in Jo. 4:2, kaitovye *Inaots 
avrés. See further apa ye and xai ye in Ac. 17: 27, and, in particu- 
lar, G\AG ye duty eiui (1 Cor. 9 : 2) where again the ancient idiom 
would prefer tyutv ye, ‘to you at least’ (if not to others). Once 
more note ef ye in Eph. 3 : 2; 4: 21; Col. 1: 23, and ei 6é€ un ye in 
Mt. 6:1;9:17, etc. There is a keen touch of irony in Ro. 9 : 20, 
® avOpwre, pevodvye ot tis &; Cf. dpaye in Mt. 17:26. On the 
other hand yé means ‘this much,’ ‘as much as this,’ in other 
contexts. So in Lu. 24:21, adda ye cal civ aor Tobros, Where the 
ascensive force is accented by xai, civ and adda (affirmative here, 
not adversative), and the climax of the crescendo is reached in 
ye. The same climacteric force of the particles occurs in Ph. 
3:8, dda pev oov ye kal nyoduar wavTa (nuiay etvar. ‘I go,’ says 
Paul, ‘as far as to consider all things to be loss.’ Cf. a&paye in Mt. 
7:20 and xai ye in Ac. 2:18 (Joel 3:2). So we have dpa ye in 
Ac. 8:30. <A fine example is és ye Tod idiov viod otk épeicato (Ro. 
8:32). So 10:18. There is irony again in xal ddeddv ye EBacrdeb- 
cate (1 Cor. 4:8), and note the position of yé.apart from kai. In 
Homer ye is very common with the pronouns,? but in the N. T. 
we have only és ye (Ro. 8:32). We no more find éw ye, but 
eyo pev (Mt. 3:11), €ya— ob (8:14), eye 5€ (5 : 22), airds eyo 
(Ro. 9:3). Indeed all of the thirty examples of yé in the N. T. 
occur with conjunctions (paratactic or hypotactic) or other par- 
ticles except those in Lu. 11:8; 18:5; Ro. 8:32. Cf. duapria yé 
éorw (‘indeed it is sin’) in Hermas, Vis., i,1.8. The particles with 
which ye is found in the N.T. are adda ye (Lu. 24:21); &pa ye 
(Mt. 7:20); apa ye (Ac. 8 : 30); ef ye (Eph. 3 : 2); ef 5é wh ve (Mt. 


1 Baumlein, Griech. Partikeln, 1861, p. 54. 
? Grundr., p. 85. Cf. also Nagelsbach, Comm. de particulae yé usu Hom. 
1830, p. 4. 3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 258. 


ee Se << 


ee ee ee ee 


ee 
—a no 


PARTICLES (AI IHAPAOHKAI) 1149 


6:1); Kai ye (Ac. 17:27); xairorye (Jo. 4:2); pwhriye (1 Cor. 6: 
3); dpedov ye (1 Cor. 4: 8); wevodvye (Ro. 9:20). Cf. dad ye in Lu. 
11:8; 18:5. Tap is compounded of ye and dpa, but it will be 
treated under conjunctions, though it is sometimes not much 
more than an intensive particle. Cf. ri yap xaxdv éroincey (Mt. 
2h 23). 

(b) Ayn. It has likewise an uncertain etymology.! It appears 
in the Attic poets as dai (cf. vf, vai) and is seen in composition 
with 6f-ra, dn-rov, ére-dn, 7-6n.2 In F-5y we probably have*® 7 
and 67. It was originally temporal in idea and goes back to 
the Indo-Germanic period. Jannaris* thinks that 6é and 64 are 
one and the same word (cf. wév and uv) and holds that the 
difference is due to the transliteration from the old to the new 
alphabet when alone a distinction was made between e and é (7). 
Thus the spelling 67 was confined to the intensive particle, 
while 6€ was the form for the conjunction. It is certain that in 
Homer there is confusion between 6€ and 67 before vowels.® 
In Homer also 67 may begin a sentence, but in the N. T. as 
elsewhere all the examples are postpositive (but not enclitic). 
Blass® does not treat it as an intensive particle, but as a con- 
secutive particle. It is hard to follow Blass’ theory of the par- 
ticles. Like the other intensive particles it has no English or 
German equivalent and is a hard word to translate. It is 
climacteric and indicates that the point is now at last clear and 
may be assumed as true.” Cf. Latin gam nunc, viv — én (1 
Jo. 4:3); 76n mworé (Ro. 1:10). The similarity in sense be- 
tween 67 and one usage of 6€ may be seen in Ac. 6: 3, émoxe- 
Wacbe 6é (67), where W. H. put 67 in the margin. Cf. cai od 6€ in 
Lu. 1:76. <A is not genuine in 2 Cor.12:1. There are left 
only six N. T. illustrations, counting 67 rov in Heb. 2:16, od yap 
6n Tov ayyedwy éerdauBaverar. In Mt. 13:23, ds 67 Kaprodope?, it 
occurs in a relative sentence, ‘who is just the man who.’® The 
other examples are all with the hortatory subjunctive (Lu. 2: 
15; Ac. 15:36) or the imperative (Ac. 18:2; 1 Cor. 6: 20) Jin 
accord with the classical idiom. There is a note of urgency in 
adoptoate 67 (Ac. 13:2) and dofdacare 6n (1 Cor. 6:20). The pas- » 
sage with 67 wore in Jo. 5: 4 has disappeared from the critical text. 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 547. 

2 Tb.; Prellwitz, Et. Worterbuch, p. 73. 

3 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 256. Sate OLN. Ls Gkeene 2/31. 

4 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410. 7 Klotz ad Devar., II, p. 392. 

5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 256. 8 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 274. 


1150 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) Ef phy, vf and vai. Somewhat akin to the positive note in 
69 is the use of 4 wv which is read by many MSs. in Heb. 6: 14. 
The etymology of this adverb is again quite uncertain, though it 
is possible that it may have the same root as # (7Fe, nFé).! CE. 
4 On (#6n). In frep (Jo. 12:43) and jro (Ro. 6 : 16) we have the 
comparative or disjunctive 7. In Homer it was often used in 
connection with other particles.2, We may pass pny for the pres- 
ent. If #4 were genuine in Hebrews the usage would be in strict 
accord with classic construction for a strong asseveration. But 
certainly ef unv is the true text. This queer idiom appears a few 
times in the LXX (Ezek. 33 : 27; 34:8; 38:19, etc.). It occurs 
also in the papyri and the inscriptions® after ii/B.c. Cf. @ pny, 
P. Oxy. 255 (a.p. 48). So that it is mere itacism between 7 and 
ei. The Doric has ei for 7 where Moulton* holds against Hort® 
that the distinction is strictly orthographical. See further chap- 
ter VI, Orthography and Phonetics, 1, (c). So then e unv has to be 
admitted in the xowy as an asseverative particle. It is thus another 
form of 7 unv. Jannaris® gives a special section to the “ assevera- 
tive particles” v7 and ua. We do not have ua in the N. T. and v7 
only once in 1 Cor. 15:31, Ka6’ juépay arobvnckw vi Ti buerepav 
kavxnow. Nis a peculiarity of the Attic dialect and is used in 
solemn asseverations (oaths, etc.) and means ‘truly,’ ‘yes.’ It is 
probably the same word as vai, the affirmative adverb which oc- 
curs over thirty times in the N. T. Nai may be simply ‘yes,’ as 
in Mt. 13:51. It may introduce a clause as ‘yea’ or ‘verily,’ as 
in Mt. 11:9. It is used in respectful address, Nai, Kupue (Jo. 11: 
27). It may be used as a substantive (like any adverb) with the 
article (2 Cor. 1:17) or without the article (Mt. 5:37), where 
it is repeated. It occurs with aunv in Rev. 1:7. It stands in 
contrast with ob in Mt. 5:37 and 2 Cor. 1:17. There was an 
old form vai-xu (cf. od-xi). But we do not know the etymology, 
though Brugmann’ compares it with the Latin né and nae and 
possibly also with the old Indo-Germaniec na-nd (‘so — so’). 

(d) Mer. We know a little more about yév, which is postposi- 
tive, but not enclitic. It is only another form of uv which occurs 
in the N. T. only in Heb. 6:14. The Doric and Lesbian use pav 
and the Thessalian wa —6e. So then it seems probable’ that yay 


1 Cf. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 541; K.-G., II, p. 144. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 248. 

3 Moulton, Prol., p. 46. 6 Hist. Gk: Gr. p. 410. 
4 Ib., p. 46. 7 Griech. Gr., p. 544. 

5 


App., p. 151. = Ib: 


PARTICLES (AI IMIAPAOHKAT) 1151 


(ua used with words of swearing after a negative), ujv and peév 
are one and the same word. Indeed, in Homer! all three forms 
occur in the same sense. That original sense is affirmative, mean- 
ing ‘surely,’ ‘indeed,’ ‘in truth.’ It is overrefinement to find in 
pev (unv) the subjective confirmation and in 67 the objective at- 
testation.? It is probable that in the change from the old alphabet 
to the new the transcribers adopted the two ways of spelling, 
common in Attic and Ionic (ue and uv) with a notion that puny 
was merely emphatic with single words, while vey was correlative 
(forwards or backwards) or antithetical.? Questions of metre 
may also have entered into the matter. But there is no doubt 
at all that in itself wey does not mean or imply antithesis. The 
original use was simply emphatic confirmation of single words, 
usually the weightiest word in the sentence. This use was gradu- 
ally left more and more to unv and other particles, but it is not 
anacoluthic, as Winer‘ holds, for wev to occur without the presence 
of 6€ or adda. The older language is naturally richer® in this 
original idiom with wer, but it survives in the N. T. and is not to 
be regarded as unclassical or uncouth. For an example in the 
papyri see B. U. 423 (ii/A.D.), mpd wéev ravtwv. The old idiom sur- 
vived best in the vernacular and in poetry, while the literary 
prose was more careful to use the antithetical or resumptive yey. 
. This pev solitarvcwm, as the books call it, may have a concessive 
or restrictive force.® Cf. ei wey yap 6 épxouevos (2 Cor. 11:4), 
where there is no thought of 6€ or adda. It is seen also rather 
often in the Acts. Cf.1:18 otros yey oty éxtnoato xwpiov, (3:13) dv 
tuets wey tapedwxate (cf. duets 6€ IN next verse which is copulative, 
not adversative), (3 : 21) dv det ov'pavoy perv de~acOar, (3 : 22) Mavojs 
pev eirev, (17:12) woddol pev obv é€& aitav Eeriorevoay, (21:39) eyo 
avOpwros pev eu, (23 : 18) 6 wey ody tapadraBwy (cf. also 23 : 31), (27: 
21) ee perv, (28 : 22) epi wev yap Tis aipecews tavryns, and the in- 
stances of of vey oby like Acts 1 :6; 2:41; 5:41; 8: 25, where no 
contrast is intended. See ei wév otv in Heb. 7:11; 4 peév evdoxia in 
Ro. 10:1; é¢’ dcov pev ody eiui eyo in 11:13. Cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; 
1 Th. 2:18, éym wev. Cf. also the single instance of pevoty as 
one word (Lu. 11:28) which is obviously without contrast. The 
same thing is true of pevodvye (Ro. 9: 20; 10:18; Ph. 3:8) 
however it is printed. The main. word is sharpened to a fine 
point and there is a hint of contrast in Ph. 3: 8. Indeed, most 
1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 251. 4 W.-Th., p. 575. 


2 K.-G., II, p. 135. 6 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 409. 
$ Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 409. 6 Hartung, Partikellehre, II, p. 404. 


1152 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of the instances of peév otv in the N. T. are resumptive, not cor- 
relative or antithetical... There remain the instances where pep 
implies contrast. It is Just a step in advance of the original idiom. 
Cf. Mt. 8 : 21, éxizpebov yor rp&rov aredOetv, where there is nothing 
to correspond to mp&rov. The érecza is involved in what precedes. 
So with zparov and re —xai in Ro. 1:16 and rpadrov — cai in 2 
Cor. 8:5. The xai does not answer to the rpérov.2 Just so we 
have rov wey mp@tov Aoyov in Ac. 1:1 without a devrepoy dé, though 
the clear implication is that the Acts is the second book. In 1 
Cor. 11:18, mp&rov pév yap, the contrast is implied* in verses 
20 ff., but in Ro. 1:8, rp&rov yey evxapior@, there is no hint of 
other grounds of thanksgiving. ‘This instance may be a change 
of thought on Paul’s part (anacoluthon), or it may be the original 
use of wey, meaning ‘first of all in truth.’ Cf. rp&rov wey in Ro. 
3:2. In Ro. 7:12, 6 wer vouos, there is no contrast stated, but in 
verse 14 it is given by 6e, yet without pe. In Col. 2:23, arwa 
éotw ddyov pev Exovta codias, the antithesis is really stated in ovk » 
éy Tiyuy, kTA. Without an adversative particle. In 1 Cor. 5:3 the 
yuev stands alone, while arayv and zapwy are contrasted by é6é. In 
Heb. 12 : 9 there is contrast between the yey clause and the next, 
which has no particle (only todd waddov). In Ac. 26:4, 6, ye is 
followed by kai viv by way of contrast and by ra vdy in 17: 380. 
Cf. wey — xal in 1 Th. 2:18, wey—vé in Ac. 27:21, where there 
is practically no contrast. But see 6 ver — kal érepov in Lu. 8: 
5 ff., 6 wer — xal &\do in Mk. 4:4 ff. We have pe — érera.in Jo. 
11:6; Jas. 3:17; 1 Cor. 12:28. These are all efforts to express 
antithesis. We see this also in wey — wAnv in Lu. 22: 22 and in 
pev —ad\AG In Ac. 4:16; Ro. 14:20; 1 Cor. 14:17. In Mk. 9: 
12 f. adda is independent of the ver. But it is the yey — dé con- 
struction that is the most frequent in the N. T. as in the Attic 
Greek. There are two and a half pages of examples of yéy in its 
various uses in the N. T. given in Moulton and Geden’s Concord- 
ance, but even so the particle has made a distinct retreat since the 
Attic period.! It is wholly absent from 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, 
2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus (critical text) and Revelation. 
It occurs thrice in Jude, only once in Eph. (4:11), Col. (2: 28), 
1 Th. (2:18), Jas. (8:17). It is most frequent in Matthew, Acts, 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 267. Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410) gives a very 
large list of illustrations of the original use of uwé from anc. Gk. 

2° GioW.-Th.; p06: 

3 But Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 267) takes it to be ‘from the very outset’ 
and so the original use of pév. 4 Ib., p. 266, 


PARTICLES (AI ITAPAOHKAI) 1158 


Romans, 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. Paley! thinks that pyé& 
and 6€ may contain the roots of one (uia) and two (dtvo). But 
certainly the correlative antithesis is not necessary to either of 
them, though with 6¢ there is the notion of addition. Cf. in this 
connection perv — cat (Mk. 4:4; Lu. 8:5) and rove pev (Jo. 11: 6). 
There are varying degrees of contrast where yey and 6€ occur 
together. There may be no emphasis on the yey and very little 
on the 6é, which is not essentially adversative. The yév may pre- 
serve almost its original idiom while 6¢ has slight contrast. So 
Lu. 11:48, dpa waprupes éore kal cuvevdoxetre Tots Epyous TOY TaTEepwr, 
dTe avTol pev amextevay avtovs buets 6€ oiKkodouetre. The whole sen- 
tence is quoted to show that it is agreement (correspondence), not 
opposition, that is here accented. In verse 47 we have 6¢, but not 
pev, which is hardly felt in 48. See also Ac. 18:36 f.; Ph. 3:1; 
Heb. 7:8. In particular we note this slight contrast when a 
whole is distributed into its parts as in Mt. 25: 14 ff.; 1 Cor. 9: 25. 
Cf. also Ac. 18:14 f. But the distribution may amount to sharp 
division, as in 1 Cor. 1: 12, ’Ey@ yey eiue THatdov, "Eva dé ’AroAdNw, 
"Eyw 6€ Knda, “Eva 6€ Xpicrod. It is thus the context that decides 
how pointed is the contrast. It is not the words yey and 6€ that 
inherently mean opposition. Indeed, the contrast may be indi- 
cated by 6€ alone as in Mt. 5: 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 25:46; Ac. 
12:9; Heb. 2:8; 4:13; 6:12.2 We see a good illustration of clear 
antithesis in John’s words about his baptism and that of Christ in 
Mt. 3:11, eyo pwev—o de. See further 20: 23; 22:8; 23:28; 25: 
33, Kal gThoe TA wev TpOBaTa Ex deEL@Y a’TOd Ta dé Epidia EF ebwybuwr. 
The examples are numerous. See of wev — of d€ (Ph. 1: 16 ff.); ods 
pev — ods 6€ (Jude 22); tives perv — tives d€ (Ph. 1:15); eis wev — els 
de (Heb. 9:6 f.); of wev—addoe 6€ (Mt. 16:14); GAXyn yEv — GAAH 
dé (1 Cor. 15:39); todro perv — Todro de (Heb. 10: 33); rpdrov pev 
—érera d€ (Heb. 7:2); ef ev ov — ei 6€ (Ac. 19:38 f.); ef wer — 
viv 6€ (Heb. 11:15 f.), etc. These examples fairly exhibit the 
N. T. usage of yvev. It is often a matter of one’s mood how 
much emphasis to put on yey and dé, as in Mt. 9:37 and Mk. 
14:38. In pévro there is always strong contrast. As examples 
of vey — adda in sharp contrast see Ro. 14: 20; 1 Cor. 14:17. So 
also yey — wAnv (Lu. 22 : 22). 

(e) Ilép. It is probably a shortened form of zepi (cf. perfect) or 
mept more exactly. It is both postpositive and enclitic and is 
usually in the N.T. printed as a part of the word with which it 


1 The Gk. Particles, p. 34. 
2 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 266, $ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 545. 


1154 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


occurs. But in Homer this is not true, while wép follows xai only 
once.!. There is no doubt about the etymology of this particle.? 
Some? even connect it directly with wépay or wépa. Cf. mepartépw 
(critical text in Ac. 19:39). But this idea does not conflict 
with the other, for zépc is the locative of wépa. It is an Indo- 
Germanic root, and the original notion of mépe occurs in zept- 
miumtAnul, wept-TANOns, Nu-per, per-manere, per-linax, sem-per, etc. 
It means then to do a thing to the limit (beyond), thoroughly. 
There is a note of urgency in zép. It is intensive as yé, but prob- 
ably tends to be more extensive also. Sometimes the emphasis 
in 7ép is in spite of opposition® as in xairep which occurs six times 
in-the’N. ‘T?'(Pha3 243" Hebws 283" 7255 12 ee che leees 
and always with participles, as xaiwep dv vids (Heb. 5:8). The 
Textus Receptus has évrep in Mk. 15:6, but W. H. read only 
év, but dv67ep appears twice as an inferential conjunction (1 Cor. 
8:18; 10:14). See dowep, O. P. 1125, 6 Gii/a.v.). The other 
examples are all with conjunctions, as éavrep (Heb. 3: 14; 6:3); 
eirep (a half-dozen times, all in Paul, as Ro. 8:9; 1 Cor. 15: 15); 
éreirep (some MSS. in Ro. 3:30, but the best MSS., as W. H. 
give, have elrep); érednrep (only Lu. 1:1); jrep (only the crit- 
ical text in Jo. 12:48); xafazep (some 17 times, all in Paul save 
Heb. 4: 2), xadworep (Heb. 5:4 and a varia lectio in 2 Cor. 3: 18), 
aomep (some 36 times, chiefly in Matthew, Luke and Paul, as 
Mt. 6: 2), woepet (once only, 1 Cor. 15: 8). 

(f) Tot does not occur alone in the N. T., but only in composi- 
tion. It is enclitic as in fro, Katror, wevror, but it comes first in 
tovyapovy and rowvy. The etymology is not certain. Brugmann® 
takes it to be a fixed form of the ethical dative coi (roi). Others? 
take it as the locative of the demonstrative 76. Kiihner-Gerth® 
consider it the locative of the indefinite ri. There seems no way 
of telling for certain. But it seems to have the notion of restric- 
tion and in Homer? is often combined with adversative particles. 
In the N. T. we find jjro. once (Ro. 6 : 16), cairo. twice (Ac. 14: 
17; Heb. 4:3), xatirovye once (Jo. 4:2), wevror eight times, five 
in John’s Gospel as Jo. 4:27 and once in Paul (2 Tim. 2:19), 
tovyapodv twice (1 Th. 4:8; Heb. 12:1), rotvvy three times (Lu. 
20 : 25; 1 Cor. 9 : 26; Heb. 13:13). “Ouws is an adversative par- 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 257. 6 Griech. Gr., pp. 402, 525. 

* Hartung, Partikellehre, I, p. 327. 7 Cf. Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 252. 
3 Biumlein, Partikeln, p. 198. Sell Dl 49: 

AO A -Crar Lte Oae * Hom Grp: 202: 


5 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 257. 


PARTICLES (AI ITAPAOHKAI) 1155 


ticle that occurs three times in the N. T. (Jo. 12:42, here with 
pevroc; 1 Cor. 14:7; Gal. 3 : 15), twice with a participle. 

III. Negative Particles (otepyntixal tapabtKar). The use of the 
negative particles has been discussed already in various parts of 
the grammar in an incidental way in connection with the modes, 
verbal nouns and dependent clauses. But it is necessary at this 
point to treat the subject as a whole. It is not the logical nega- 
tive that one has here to deal with. Many words are negative 
in idea which are positive in form. Thus “empty” is negative, 
“cold” is negative, “death” is negative. Aristotle uses o7epnrixds 
for this negative conception. It is in reality an ablative idea 
as orepew implies. But the grammarian is concerned simply with 
those words that are used to make positive words (or clauses) 
negative. This is the grammatical negative. There are, indeed, 
in Greek, as in English, negative post-fixes.!. But there is a com- 
mon negative Greek prefix a(v) called alpha privative, Sanskrit 
a(n), Latin in, Gothic wn, English wn. In Sanskrit this prefix 
does not occur with verbs and is rare with substantives. It is 
there found chiefly with adjectives and participles.2_ In Greek it 
occurs with verbs, but chiefly denominative verbs like arimatw.3 
The use of a— (av— before vowels) is in the Greek still more 
common with adjectives and verbals. See the chapter on For- 
mation of Words for details. Cf. addxiwos, adixia, areOns, acbveros, 
actvOeTos, &oTopyos, avedenuwy (Ro. 1: 28-30). 

1. THe OpsectTivE Ov AND ITS COMPOUNDS. 

(a) Origin. Thisis unknown. Hiibschmann‘ sees a connection 
with the Latin haud as do other scholars.’ Fowler® takes it as 
an original intensive particle like pas in the Trench ne pas and 
—xi (Indo-Ger. —gh?) in ot-xi. The Zend ava is also noted and the 
Latin aw (au-fero).7 But there is no doubt that od in the Greek 
took the place of the Sanskrit nd, Latin né- (ne-que, ne-scio; the re- 
lation of né né-quidem, né-quam to this né is not known), Gothic 
ni. The use of the Greek od corresponds to the Sanskrit nd. 


1 Anon., Notes on Negative Postfixes in Gk. and Lat., 1884, p. 6. 
2 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 447. 

* Brug., Griech: Gr.; p.. 529. 

4 Cf. Das indoger. Vokal-System, p. 191. 

5 Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., XVIII, pp. 4, 123 f.; ee Koarouns err De 

pp. 43 ff.; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 528. 

6 The Neoatines of the Indo-Europ. Lang., 1896. Cf. Delbriick, Grundr., 
IV, p. 519. 

7 But Draeger (Hist. Synt., p. 133) says that this connection with the Lat. 
haud cannot be shown. 


1156 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(b) History. As far back as Greek goes we find ov, but od did 
not hold its own with wf in the progress of the language. Within 
the past century od has become obsolete in modern Greek outside 
of a few proverbs save in the Laconian and the Pontic dialects. 
The Pontic dialect uses «i from Old Ionic ovxi. But modern Greek 
has ot5é and otre (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). In the Bceotian dia- 
lect, it may be noted, od never did gain a place. We have seen 
ovdev used as an adverb, an idiom that goes back to Homer.? 
Jannaris*® explains that the vernacular came to use ovéé& and u7n- 
dev for emphasis and then on a par with od and ph. Then ovdér 
dropped od and pydév lost dev, leaving dev and wy for the modern 
Greek. At any rate this is the outcome. Ae is the negative of 
the ind. in modern Greek except after va and final clauses when 
we find va yn (Thumb,.Handb., p. 200). And 6éey is the regular 
negative in the protasis of conditional sentences both with ind. 
and subj.4: The distinction between od and w7 did become more or 
less blurred in the course of time, but in the N. T., as in the cow 
generally, the old Greek idiom is very well preserved in the main. 
Buttmann$ even thinks that the N. T. idiom here conforms more 
exactly to the old literary style than in any other point. Ae 
may represent under (Rendel Harris, Exp., Feb., 1914, p. 163). 

(c) Meaning. Ov denies the reality of an alleged fact. It is the 
clear-cut, point-blank negative, objective, final. Jannaris? com- 
pares ot to é7c and wh to ta, while Blass* compares od to the 
indicative mode and yA to the other modes. But these analogies - 
are not wholly true. Sometimes, indeed, od coalesces with the 
word as in od dnu = not merely ‘I do not say,’ but ‘I deny.’ So 
oix éaw (Ac. 16:7) =‘I forbid.’ Cf. od 6€\w (Mk. 9: 80); otk exw 
(Mt. 13:12); otk ayvoew (2 Cor. 2:11). See also rév od dadv in 
Ro. 9:25 (LXX) where od has the effect of an adjective or a 
prefix. Delbriick® thinks that this use of od with verbs like the 
Latin ne-scto was the original one in Greek. In the LXX od 
translates x5. 

(d) Uses. Here it will be sufficient to make a brief summary, since 
the separate uses (pp. 917 f., 929 f., etc.) are discussed in detail in 


1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 182; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 425. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 259. 3 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 426. 

4 Thumb, Handb., p. 194 f.; Jebb, in V. and D., p. 339. 

5 Gr. of the N. T. Gk., Thayer’s Transl., p. 344. 

6 Cf. Thouvemin, Les Négations dans le N. T., Revue de Philol., 1894, p. 
229. 7 Hist: Gki-Gr., p. 427: 

(oro IN. 0. Ge peoes ® Synt. Forsch., IV, p. 147. 


PARTICLES (AI IIAPAOHKAI) ibd RaW 


the proper places. The point here is to show how all the varied 
uses of od are in harmony with the true meaning of the particle. 

(i) The Indicative. We meet ot with the indicative in both in- 
dependent and dependent clauses. 

(a) Independent Sentences. Here the negative od is universal 
with the indicative in declarative sentences. The force of od 
(ovx before vowels, ovx before aspirate) is sometimes very power- 
ful, like the heavy thud of a blow. Cf. oix édaxare, ovk éroricarte, 
ov ouvnyayere, ov mepteBarere, ovK ereckepacbe (Mt. 25:42 f.). The 
force of all these negatives is gathered up in the one ov in verse 
44. In verse 45 od and ot’éé are balanced over against each other. 
See otk érecey in Mt. 7:25. Cf. od azapéd\aBov in Jo. 1:11. In 
Mt. 21:29 see the contrast between éyw, xkipre and otk damper. 
Note the progressive bluntness of the Baptist’s denials till ob 
comes out flat at the last (Jo. 1:21f.). In the N. T. od alone 
occurs with the future indicative used as a prohibition, though 
the classic idiom sometimes had uy. Cf. od dovebces (Mt. 5 : 21); 
ok éoecbe ws of broxpitai (6:5), etc. Still, Blass! quotes undéeva 
puonoere in Clem., Hom., III, 69. The volitive subjective nature 
of this construction well suits uy, but od is more emphatic and 
suits the indicative. In Mt. 16 : 22, ob un éorar cou TodT0, we have 
ob yw) in the prohibitive sense. When od occurs alone = ‘no,’ as 
at the end of a clause, it is written od as in ov, un more (Mt. 
13: 29); 7d Ob od (2 Cor. 1:17). 

But in interrogative (independent) sentences oi always expects 
the answer ‘yes.’ The Greek here draws a distinction between ov 
and uy that is rather difficult to reproduce in English. The use 
of a negative in the question seems naturally to expect the an- 
swer ‘yes,’ since the negative is challenged by the question. This 
applies to ob. We may leave py till we come to it. Ov in questions 
corresponds to the Latin nonne. Cf. Mt. 7 : 22, 0) 7G oG dvouare 
émpopntrevoauev KTA., Where ov is the negative of the whole long 
question, and is not repeated with the other verbs. See further 
Witt oso wouetowis: . Cor, 143 25. In | Cor: 9i°l we have ov 
four times (once oixi). The form ovyxi is a bit sharper in tone. 
Cf. Mt. 13:27; Lu. 12:6. In Lu. 6:39 we have yp with one 
question, unre divarar tuddds TUPdov ddnyetv; and ovxi With the other 
(side by side) ovxi auddrepor eis BOOvvoy eéurecodvra; There is a 
tone of impatient indignation in the use of od in Ac. 13:10, od 
Tavon diuactpepwy Tas dd0vs TOD Kuplov Tas eiOeias; In Ac. 21:88, ovx 
dpa ov et. 6 Alytrrus; the addition of apa means ‘as I supposed, 

1 Gr. N. T. Gr., p. 254. 


1158 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


but as I now see denied.’! In Mk. 14:60 note the measured use 
of ot and ovdév in both question, oik aroxpivy obdev; and the descrip- 
tion of Christ’s silence, xalt otk amexpivato ovdev. In Lu. 18:7, od 
uh toon — Kal waxpoOuuet éx’ adrots; we come near having ov yA in 
a question with the present indicative as well as with the aorist 
subjunctive. In a question like pi obx Exouev; (1 Cor. 9:4) od is 
the negative of the verb, while uw is the negative of the sentence. 
Cf. Ro. 10:18, 19. In 1 Cor. 9:8 we have yu in one part of the 
question and ov’ in the other, wh kata avOpwrov tatdra hard, 7 Kal 
6 vouos Tadra ob Neye; In Mt. 22:17 (Lu. 20:22; Mk. 12: 14) 
we have 4 ov; as the alternative question, and Mark adds #7 y7. 
Babbitt? holds that “od is used in questions of fact, while in other 
questions (e.g. questions of possibility) wy is used.’”? I doubt the 
correctness of this interpretation. 

In declarative sentences the position of od is to be noted when 
for emphasis or contrast it comes first. Cf. od and adda in Ro. 
9:8. So ob yap— adr’ 6 in 7:15. In 7:18 f. note od: ov side 
by side. Cf. also position of od in Ac. 1:5; 2:15; Ro. 11:18 (0d 
aU — adda). So add’ ovk €yw in 1 Cor. 6:12. 

(8) Subordinate Clauses. In principle the use of od is the same 
as in independent sentences. But there are some special adapta- 
tions which have already been discussed and need only brief men- 
tion here. 

In relative clauses with the indicative ot is almost the only 
negative used in the N. T., the examples of uw) being very few 
as will be seen directly. This is true both with definite relative 
clauses where it is obviously natural, as in 2 Cor. 8: 10, oizwves ob 
povov — tpoernpéacbe (cf. Ro. 10:14; Jas. 4:14), and in indefinite 
relative clauses where un is possible, but by no means necessary, 
as in Mt. 10 : 38, ds od AauBaver (cf. Lu. 9 : 50; 14: 33, etc.). The 
use of ot in the relative clause which is preceded by a negative 
is not an encroachment? on uy. Cf. ob wi) abeO7 Gde AiOos Ext iOov 
ds ov KatadvOnoerar (Mt. 24:2). It is a common enough idiom in 
the old Greek, as we see it in 10: 26 (Lu. 12: 2), ot6& éorw Kexa- 
Auupevov 6 obK amoxadvdOynoerar. Cf. Lu. 8:17, where the second 
relative has ob wy} yrwob7, and Ro. 15:18 for the negative od in 
principal and relative clause. In Mk. 4:25 note és éxe and és 
obk éxer. Cf. 5 Oé\w and 6 ov bé\w (Ro. 7:15, 19). Practically the 
same* construction is od with the relative in a question, as tis 


1 W.-Th., p. 511. 


> Harv. Stu. in Class. Philol., 1901, The Use of M# in Questions, p. 307. 
3 W.-Lh.,..p, 481; * Thouvemin, Les Négations, etc., p. 233 f. 


PARTICLES (AI IIAPAOHKAI) 1159 


éorw ds ov in Ac. 19:35; cf. Heb. 12:7. For further illustration 
of od with relative clauses see Mt. 12:2=Mk. 2:24; Jo. 6: 64; 
dela 27 JO ace eho. lo 21 Gal's: 107 Rev. 9:4. 

In temporal clauses with the indicative o) comes as a matter 
of course.! This is true of a definite note of time as in Ac. 22: 
11, as ovk éveBdXerov, and of an indefinite period as in Jo. 4: 21, dpa 
dre ote (cf. also 9 : 4, vdE dre ovdels). 

In comparative clauses with the indicative the negative comes 
outside in the principal sentence, since comparison is usually 
made with a positive note. So ov xadamep (2 Cor. 8:13); ob Kabas 
nrticapev (8 : 5); ovk eiul worep (Lu. 18:11); ody ws (Ro. 5:15 f.). 
We do have as otk depa dépwy in 1 Cor. 9 : 26 (participle) as in 2 
Cor. 10 : 14 we have od yap, ws wip edixvobpevor, Where the two nega- 
tives are in good contrast. 

In local clauses likewise the use of ot is obvious, as in 6zov otk 
etxev yqv wod\Anv (Mt. 13 : 5); dou ob dedXes (Jo. 21:18. Here the 
ov is very pointed); ob 6€ otk éotw vouos (Ro. 4: 15). 

In causal sentences od is not quite universal, though the usual 
negative. Cf. Mt. 25:45 é#’ dcov otk érounoate evi TolUTwY TV éda- 
xiorwv, (2:18) dre otk eiciv, (Heb. 6:13) evel car’ ovdevds exer, (1 
Cor. 14:16) éev67) otk of6ev. See further Lu. 1:34; Jo. 8:20, 37; 
Ro. 11:6. In Heb. 9:17 érel wy tore [un wore marg. of W. H.] 
isxve. may be a question as Theophylact takes it, but W. H. do 
not print it so in the text. But it is not a departure from an- 
cient Greek idiom to have uy with the ind. in causal sentences as 
will be shown. Cf. Jo. 3:18 with 1 Jo. 5: 10. 

In final clauses with the ind. od does not occur. The reason for 
un in clauses of purpose is obvious even though the ind. mode be 
used (cf. Rev. 9:4, 20). It is only with clauses of apprehension 
that od is found with the verb when yu occurs as the conjunc- 
tion. Cf. 2 Cor. 12:20, doBotua un rws ovx edpw. But this is the 
subj., not the ind. Cf. here odx otovs 6€\w and oiov ob Oédere. Cf. 
also Mt. 25:9. In Col. 2:8 we have Brerere un tis éctac — kai ov 
Kata Xprorov. The xai ov is in contrast with kata ra ororxeta Tod 
xoopov, though as a second negative it would properly be ov any- 
how. But in Rev. 9:4 we have iva pu) dédcxnoovow — olde — ovdé. 
This? does seem unusual and is almost an example of iva ov. No 
example of a clause of result with a negative occurs in the indic- 
ative, but it would, of course, have ov. 

The use of ov in conditional sentences has already received 


1 Blass, Gr. of N. TT: Gk., p. 255. 
2 Burton; N..T. M’ and T., p. 181: 


1160 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


adequate treatment. See Conditional Sentences, ch. on Mode. 
The details need not be gone over again here. There is no doubt 
of the fact that ef ob made encroachments on ¢ yu in the later 
Greek.! Blass? puts it “‘in direct contradistinction to the clas- 
sical language.”” Thouvemin® likewise treats this use of ¢ od as 
'“contrairement 4 l’usage classique — ot on le trouve exception- 
nellement.”’ It is only the frequency, the normality of ei ot in the 
N. T. that is remarkable. This is in full accord with the xow7 
development, since* in the modern Greek dev “is regularly used in _ 
the protasis of a conditional sentence, alike with the indicative 
and with the subjunctive mood.” So a@ dé rnyawa, ‘if I had not 
gone’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 195). See Mt. 26:42; Lu. 12:26; Jo. 
1: 253321252472 10238752 Peta? 4 one re 
16:22; 2 Cor. 12:11; Heb. 12:25, etc; They are all. condi- 
tions of the first class (determined as fulfilled) save one of the 
second class (determined as unfulfilled) in Mt. 26:24. In 26:42 
ef o} and édy wn stand out sharply. It is so nearly the rule with 
conditions of the first class in the N. T. that it is hardly necessary 
to follow out the analysis of Winer® to bring the examples into 
accord with ancient usage. It is gratuitous to take ei otéé as 
causal in Lu. 12: 26, or to make ei otx eiui in 1 Cor. 9 : 2 a denial 
of a positive idea. There are cases of emphatic denial, as ef tis ov 
dire? (1 Cor. 16:22). Cf. also 2 Jo. 10, et tis epxerar xal ob Peper. 
Cf. also ef ob woud and e rod in Jo. 10:37 f., where the antithesis 
is quite marked. See also the decisive negation in Jo. 1:25. But, 
when all is said, ei o0 has made distinct inroads on ei uy in the 
later Greek. 

As to the negative in indirect discourse with the indicative, it 
only remains to say that the use of od is universal. Cf. Mt. 16: 
12, cuvijxay Ore ovk elrev mpocexev. In 16:11 note wads od voetre 
drt ov mepl Aptwy elrov butv; where each negative has its own force. 
Cf. also 1 Cor. 6:9. 

(ii) The Subjunctive. In Homer od was the negative with the 
futuristic subjunctive® as in ob 6é téwuar, Iliad, I, 262. This futu- 
ristic use of the subj., as we have seen (Modes), largely passed over 
to the future indicative,’ so that ob disappears from the subjunc- 
tive almost entirely both in principal and subordinate clauses. 


1 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 429. 4 Jebb, V. and D.’s Handb., p. 339. 
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 254. 5 W.-Th., pp. 477 ff. 
3 Les Négations, etc., p. 233. 6 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 198. 


7 Thompson, Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 498. Cf. W. G. Hale, The Anticipatory 
Subjunctive in Gk. and Lat., Cornell Stu., 1895. 





PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAI) 1161 


One may compare the final disappearance of ob before ph with 
participles. In Jer. 6:8 B reads jris ov xarorxicb7 where NAQ* 
have xarocxicOnoerar. It is to be remembered also, as already 
noted, that in the modern Greek 6é occurs in the protasis 
with subjunctive as well as with the indicative, as @ dev muoretys 
(Thumb, Handbook, p. 195). This is partly due, no doubt, to 
the obscuration of the od in de, but at bottom it is the futuristic 
use of the subj. We have already noted the use of mu otx in 2 
Cor. 12: 20 with evpw after doBoduar, where the ov is kept with the 
subj. (classic idiom) to distinguish it from the conjunctional yu. 
It is also a case of the futuristic subj., not volitive as in final 
clauses with iva or érws. In Mt. 25:9 the margin of W. H. has 
Ln Tote ovK a&pxeon Without a verb of fearing, though the notion 
is there. The text has uy sore ot un. Jannaris! boldly cuts the 
Gordian knot by denying that uy in od un is a true negative. He 
makes it merely a shortening of uv. If so, all the uses of od un 
with the subj. would be examples of od with the subj. Some of 
these, however, are volitive or deliberative. This view of Jan- 
naris is not yet accepted among scholars. It is too simple a 
solution, though Jannaris argues that od unv does occur as in 
Soph. Hl. 817, Eur. Hec. 401, and he notes that the negation is 
continued by od 6€, not by uy de. Per contra it is to be observed 
that the modern Greek writes unv as well as uy, as va py eye 
mapades, ‘because he had no money’ (Thumb, Handb., p. 200). 
But, whatever the explanation, we do have ov wy with the aorist 
subj. in the N. T. We have had to discuss this point already 
(Tense and Mode), and shall meet it again under Double Nega- 
tives. But in Jo. 18:11, od uw) ziw; the answer is in accord 
with ov. 

(ili) The Optative. In the N.'T. there are no instances of the 
use of od with the optative. It is only in wishes (volitive) that 
the optative has a negative in the N. T. and that is naturally uy? 
But this is just an accident due to the rapid disappearance of 
the optative. There is no reason why od should not be found 
with the potential optative (futuristic) or the deliberative which 
was always rare. 

(iv) The Imperative. The most striking instance is 1 Pet. 3: 3, 
Gv €aTw ovX 6— KoguOos, GAN’ OKpuTTOs, KTA. It is the sharp contrast 
with add’ that explains the use of ovx. Cf. also od pévoy in 1 Pet. 
2:18, where the participle stands in an imperative atmosphere. 


1 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 433. 
2 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 200. 


1162 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT' 


Cf. also od with the inf. in the imperatival sense in 1 Cor. 5: 10. 
Elsewhere with the imperative we have uj) povoy (Jo. 13:9; Ph. 
2:12; Jas. 1:22). Ov is used in an imperatival connection with 
the fut. ind. (Mt. 5:21) and in questions of like nature (Ac. 
oeeLO) 

(v) The Infinitive. It is common to say that in the N. T.! ob 
does not occur with the infinitive, not even in indirect assertion. 
In Homer and in the classic Attic we do find od with the inf. in 
indirect assertion. This is usually explained on the ground that 
the od belonged to the original indicative in the direct and is 
simply preserved in the indirect. Monro (Hom. Gr., p. 262) ob- 
serves that in the old Sanskrit only finite verbs have the negative 
particles. This question received full discussion under Mode and 
Verbal Nouns. Only a brief word is allowed here. The oldest 
use of the negative in:indirect discourse was in the form od dnow 
dwoev Where od formally goes with ¢yacw, but logically with dace. 
From this use Monro conceives there came ov with the inf. itself. 
But the situation in the N. T. is not quite so simple as Blass? 
makes it. In Jo. 21:25, ot6’ avrov ota xwpnoev, the negative 
does go with ofua. But this is hardly true in Mk. 7: 24, nor in 
Ac. 26:26. Besides od occurs in a number of clauses dependent 
onthe. inf:,:as in» Hebi711; Rows 212° Ace 106 41s howieo- 
15: 20; Heb. 18:9; 1 Cor. 1:17; Ac. 19:27. For the discussion 
of these passages see Infinitive, ch. XX, 5, (J). It is proper to 
say that in the N. T. we still have remnants of the old use of 
ov with the inf., though in general uw is the negative. In Ro. 
15: 20 ovx bzou after ebayyedifecOac stands in sharp contrast with 
adAa Kabws. In 2 Cor. 18:7 we have pi) rorjcar buds Kaxov pnoer, 
o’x va — add’ iva where the ovx is clearly an addendum. Burton® 
explains eis oiév NoyiOAvac in Ac. 19:27, “as a fixed phrase,” 
but even so it is in use. Besides, there is p) Aoyouaxety ex’ obdev 
xpnowov in 2 Tim. 2:14. See also xal ot after aore dovAevev in 
Ro. 7:6. The use of oddév with the inf. after oi with the prin- 
cipal verb is common enough. Cf. Mk. 7:12; Lu. 20:40; Jo. 
3227351 305° Aci 262 26, etc. JBurton* notes that inwthewN 
av wovov occurs always (cf. Jo. 11:52; Ac. 21:13; 26 : 29; 27: 10; 
Ros4-512,5165139 58 26Cors8 10:2 Ph. 1 20 eee er 
cept once yu povoy in Gal. 4:18. The use of od pdvov occurs both 
in limiting clauses and in the sentence viewed as a whole. | 

(vi) The Participle. There is little to add to what was given on 


1 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr.; p. 430. 3.N.F.M. and T., p. 184. 
2. Gr. of INVES Gk opacnoe 4°Tby; pe 183+. ; 


—— 


—— ee 


PARTICLES (AI ITAPAOHKAI) 1163 


the subject of ob and uw with the participle under the Verbal: As- 
pects of the Participle (see Verbal Nouns). Galloway! thinks 
that it was with the participle that od was first used (as opposed 
to the Sanskrit negative prefix) before the infinitive had ov. At 
any rate ov is well established in Homer. We may simply accent 
the fact that the encroachment of “7 on ov with the participle 
gives all the greater emphasis to the examples of ot which re- 
main. Cf. 6 ovk dv rounv (Jo. 10 : 12); ws otk dépwv (1 Cor. 9 : 26). 
There is no trouble in seeing the force of oi wherever we find it 
with the participle in the N. T. 

(vii) With Nouns. Here we see a further advance of the nega- 
tive particles over the Sanskrit idiom which confined them to the 
finite verb. The Greek usually employs the negative prefix with 
nouns, but in a few instances in the N. T. we have ot. So roy 
ov hadv in Ro. 9:25 (LXX), ob Aads in 1 Pet. 2:10 (LXX), ar’ 
ovk @ve in Ro. 10:19 (ny 835 Deut. 82:21). But this is by no 
means a Hebraism, since it is common in the best Greek writers. 
Cf. 7 od duadvors In Thue. 1, 137.4 and 4 ovk éfovcia in 5, 50. 3. Cf. 
ovK apxtepews In 2 Macc. 4:13. As Thayer well says, od in this 
construction ‘‘annuls the idea of the noun.’ The use of ot to 
deny a single word is common, as in ov Ovciay (Mt. 9:18). Cf. 
ovk gue in Mk. 9:37. In general for ot with exceptions see oik & 
copia (1 Cor. 1:17), ob pedan (2 Cor. 3:3). In 2 Tim. 2:14, ér’ 
ovdev xpnouov, it is possible that xpyciuoy is in the substantival 
sense. There is, of course, nothing unusual in the use of od with 
adjectives like ob zrodXol codoi (1 Cor. 1:26). What is note- 
worthy is the litotes so common in the N. T. as in the older 
Greek. Cf. per’ ot wodt (Ac. 27:14); per’ od roddds jyépas (Lu. 
15 : 13); otk ddiya (Ac. 17:4); otk donuov (21:39). Cf. otk && pe 
tpov (Jo. 3 : 34); ob perpiws (Ac. 20:12). Ov was and was od have 
received discussion under Adjectives, and so just a word will 
suffice. Ov’ maca capé (1 Cor. 15: 39) is ‘not every kind of 
flesh.’ Cf. ob rav7i 7S Nad (Ac. 10:41); od wavres (Mt. 19:11); od 
mavrws (1 Cor. 5:10). But otk dv éow0n raca capé (Mt. 24:22) 
means ‘no flesh,’ like the Hebrew 85—53. The construction in 
both senses is more common in John than in the Synoptic 
Gospels. It is perhaps worth while to note the use of ovédé or 
ovev (1 Cor. 18:2) as an abstract neuter inthe predicate. In 
general, attention should be called to the distinction made by 
the Greeks between negativing a word and a sentence. This is 
one reason why with the imper., subj. and inf. we find od with 

1 On the Use of My with the Participle in Class. Gk., 1897, p. 6. 


1164 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


single words or phrases, where yn is the normal negative of the 
clause. | 

(ec) Kai Od. In general when a positive clause is followed by a 
negative we have xal od as in classic Greek. Cf. Ro. 7:6 (with 
inf. as in Heb. 7:11). See also Col. 2:8,19. So Lu. 8: 14, ovr- 
mviyovrat Kai ob TeAechopotow.! Cf. Mt. 9:13. Once, indeed, in 
a peculiar case, we find xai connecting two negative clauses, Lu. 
6:37, Kal ua Kpivere Kal ov wy KpLOnTe. ; 

(f) Redundant or Pleonastic Ov. There is one instance of od 
in indirect discourse where it is pleonastic according to the clas- 
sic idiom (see also the French ne). It is in 1 Jo. 2: 22, 6 apvot- 
pevos Tt "Incods otk éotww. Some MSS. have the pleonastic od in 
Mk. 9 : 39. 

(g) Repetition of Ov’. When the second is a single nega- 
tive, the full force of each is retained. It is seldom that we 
find two examples of od in the same clause, as in 1 Cor. 12: 
15 f., od mapa todro ovx Ect éx Tod owyatos, ‘It is not therefore 
not of the body.’ There are instances of ob followed by uf 
where both preserve the full force, Ac. 4:20, od dvvauea — m7 
Aadetv. Cf. also ob — pn in 1 Cor. 9:6. So also 6 uA rody b- 
Kaoovvny ovk eat éx Tod Beod (1 Jo. 3:10). Cf. 5:12. The ex- 
amples are numerous enough when the second ov is in a dependent 
clause. So ovédéy yap éotw Kexaduppevov 6 odk amokadudbnoera (Mt. 
10 : 26); was ov voetre Ore od, KTA. (16:11); ob TorAunow Te AadEtY ov 
ov Kateipyacato Xpiotés (Ro. 15:18); ov« otdate btt — ob KAnpovoyn- 
govow (1 Cor. 6:9). In Mt. 24:2 od follows od uy. See also 
Lu. 8:17. The uses of yu) od and ov uy are treated later. But 
note ov, un more — expi(wonte (Mt. 13: 29) where od stands alone. 
The solemn repetition of ob — od in 1 Cor. 6:10 is rhetorical. 

(h) The Intensifying Compound Negative. We have seen how 
ov can be made stronger by xi (oxi, as in Lu. 1:60). Brug- 
mann? considers this an intensive particle and different from 
the Homeric? xi (ov-«it) which is like re (kis, Kr, Tus, 7). So also 
ové€ was originally just od dé (‘and not,’ ‘but not’) and is often 
so printed in Homer.* In the sense of ‘not even’ see Mt. 6: 
29. The form ovédeis is intensive also, originally ‘not one indeed’® 
and was sometimes printed ovdé eis (Ro. 3: 10) for even stronger 
emphasis. But oi — 7s also occurs (Jo. 10:28). Cf. also ovédé 
mis (Mt. 11: 27); ov dtvp Ere (Lu. 16 : 2); otre — 71s (Ac. 28: 21); 

1 Cf. W. H. 8S. Jones., Cl. Rev., Mar., 1910. 
2" Griech, Gr., pepzo: S510: 
® Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 259; 5 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 528. 


. r 
ee ee ee eee errr mere 


ee ee ee eee ee ee eee 


Pe ee i” 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAI) 1165 


ov — more (2 Pet. 1:21). The adverbial form ovdév occasionally 
occurs in Homer. The form oi6eis (cf. Ac. 26 : 26), which flour- 
ished for a limited period in the xow7, has already had sufficient 
discussion. Various other compound negatives were built up on 
ov, aS ovdauds (Mt. 2:6); ovderw (Jo. 20:9); obderore (Mt. 7: 23); 
ovxere (Mt. 19 : 6). Ovxotdv was used so much in questions that it 
lost its negative force (Jo. 18:37), unless one writes it otxoup. 
Oure is, of course, only ov and ve. These compound negatives 
merely strengthen the previous negative. This emphatic repe- 
tition of the compound negative was once good vernacular in 
both English and German, but it gave way in literary circles 
before the influence of the Latin.! It was always good Greek. 
This discussion does not apply to subordinate clauses (as in Jo. 
8:20) where each negative has its own force. The use of ovdé 
and otre belongs to the discussion of conjunctions (cf. ot7e — 
ovre — ovde in Ac. 24:12 f.), but the examples in the N. T. of the 
other compound negatives with od) are numerous. Farrar? gives 
some good illustrations of old English. ‘No sonne were he never 
so old of years might not marry,’ Ascham, Scholemaster. Modern 
English vernacular refuses to give up the piling-up of negatives. 
“Not nohow, said the landlord, thinking that where negatives 
are good, the more you heard of them the better” (Felix Holt, ii, 
198). Again: “Whatever may be said of the genius of the English 
language, yet no one could have misunderstood the query of the 
London citizen, Has nobody seen nothing of never a hat not their 
own?” So likewise the Hebrew uses two negatives to strengthen 
each other (cf. 1 Ki. 10:21; Is. 5:9). A good example is Mk. 
5:3, obd€ overs ovdels. So ovdels otrw (11:2). The commonest 
kind of example is like od dtvacbe rorety obdev (Jo. 15:5). Cf. 2 
Cor. 11:8. Another instance of triple negative is Lu. 23 : 53, 
ovk nv ovdels otrw. The od is sometimes amplified*? by otre — 
otre as in Mt. 12 : 32, as well as by o’dé—ovde as in Jo. 1: 25. 
Plato shows four negatives, ovdevt oldaun oldauds oldeuiay Kowwviar 
(Phaedo 78d). The combinations with od uy may also be noticed, 
as ovdev ob un (Lu. 10:19); od pn ce avd od’ ob un ce eyKaTaXirw 
(Heb. 13 : 5); ovxére ob} wn (Rev. 18:14). There is no denying the 
power of this accumulation of negatives. Cf. the English hymn 
“T’ll never, no never, no never forsake.” 

(i) The Disjunctive Negative. We frequently have od ‘‘where 

one thing is denied that another may be established.’”’4 Here 


1 W.-Th., p. 499. 3 Cf. W.-Th., p. 499. 
2 Gk. Synt., p. 189. 4 Thayer’s Lex., p. 461. 


1166 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


there is sharp antithesis. The simplest form is of — 6é as in 
Jas. 2:11, or o) — adda as in Mt. 15:11; Mk. 5: 39; Lu. 8:92; 
Ac. 5:4; 1 Cor. 15:10; 2 Cor. 3:3, etc. In Jo. 7:22 we have 
ox érs— &dNG, aS also in Ph. 4:17. In Ph. 4: 11 ovdx or oc- 
curs alone without ddd. In 2 Cor. 7:9 we have ovx 671 — adn’ 
dr. In 1 Jo. 2:21 we have otk éypava tytv 671 — add’ Ore Where 
more naturally we might expect éypaya ovx 6t1— add Ort. 
Winer! makes rather overmuch of the possible rhetorical dis- 
tinctions between the varying shades of emphasis in the differ- 
ent contexts where oi — dAda occur. Cf. further ody tva — adda 
(Jo. 6:38); obx wa— add’ wa (Jo. 3:17). We usually have ot 
povov —add\a xat (Jo. 5:18; Ro. 1:32, etc.), but sometimes 
merely od udvov — adra (Ac. 19: 26; 1 Jo. 5:6). Sometimes the 
negative is not expressed, but is to be supplied in thought as 
in Mt. 11: 7-9. Then again we may have only the negative as 
in od Bpwyaow (Heb. 13: 9), leaving the contrast to be supplied in 
the thought. The contrast may even be expressed by xal od as in 
Mt. 9:13, eos O€Aw Kal ob Ovciay (A, LXX). But we have already 
entered the sphere of the conjunctions as in the parallel otte — 
kat in Jo. 4: 11.; So 3 Jo. 10. 

2. Tue SussEcTIVE NecativE M7 anp Its Compounns. 

(a) The History of My. The Ionic, Attic and Doric dialects 
have uw, the Eleatic has ud, like the Sanskrit ma. In the old 
Sanskrit ma@ was used only in independent sentences, while ned 
occurred in dependent clauses.2 In the later Sanskrit ma crept 
into the dependent clauses also. It was originally a prohibitive 
particle with the old injunctive which was in the oldest San- 
skrit always negative with ma@.3 In the later Sanskrit ma was 
extended to the other modes. In the Greek we see uy extended 
to wish and then denial. Wharton® undertakes to show that uy 
is primarily an interrogative, not a prohibitive or negative par- 
ticle, but that is more than doubtful. Already in Homer ‘‘y7 
had established itself in a large and complex variety of uses, to 
which we have to appeal when we seek to know the true nature 
of the modal constructions as we come to them.’’® The distinc- 
tion between ov and un goes back to Indo-Germanic stock and has 


1 W.-Th., pp. 495 ff. 

2 Thompson, Synt., p. 448; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 528. 

3 Thompson, ib., p. 499. 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 260. 

5 The Gk. Indirect Negative, 1892, p.1. Cf.-also Babbitt, The Use of Ma 
in Questions, Harv. Stu. (Goodwin Vol.). 

§ Moulton, Prol., p. 170. 


PARTICLES (AI IIAPAOHKAI) 1167 


survived into modern Greek. But from the very start uj made 
inroads on ov, so that finally w7 occupies much of the field. In the 
modern Greek yu is used exclusively with participle, in prohibi- 
tions and with the subj. except in conditions, and occurs with va 
(va un) and the ind. Gildersleeve! has shown in a masterly way 
how uw made continual encroachments on ov. In the N. T., out- 
side of e ov, the advance of uy is quite distinct, as Gildersleeve 
shows is true even of Lucian. So as to the papyri and the inscrip- 
tions. The exact Attic refinements between od and yu are not 
reproduced, though on the whole the root-distinction remains.” 

(b) Significance of Mj. Max Miiller® gives an old Sanskrit 
phrase, ma kaphalaya, ‘not for unsteadiness,’ which pretty well 
gives the root-idea of uy. It is an “unsteady” particle, a hesi- 
tating negative, an indirect or subjective denial, an effort to pre- 
vent (prohibit) what has not yet happened. It is the negative of 
will, wish, doubt. If ov denies the fact, un denies the idea. My 
made one advance on ov. It came to be used as a conjunction. 
We see this use of mu in the late Sanskrit.4 But the origin of this 
conjunctional use of uh is undoubtedly paratactic in clauses of 
both fear and purpose.® It is obviously so in indirect questions® 
where wn suggests ‘perhaps.’ Campbell’ argues that “the whole 
question of the Greek negatives is indeterminate.” This is an 
extreme position, but there is no doubt a border-line between ov 
and wn which is very narrow at times. One’s mood and tone 
have much to do with the choice of od or wy. Cf. Jo.4:29, unre 
ouTos éotw 6 Xpwiords; where od would have challenged the oppo- 
sition of the neighbours by taking sides on the question whether 
Jesus was the Messiah. The woman does not mean to imply 
flatly that Jesus is not the Messiah by using yu 71, but she raises 
the question and throws a cloud of uncertainty and curiosity over 
it with a woman’s keen instinct. In a word, u7 is just the nega- 
tive to use when one does not wish to be too positive. My leaves 
the question open for further remark or entreaty. Ov closes the 
door abruptly. The LXX uses uw for 5x. 


1 Encroachments of M7 on Od in Later Gk., Am. Jour. of Philol., I, pp. 45 ff. 

2 Moulton, Prol., p. 170. Cf. also Birke, De Particularum yp et ob Usu 
Polybiano Dionysiaeo Diodoreo Straboniano, 1897, p. 14 f. 

3 Oxford Inaugural Lecture, Note C. 

4 Thompson, Synt., p. 448. 

5 Moulton, Prol., p. 192 f. 

Peliy. 

7 On Soph. Trach., 90. 

8 Cf. Postgate, Contrasts of Ob and Mj, Cambridge Philol. Jour., 1886. 


1168 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) Uses of My. In general we may follow the outline of od. 

(i) The Indicative. Blass! expounds the two negatives by say- 
ing that “od negatives the indicative, uy the other moods, includ- 
ing the infinitive and participle.” But, unfortunately, the case 
is not so simple as that. “In reviewing Blass, Thumb makes 
the important addition that in modern Greek dev belongs to the 
indicative and u7(v) to the subjunctive.” But 6év occurs in the 
protasis with the subj. in modern Greek, as we have seen. Be- 
sides, as Moulton? adds, “un has not been driven away from the 
indicative” in the N. T. It may be said at once that uy with 
the indicative is as old as historic Greek.4 The Sanskrit sug- 
gests that originally uy was not used with the indicative. But 
already in Homer yw occurs with the indicative in prohibition, 
wish, oath, fear, question.» ‘‘The essence of these idioms is the 
combination of the imperative tone — which shows itself in the 
particle — with the mood proper to simple assertion.”® But in 
the N. T. we no longer have uy with the fut. ind. in prohibition, 
except in case of ob un. 

In independent sentences we have un with the indicative only 
in questions. “It’s use in questions is very distinct from that 
of ob and is maintained in the N. T. Greek without real weaken- 
ing.”? In Jo. 21:5, radia, un te mpocdhayiov éxere; we have a 
typical example with the answer ov. Blass® expresses needless 
objection to this “hesitant question,’ as Moulton rightly ex- 
pounds it. Cf. Jo. 4:33; 7:26; and Ro. 11:1, uw} arewcaro; 
with the answer in verse 2, oixk dmwcato. See Jo. 7:51, where 
Nicodemus adroitly uses 7 in a question and the sharp retort of 
the other members of the Sanhedrin yu) xat ot; The difference 
between ot and 7 in questions is well shown in Jo. 4:33, 35. In 
the use of uy the answer in mind is the one expected, not always 
the one actually received as is illustrated in the question of the 
apostles at the last passover. They all asked wh re éyw elu, pap- 
Bet; The very thought was abhorrent to them, ‘It surely is not 
I.’° But Judas, who did not dare use ov, received the affirmative 
answer, ob efas (Mt. 26 : 25). Myr comes to be used intensively 
much like ovxi (both chiefly in questions). In the case of pu od 


1Gr. ONO Ta Gk pesos: * Moulton, Prol., p. 170. Bulb, 
* Vierke, De uh Particulae cum Indicativo Conjunctae Usu Antiquiore, 1876. 
5 Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 260 ff. Selbhs Deco 


7 Moulton, Prol., p. 170 f. Moulton gives an interesting note on the use of 
madia as “lads’”’ in the mod. Gk. 
® Gri of Neel Gkepa2ss. 2 Ibis ps 2542 


PARTICLES (AI HAPAOHKAI) 1169 


in questions (Ro. 10:18 f.; 1 Cor. 9:4 f.; 11:22) uA is the in- 
terrogative particle while ov is the negative of the verb. 

In dependent clauses yy occurs with the indicative with the 
second class conditions (ei wn) always except in Mt. 26 : 24 (Mk. 
14:21). Cf. ef unin Jo. 15: 22, etc. There are also five instances 
of ef un with the ind. in conditions of the first class... So Mk. 6: 5; 
IMSorn oe ee orelo.: >tGalols +1. Tim.6 33. Cf. pin afew. 
relative clauses, as & mu det (Tit. 1:11); 6 uy rapecrw tratra (2 Pet. 
1:9); 5 um duodoye? (1 Jo. 4:3, W.H. text). Cf. Ac. 15:29 D. There 
is a certain aloofness about un here that one can feel as in Plato 
who, “with his sensitiveness to subtle shades of meaning, had in py 
an instrument singularly adapted for purposes of reserve, irony, 
politeness or suggestion.”’? This use of uy with the relative and 
indicative is clearly a remnant of the literary construction.’ This 
literary use of uy with the relative was often employed to charac- 
terize or describe in a subjective way the relative. There is a soli- 
tary instance of uy in a causal sentence, dre un weriorevkey (Jo. 3: 
18), which may be contrasted with 7c ob remiorevxev (1 Jo. 5: 10). 
For é7e uw éxes see Epictetus, IV, 10. 384, and dre cou ot, IV, 10. 35. 
Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 171) quotes dacty dre wh de?, Diog. of 
Oinoanda, Fragm. IV, 1. 9. There is, besides, érel un tore loxvber 
in Heb. 9:17, according to the text of W. H., though they give 
in the margin ézel un tore — drabeuevos; In that case (the marginal 
reading) uw wore would introduce a question. See further Causal 
Clauses. In clauses of design we have iva uy with the ind., as in 
Rev. 9:4, iva wu) aduxnoovow. The margin of W. H. in 13:17 has 
iva py tis dbvatac. Moulton? explains yy with the ind. after verbs 
of apprehension as not originally a conjunction, but uw in the 
sense of ‘perhaps’ (paratactic, not hypotactic). So Lu. 11:35, 
oxore. wu) TO Pas — oxoTos éotiv. Cf. also Col. 2:8; Heb. 3:12; 
Gal. 4:11; 1 Th. 3:5. The papyri give abundant parallels. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 193) cites aywrd wn mote appworet, P. Par. 49 
(ii/p.c.). The use of 7 as a conjunction in clauses of design and 
fear with the indicative is parallel to the use of the negative par- 
ticle uy, but does not fall here for discussion. 

(ii) The Subjunctive. After all that has been said it is obvious 
that uA was destined to be the negative of the subj., first of the 
volitive and deliberative uses and finally of the futuristic also. 
The few remnants of od with the subj. have already been dis- 
cussed. For the rest the normal and universal negative of the 


1 Moulton, Prol., p. 171. 3 Moulton, Prol., p. 171. 
2 Thompson, Synt., p. 441. SLD Oil oee 


1170 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


subj. is uy. Cf. uh &xaxduev (Gal. 6:9). In Mk. 12:14, dduer 4 
un dyer; (cf. ob Just before), we see how well un suits this delibera- 
tive question. The use of wy with the aor. subj. in prohibitions 
need not be further stressed. Wherever the subj. in a dependent 
clause has a negative (save after the conjunction yy after verbs 
of fearing) the negative is wy. Cf. ds av uh Exn (Lu. 8:18); a uA 
éMnre (Mk. 14: 38), etc. It is needless to give more examples. 

(iii) The Optative. It is only the optative of wish that uses 7. 
It was rare to have the negative precative optative in the old 
Sanskrit.!. But already in Homer u7 is used with the optative for 
a future wish. In the N.T. there is no example of uy with the 
optative except in wish. It is seen chiefly in pi yevorro, as in Ro. 
3:4, 6, 31; Gal. 6:14, etc. But note also the curse of Jesus on 
the fig-tree in Mk. 11: 14, pnéels xaprov payor. 

(iv) The Imperative. It seems that the imperative was origin- 
ally used only affirmatively and the injunctive originally only 
negatively with ma. The oldest Sanskrit does not use ma with 
the imperative2 In Homer we find once uy &eo (I1., IV, 410) 
and once pi) Katadtvceo (I1., XVIII, 134) and once yp axovcdtw (Od., 
XVI, 301). The second person aorist imper. in prohibitions did 
not take root and the third person only sparingly (cf. p. 856). 
See Mt. 6:3, yu) yrarw The original negative injunctive ap- 
pears in the form yu) rouons (Latin ne feceris). The imperative 
in Greek follows the analogy of this construction and uses yy 
uniformly. Cf. Lu. 11:7, un wou xorovs rapexe. For the difference 
between yun with the present imperative and uA with the aorist 
subjunctive see Tenses and Modes. Cf. Mk. 13 : 21, uy miorevere, 
with Lu. 12:11, uw) wepiuvnonre, and pw doBetcbe with pu) hoBnO7re 
(Mt. 10:28, 31). It is obviously natural for uA to be used with 
the imperative. For a delicate turn from od to uh see Jo. 10 : 37. 
But Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 171) cites ovéert éféorw from an 
inscr. (Benndorf-Niemann, Reisen in Lykien und Karien, 129 N. 
102). 

(v) The Infinitive. As we have already seen, the oldest Sanskrit 
inf. did not use the negative particles, and in Homer! od appears to 
be the original negative. But there are a few instances of uA with 
the inf. in Homer. They occur when the inf. is used as an im- 
perative (cf. in the N. T. 1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Th. 3 : 14), for an oath; a 
wish or an indirect command. It is thus from the imperative and 
other finite modes that uf crept into constant use with the inf. 


1 Thompson, Synt., p. 499. 2 bey 
29 1b. D. 00 4: 4 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 263. 


PARTICLES (AI ITAPAOHKAI) bra 


It came to be the normal idiom with the inf. outside of indirect 
assertion and in antithetical or emphatic phrases (see under ov). 
Thompson! challenges the statement of Gildersleeve: “Not. till 
the infinitive came to represent the indicative (in indirect state- 
ment) could ov have been tolerated with the infinitive.” Thomp- 
son adds: “‘ But this toleration is established in Homer.” Just as 
we saw un make inroads on ov in other constructions (cf. parti- 
ciples), so it was with the inf. Even in indirect statement un 
came to be the rule (cf. the Atticist Lucian). Even in the Attic 
ov did not always occur with the inf. in indirect statement.?. The 
facts as to the use of uy with the inf. in the N. T. have been 
already given (see Infinitive and Indirect Discourse). Cf., for 
instance, Aéyouow avactacw py evar (Mk. 12:18); arexpiOnoay pi 
eidevar (Lu. 20:7). In short, Blass? says that in the N. T. ‘un 
is used throughout.” That is not quite true, as we have seen, but 
the limitations have already been given under ov. Cf. Lu. 11: 42, 
ravra dé er moijoar KaKetva pu mapetvar. Cf. 21:14. The use of 
uy Aadetv after od duvvauedda (Ac. 4:20) has already been noticed. 
Here uy retains its full value. We need not pursue the matter. 
Cf. rod wn (Ac. 21: 12); rpds ro wn (2 Cor. 3:13); ets 7d un (4: 4); 
dia vo wy (Mt. 13:5); 7G wn (2 Cor. 2:13); Sore wn (Mt. 8 : 28), 
etc. The redundant or pleonastic use of uy with the inf. has 
likewise come up for consideration under the Infinitive. In Lu. 
20:27 some MSS. read avri-\eyovres and thus uy is redundant 
after av7i-, but NBCDL do not have avr. Then in 22:34 
NBLT reject un with eldevar after arapyncn. In Heb. 12:19 W.H. 
put uw in the margin after rapytncavro. But there is no doubt 
of the use of the redundant yy in the N. T. Cf. Lu. 17:1 ave- 
dexrov éotw Tod Ta oKavdadra py éeNetv, (24:16) expatodvTo Tod m1 
érivyvavar aivrov. See also Lu. 4:42; 1 Pet. 3:10; Gal. 5:7. But 
this pleonastic 7 is by no means necessary (cf. Ac. 8:36; Ro. 
15:22). It does not usually occur with cwd\tw in the N. T., but 
note Ac. 10:47, unre ro tdwp Sivarar kwrdoal Tis TOD uh BarTicO7- 
vat; Here pyre is the interrogative particle expecting the an- 
swer ‘no,’ while uw is redundant after cwdvev. But in Ac. 24: 23 
unoeva is not pleonastic. We do not have mu) od with the inf. in 
the N. T. Here (after ov) uw stands alone and is not redundant 
(cf. Ac. 4:20) or is redundant (20 : 20, 27), as the case may be. 
The use of uy and py ov was not compulsory in the ancient Greek.! 


1 Synt., p. 414. 2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 430. 
PeCsTROLeN tele iak a Deapo: 
4 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 324 ff.; Thompson, Synt., pp. 425 ff. 


1172 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(vi) The Participle. We have seen already how the oldest San- 
skrit did not use the negative particles with the participle. In 
Homer we have only one instance of uy with the participle (Od., 
IV, 684)... But yw gradually made its way with participles even 
in Attic Greek. In the modern Greek yy has driven od entirely 
from the participial use. In the N. T. od still hangs on, as we have 
seen, but that is all. The drift of the xow7 is for uy, and a writer 
like Plutarch shows it.2. M7 is the usual negative of the participle. 
The details were given in connection with Participles. In the 
N. T. we need pay no attention to the Attic refinements on this 
point, which were not always observed even there. We have un 
with the participle in the N. T. as a matter of course. Cf. Mt. 
12 : 30 6 wh oy and 6 ph cvvayor, (1 Tim. 5:18) ra uA déovra, (Lu. 
4:35) undéev Brayar, (Ac. 20: 22) uy eidvs. In Mt. 22:11 f. and 
1 Pet. 1:8, a distinction, as was shown, seems to be drawn be- 
tween od and wh with the participle. Cf. Mt. 18:25; Lu. 12: 
333;°Jo. 7:15; Ac! 9:99; T7501) Dns (ci Gales) eta 
The downright denial of od lingered on awhile in the xown (cf. 
papyri), but uy is putting od to rout. 

(vii) Nouns. The ancient Greek* used yy with substantives as 
6 uw) iarpos (Plato, Gorg. 459 b), adjectives as of py Kabapot (Ant. 
v. 82), or adverbs as 76 ui €urrodwv (Thue. ii, 45. 1). In the N. T., 
so far as I have noticed, uy with substantives and adjectives 
occurs only in contexts where it is natural. Thus in Lu..10:4, 
Li) whpav, un Vrodnuata, We have just before ui Baorafere Baddav- 
tiv. In Jo. 138::9, un robs rédas wou povov, we have no verb, but 
virte is to be supplied from the preceding sentence. Cf. also 
Eph. 5:15; Jo. 18:40. So in Ro. 12:11 ph dxvypoi is in the 
midst of participles used in an imperatival sense. In 1 Tim. 
3:3, mM) wapowov, wy wAnKTnv, the construction is det efvar. This 
infinitival construction is carried on in verse 6 (in spite of the 
parenthesis in verse 5) by pi veddutov. So as to verse 8 and Tit. 
1:7. There is no difficulty as to the use of uy in Col. 3:2 and 
Zeehhesen Ot 

(d) The Intensifying Compounds with Mj. The same story in 
the main that we found with ov is repeated with wy. There is 
no wnxt, but we have unre in this sense. The examples in the 
N. T. are all in questions (cf. Mt. 7:16; Jo. 18 : 35) except one, 
ei unre (Lu. 9:13). The position of uy may give it emphasis as 
in Jas. 3:1 (cf. ob in Mt. 15:11). The use of the compound 


1 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 263. 3 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 231 f. 
2 Thompson, Synt., p. 255, 4 Thompson, Synt., p. 410 f. 


A Ap i at eS Py 





PARTICLES (AI HAPAOHKAI) 1173 


negative as a second (or third) negative is simply to strengthen 
the negative as is true of od. Cf. Mk. 11:14 unxeére unoels payor, 
(Ac. 25 : 24) émiBodvres wp detv adrov ony unxert, (Ro. 13:8) pniert 
undev odeidrere, (2 Cor. 18:7) uy — under, ete. Besides pnéeis there 
is undev (Ac. 27:33), unde in the sense of ‘not even’ (Eph. 5: 
3), unve (Mt. 6:1), undérore (2 Tim. 3:7), undérw (Heb. 11:7), 
unxere (Mk. 9 : 25), whore (margin of W. H. in Heb. 9:17. Else- 
where in the N. T. a conjunction), undauds (Ac. 10:14), ujov 
(Ac. 27: 29), unrw (Ro. 9:11), wareye (1 Cor. 6:3), paris (2 
Th. 2:3). Myazws is only a conjunction in the N. T. If pq is 
followed by od as in 1Jo.3:10, 6 uA roy dixacocbyny otk eorw 
éx Tov Oeod, the last negative retains its force. So vice versa in Ac. 
4:20. In Gal. 6:3 there is a sharp contrast between 7 and 
unoev (both neuter abstracts referring to a person.). 

(e) Kai un. We saw that after a positive statement the nega- 
tive was carried on by kai ov. So also we have kal uy as in Eph. 
4:26, dpyifecbe kal uy auapravere, and in Lu. 1: 20; 2 Cor. 12: 21 
In Ac. 18:9 note py doBod addAa AdAa Kal wy GuwTHoys, Where 
a positive command comes in between the two examples of wun. 
In Jas. 3:14, per contra, uh xataxavxaobe xal Webdecde Kata Tis 
adnbeias, the negative un seems to cover both verbs connected by 
kai rather than pnde. Cf. also Lu. 3:14. We have instances 
also of kai connecting a clause with the conjunction uh ore (Mt. 
13: 15=Mk.4:12).1. In Lu. 14: 29, tva un more Oevros atrod Oeué- 
Acoy Kal wy loxvovtos — aptwvrar, we have uy wore With adpéwvrar and 
un with icxvovtos. 

(f) Disjunctive Use of My. The simplest form of this con- 
trast is un — 6€ as in Lu. 10 : 20, wu) xaipere — xalpere 6€. Then we 
have un —ddda as in pw TovTov ad\Aa TOV BapaBBav, Jo. 18:40; pw) 
goBod adda Adda, Ac. 18:9. We have wn— rdAnv in Lu. 23 : 28. 
In Lu. 10:20 we really have wy 671 — 6€ 671. Moulton (Prol., 
240) does not find pi) 67c in the N. T., but considers wyrcye in p. 
1 Cor. 6:3 as tantamount to it. See Jo. 13:9 for uy povov — 
ad\\a kat. So Ph. 2:12. We need not trench further upon the 
conjunctions. 

3. COMBINATION OF THE Two NEGATIVES. 

(a) M7 ov. This is very simple. It is in the N. T. confined to 
questions where y7 is the interrogative particle and ov is the nega- 
tive of the verb. Each negative thus has its own force, though 
it is a bit difficult to translate the combination into good Eng- 
lish. But it is good Greek. Moulton (Prol., p. 192) quotes 

1-Cf, W.-Th., p. 494. 


1174. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Plato’s Protag. 312 A, a\X’ apa py) odk brodapBavers. Cf. also py 
ovxt in Jer. 23:24. So Ro. 10:18, wy ovk jeovaav; We may 
render it ‘Did they fail to hear?’ expecting the answer ‘No.’ 
Paul repeats the same idiom in 10:19. See further 1 Cor. 9: 
Af.; 11:22. 1 Cor. 9:8 is not an instance, since wy comes in 
one part of the question and ov in the other. We do have uy 
rws ovx evpw after doBoduac in 2 Cor. 12:20, but here pq is a 
conjunction and ox is the negative of e¥pw, both retaining their 
full force. ‘The construction in 1 Jo. 3:10 is not pertinent. 

(b) Ov uh. The use of ob — uy in Ac. 4: 20 is not under discus- 
sion, nor the redundant yw after od (Ac. 20: 20, 27), but only the 
idiomatic ov un with the aorist subj. (rarely present) or occasion- 
ally the fut. ind. Cf. od uy dayw, ov uy retvw in the boy’s letter, 
P. Oxy. 119 (ii/iii A.p.). See Is. 11:9, od} wi Kaxoronoovow ovde 
un dtvwvta. Whatever the origin of this vexed problem, the neg- 
ative is strengthened, not destroyed, by the two negatives. We 
need not here recount the various theories already mentioned. 
See Tense and Mode. Let it go at Gildersleeve’s suggestion that 
it was originally ot: wy. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) quotes Giles to 
the effect that this explanation was offered in the Middle Ages 
(the ancients have all our best ideas) and notes ‘‘in one if not 
both of the best MSS. of Aristophanes it is regularly punctuated 
ov: un.’ In Mt. 13 : 29 we have od: un more — expifwonre Where un 
is a conjunction. Gildersleeve notes that od uw is more common 
in the LXX and the N. T. than in the classic Greek.2, But Moul- 
ton (Prol., pp. 187-192) will not let it go at that. ‘In the LXX 
x2 is translated ot or od uy indifferently within a single verse, as 
in Is. 5:27.” It seems probable that the force of od uy has 
worn down in the LXX and the N. T. In the non-literary pa- 
pyri “ov un is rare, and very emphatic,’”’ Moulton notes. He 
urges also that in spite of the 100 examples in the text of W. H. 
the idiom in the N. T. is as rare as in the papyri when the 13 
LX X quotations and the 53 from the words of Christ are removed, 
“a feeling that inspired language was fitly rendered by words of 
a peculiarly decisive tone.”’ But in these examples the force of 
ov un is still strong. Of the other 34 some are probably weak- 
ened a bit as in Mt. 25:9; Mk. 13:2; Jo. 18:11. It is only in 
the Gospels and the Apocalypse (66 and 18 respectively) that ov 
un occurs with frequency. It is interesting to observe that on 
this point Moulton gets the Gospels and Revelation in har- 


* Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., pp. 389 ff.; Thompson, Synt., pp. 431-488. 
* Justin Martyr, p. 169. 


PARTICLES (AI II[APAOHKAI) 1175 


mony with the papyri by eliminating the 70 passages due to 
Semitic influence. Cf. Gildersleeve (A. J. P., iii, 202 ff.) and Bal- 
lentine (7b., xviii, 453 ff.). But Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 172) 
explains Mt. 24:21, ota — ov6’ ob wy yervnra, not as a Hebraism, 
but as a “‘barbarism”’ like the Wesseley Papyrus xxvi, od’ ot 1) 
yerntat wo. yuvn. He quotes also Pap. Lugd. II, p. 107, 9, éav 
OedXns yuvatkas ov uh oxeOjvar. Cf. ob un dduxnO7 (Rev. 2:11); ob uy 
éorat (Mt. 16:22). There is a climax in Rev. 7:16, ob — ovdé 
— odé wn méon. Even ov yy was not strong enough sometimes, so 
that we have ovdé and od uy in Heb. 13:5, ot uh ce dvd ot6’ od wh 
oe éyxataXirw. So also ovdév ov wu dduxnoe (Lu. 10:19). In Mk. 
13:2 we have ov uy in both the principal and the subordinate 
(relative) clause. 

IV. Interrogative Particles (€mepwtykal trapabfKar). It is not 
the mode that we have under discussion here, but simply the 
particles used in the various forms of questions.! 

1. SINGLE QUESTIONS. 

(a) Direct Questions. 

(i) No Particle at all. So ovvyjxate ratra ravra; (Mt. 13: 51). 
So 13:28 and very often. Here the inquiry is colourless except 
as the tone of voice or context may indicate one’s attitude. In 
fact, most interrogative sentences have no interrogative word at 
ie oti ilps: Omi 25 7713'16 Ac) 21: 37, ete. Hence itis 
sometimes a matter of doubt whether a sentence is interrogative 
ordeclarativess Cf. Jo.416 731; Ro.t8 : 33; 14922: 1 Cor: 1% 13; 
2 Cor. 3:1; Heb. 10:2; Jas. 2:4, etc. It may be doubtful also 
at what point the question ends. Cf. Jo.7:19; Ro. 4:1. Winer? 
rightly says that on this point grammar cannot speak. 

(ii) The Use of Negative Particles. ‘They are used to indicate the 
kind of answer expected. This subject has already had suff- 
cient discussion. See under od and yy. Ov expects the answer 
‘ves’ (cf. Mt. 7:22) and ph the answer ‘no’ (cf. Jo. 7:31). -In 
Jo. 18:37 we have ovxodv, according to W. H., which has lost its 
negative force, but o’xovy would preserve it. Probably Pilate was 
hardly ready to go that far unless in jest. The use of uy varies 
greatly in tone. The precise emotion in each case (protest, in- 
dignation, scorn, excitement, sympathy, etc.) depends on the con- 
bext.m Ol, 0) 0.84: 295969367 7): 473 -Lu. 64:39;- Ro. 10-318; 1121. 
In Jo. 3: 10 the first part of the question has no negative and the 
second part has ov. 


1 Cf. W.-Th., pp. 508 ff.; Robertson, Short Gr., pp. 177 ff. 
2 W.-Th., p. 508. 


1176 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(iii) Other Particles. There are not many. ‘There is dpa (akin 
to root of dp-ap-icxw, ‘to join’), an illative particle which occurs 
with ovx as in Ac. 21:38, ujre as in 2 Cor. 1:17, or with ris as in 
Mt. 18:1. This classic use is not strictly interrogative, but illa- 
tive in the interrogative sentence. But apa, from the same root! 
with more vocal stress, is interrogative. Indeed, it is sometimes 
doubtful which accent is correct, as in Gal. 2:17, where dpa is 
probably correct. In Ro. 14:19, however, W. H. give dpa ob». 
We have dpa in Lu. 18:8 and apa ye in Ac. 8:30. “Apa looks 
backward, dpa forward. But the accent is a question of edit- 
ing. The use of ei in direct questions is either a Hebraism? or 
involves ellipsis. Cf. Mt. 12:10, ef €£eoru rots ca8Baow Oepareverv; 
So also 19:3. It is common in the LXX (cf. Gen. 17:17) but 
is foreign to the old Greek. The classic Greek, however, did use 
ei in indirect questions, and this fact may have made it easier for 
the direct use of ef to arise. Radermacher (NV. 7. Gr., p. 136) takes 
this e«=7. The N. T. does not use 7, but the papyri have it: 7 
piven €v Baxxiadu; 4 weA(A)w evruvxav; P. Fay. 187 (i/a.p.). So 
the question to the oracle. 

(iv) Interrogative Pronouns. The most common in the N. T. is 
tis (ef. Mt. 3:7). Other words are frequently added, as dpa (24 : 
45); yap (9 : 5); obv (Lu. 8:10). The various uses of ri as adverb 
(Mk. 10:18, Lu. 16:2); with prepositions, as 6a 7i (Mt. 9: 11) 
and eis ri (Mk. 14 : 4) or xdpu rtivos (1 Jo. 3 : 12); or elliptically, as 
tt ére (Lu. 2:49) and iva ri (Mt. 9:4), need not detain us. The 
double interrogative ris ti appears in Mk. 15:24. Both ris and 
motos occur in 1 Pet. 1:11. For woramds see Mt. 8 : 27, and zo- 
gos see 15:34. We need not tarry longer on these elementary 
details. 

(v) Interrogative Conjunctions. These are common besides ri (as 
in Mk. 10:18). The possible exclamatory use of ri in Lu. 12: 
49=‘how’ is sustained by the modern Greek 7i xa\a= ‘how fine.’ 
Cf. rocaxis (Mt. 18 : 21); wore (25 : 38); ews wore (17 : 17); rod Geis 
8:25); més (10: 26); rofev (Mt. 13 : 27), ete. 

(b) Indirect Questions. Here there must be either a pronoun 
or a conjunction. 

(1) Pronouns. The use of ris (ri) is common. Cf. Mt. 6: 25; 
Lu. 9:46; Jo. 2:25; Ac. 19:32. We find é7e so used in Ac. 
9:6 and @ apparently so in 1 Tim. 1:7. Certainly ézotos occurs 
in this construction (1 Cor. 3:13). The same thing is true of 


1 Jann. (Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 411) notes the pre-Attic 7 pa. 
2: Blass, Gro of N. IT. Gk., p. 260. 


— 


PARTICLES (AI ITAPAOHKAI) 1177 


bcos (Mk. 5:19) and orotos (Jas. 1: 24). Cf. also rotos (Mk. 11: 
29); moaos (Mt. 27:13); mworamés (Lu. 7:39); arydixos (Heb. 7:4), 
and Aixos in Gal. 6:11 (margin of W. H.) if this reading be ac- 
cepted. Cf. ri in Ac. 12:18. 

(ii) Conjunctions. These are also common, as ei (Mk. 15 : 44); 
wobev and od (Jo. 3:8); move (Mk. 13: 33); r&s (1 Th. 1:9); 
brws (Lu. 24: 20); drov (Mk. 14: 14); un rove (Lu. 3 : 15), etc. 

2. DouBLE QusstTions. These are rare. 

(i) Direct. There is no instance of zérepov — }. We do have 
tis — h (Mt. 9:5; 23:17; 27:17), the later Greek caring little for 
the dual idea in zérepov. We more commonly have simply 4 
with the second part of the question and nothing in the first, as in 
Lu. 20: 2,4; Ro.2:3f. We may have 7 ob (Mt. 22:17) and 4 un 
(Mk. 12:14). Sometimes we have simply 7 at the beginning of 
the question with a reference to an implied alternative (1 Cor. 
9:6; 2 Cor. 1:17). This # may come in the middle of the 
sentence as in 1 Cor.9:8. The # may even precede tis as in 
Mt. 7 : 9. 

(ii) Indirect. ‘There is one instance of zérepov — # in an indi- 
rect question (Jo. 7: 17). 

V. Conjunctions (cvvSeopor). In the nature of the case much 
had to be said about the conjunctions! in the treatment of the 
Sentence and also Subordinate Clauses. The syntactical prin- 
ciples controlling both paratactic and hypotactic sentences have 
received adequate discussion. But conjunctions play such an 
important part in the language that it is best to group them 
all together. They connect words, clauses, sentences and para- 
graphs, and thus form the joints of speech. They have a very 
good name, since they bind together (con-jungo) the various parts 
of speech not otherwise connected, if they need connection, for 
asyndeton is always possible to the speaker or writer. The point 
here is to interpret each conjunction as far as possible so that its 
precise function may be clear. | 

1. Paratactic? CoNJUNCTIONS (cvvdecpot TapaTaKxTlKol). 

(a) Copulative. Conjunctions which connect words and clauses 
are evidently later in development than the words and clauses. 
The use of conjunctions came to be very common in the Greek 
so that the absence was noticeable and was called asynde- 


! The distinction between adv. and conj. is, of course, arbitrary. Conjs. are 
advs. Just as the other particles are. Cf. Paul, Principles of the Hist. of Lang., 
p. 406. 


> “Co-ordinating”’ is from co-ordino, to range together. 


1178 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK’ NEW TESTAMENT 


ton.! But it is a mistake to suppose that these connectives are 
necessary. One may fail to use them as a result of rapidity of 
thought as the words rush forth, or they may be consciously 
avoided for rhetorical effect. Cf. Bderere, BNErere, BAErere In Ph. 
3:2, with Tennyson’s “Break, break, break.” All this is entirely 
within the province of the speaker. Cf. 1 Cor. 3:12, xpvaor, 
apyvpov, AiBous Tiuiovs, EVNa, xOpTov, Kadaunv. Cf. also 1 Cor. 138: 
4—7 where the verbs follow one another in solemn emphasis with 
no connective save one 6e. In the same way contrast may be 
expressed without conjunctions as in 1 Cor. 15:43f.2 In Luke 
and John there is a pleasing alternation of asyndeton and con- 
junctions. Cf. Gal. 5:22. The first conjunctions were the para- 
tactic or co-ordinating, since language was originally in principal 
sentences.2 The copulative (connecting) conjunctions are the 
simplest and earliest type of the paratactic structure. They 
simply present the words or clauses as on a par with each other. 
The primitive conjunctions were monosyllabic like kat, 7é, 6e.° 

(i) Te. This word appears to be related to the Sanskrit ca, the 
Latin que (with labio-velar gq“), and the Gothic -h.6 These words 
are all enclitic and postpositive. The Sanskrit is almost devoid 
of conjunctions which were so highly developed by the Greek 
and Latin, but ca is one of the few possessed by this ancient 
tongue.’ There is a striking connection between quis, que, quis-que 
and ris, te, tis. The Thessalian dialect has xis for ris and xto-xe. 
We have tis re in the old Greek. Té shows this double pronomi- 
nal origin in its use for and and ever (just like que, quis-que).® 
The indefinite use is distinctly Homeric.? The use of éei re, ds re 
was old Ionic and continued in Attic tragedy, as oiés re did in 
Attic prose. Cf. Radermacher (N. 7. Gr., p. 5). Indeed, some 
scholars” hold that the correlative use (ré — 7ré) was the original 
one, but this is doubtful. It seems certain that 7é indicates a 
somewhat closer unity than does xai. This close correlative use 
is certainly very old. Cf. ot 7’ éya7e in Homer." In the N. T. it 
is rare except in the Acts, where it occurs some 175 times. It is 
common in all parts of the book and is thus a subtle argument 


1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 551. 


2° CLAW Lite pias. *s Brug ibs pesos: 
4 Cf. C. Pitman, Conjunctions., p. 5f.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 261. 
5 W.-Th., p. 434. 6 Brug., Griech. Gr., pp. 529, 541f. 


7 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 417. 

§ Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 580. Cf. K.-G., II, pp.536 ff. 

9 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 242. 

10 K.-G., IT, p. 246. 1 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 530. 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAT) 1179 


for the unity of the work (we-sections and all). It is something 
additional, but in intimate relation with the preceding. We find 
ve alone as in Ac. 2:33, where tYwOeis and AaBwy are united by 
te. Cf. also 10:22, where again two participles are connected. 
In 23 : 24, xrivn re rapacricat, the change from the direct to the 
indirect discourse is marked by re, whereas xai is used twice before 
to join minor phrases. Té puts rapacrfjoac on a par with €éroud- 
cate.. In the same way in 20:11 the first two participles are 
joined by xai and then both are related to the next by 7é. The 
same idiom occurs in Jo. 6: 18, where ve gives an additional item 
somewhat apart from the xai—xai Just before. In Jo. 4:41 xat 
—ré are not co-ordinate. Kai introduces the whole sentence 
and re connects the two parts. Cf. thus 6é— rein Ac. 2:37. But 
7é— ré is Strictly correlative. Cf. the Latin que — que, English 
as—so. See Ac. 2:46 where the two participles are co-ordinated. 
In Ro. 14: 8 we have re four times in succession with éav. There 
are here two pairs of conditions. The parts of each pair are bal- 
anced carefully. The disjunctive eire — etre (cf. 1 Cor. 12 : 26) is 
at bottom this same correlative use of re. So as to ore — obre 
(Mt. 12: 32) and ure — unre (Ac. 27: 20). The use of 7é— kai 
is also common where there is an inner bond, though no hint is 
given as to the relative value of the matters united. Cf. apxe- 
pets Te Kal ypauparets (Lu. 22 : 66); movety re Kal dvdaoxev (Ac. 1: 1); 
avopes te Kal yuvatkxes (8:12); exevnOn tre — Kal éyevero (21 : 30); &- 
kalwy Te kai ddikwv (24:15); puxp@ re kal weyadw (26 : 22); “EAXAnoiv 
Te Kat BapBapors (Ro. 1:14); Iovéaiov te tpdrov cal “EXAnvos (2 : 9), 
etc. For ré xat— 7é see Ac. 9:15, and for ré xai — re — cai 26: 
20. In Jo. 4:11, otre — kai, we really have the 7é — kai (‘both — 
and’) construction. Cf. Latin non que—et. We even have oite 
—otre—xait in Jo.5:37 f. In Ac. 27:20 unre — unre stand to- 
gether and both are parallel to 7é following. Per contra we find 
7ré — 6€ in Ac. 19:2 and also 8. The manuscripts often vary be- 
tween ré and 6éé (cf. Ac. 3:10; 4:14, etc.). We have ré yap (com- 
mon from Aristotle on?) in Ro. 1: 26 followed by épuoiws re kai. In 
Heb. 2:11 note ré yap —xal. As a rule re stands after the word 
or words that are paralleled, but this is not always so. 

(ii) Kat. The etymology of this conjunction is disputed. Cur- 
tius? makes it the locative case of the pronominal stem xa-—, xo—, so 


1 This classic idiom is a mark of Luke’s literary style. But in the xow? re 
is on the retreat before cai. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 401. 

2 Cf. Hammer, De Té Particulae Usu Herodoteo Thucydideo Xenophonteo, 
1904, p. 92. 3 Gk. Etymology. 


1180 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


that it would ultimately come from the same root as 7é (que). 
It would thus mean ‘in this respect,’ ‘this besides.” Brugmann! 
finds its original sense in xowés, Latin co—, cum, Gothic ga. The 
idea would then be ‘together with,’ ‘in addition to.’ The Ar- 
kadian, South Achzan and Cypriote dialects use cas and xa4=kal. 
Whatever the origin, it all comes to the same thing in the end. 
It is by far the most frequent of all the conjunctions or other 
particles in the N. T. It is so common in fact that Moulton 
and Geden do not list it in their concordance. This in itself is in 
accord with the later Greek idiom, as Thumb? notes in Aristotle 
and in the modern Greek and Moulton’ in the papyri. Moulton 
cites Par. P. 18, é7c dbo juépas Exouev kal POdcouev eis Undovor, as 
parallel to Mk. 15 : 25; Jo. 4:35. But there can be little doubt 
that the extreme fondness for parataxis in John’s Gospel, for 
instance, is partially due to the use of cat in the LXX for the He- 
brew 1 which “means a hook and resembles a hook in shape.’’4 
It was certainly used to “hook” together all sorts of sentences. 
There is not the same unity in the older Greek in the matters 
united as is true of 7é. Kai “‘connects in a free and easy manner’’® 
and the Hebrew 3 still more loosely. There are three main uses 
of xai which appear in the N. T. as in all Greek. 

The Adjunctive Use (‘Also’). This is possibly the original use, 
though one cannot tell. It is thus like the Latin et-iam, English 
too (to)=addition to something already mentioned, and is com- 
mon enough in all stages of the language. A good example of 
this use of cai is seen in Mt. 8: 9, cal yap éyw dvOpwards eiue br 
é€ouciav. The xat here points to Christ’s relation to the boy. 
The centurion, like a true soldier, does not say that he is a man 
who gives orders, but rather one who obeys them. He has the 
true military spirit and knows therefore how Jesus can cure the 
boy without going to see him. The xai is here very significant. 
Cf. otws kal buets in Mt. 7:12, where the Golden Rule is applied 
to Christ’s hearers by xai. Cf. Jo. 7:3 ta kat of pabnrat cov, 
(12:10) ta kat rov Aagfapov. This use of xai is more frequent in 
Luke than elsewhere in the N. T.7 Cf. kayo (Lu. 20:3); 4 kat 
(Lu. 12:41); 6€ xai (12 : 54, 57); ri xai (1’Cor. 15:29); xal yép 
(Mt. 8:9); éav xai (Gal. 6:1); ef cai (2 Cor. 11:15); wat dé (Mt. 10: 


1. Griech. Gr., p. 542. 

2 Hellen., p. 129. 4 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 196. 

ar rola: 5 Jann., Gk. Gr., p. 401. 

6 Cf. M. W. Humphreys, The Cl. Rev., 1897, vol. XI, pp. 140 ff. 
7 


Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 140. 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAI) 1181 


18); ws cai (Ac. 11:17); xabas cai (Ro. 15 : 7); otrw cai (Ro. 6 : 11); 
ds kat (Ac. 24:6, 8); dpuotws cat (Jo. 6:11); woabrws Kai (1 Cor. 
11: 25); xaOarep xai (1 Th. 3:12); 616 cai (Lu. 1:35); 61a rod70 Kal 
(Lu. 11:49); adda cat (24: 22), etc. So then xai in the sense of 
‘also’ occurs with nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, conjunctions. 
It may refer to a word or a clause. Cf. a&ddws re xai, B. G. U. 550 
(i/a.p.). For the use of 6 xai see the Article, and for ovv xai see 
Prepositions.!. It is common for kai to sum up a sentence that 
precedes. For the relative and articular participle see the xai in 
the sentences in Mt. 5: 39-48. Here xai balances the principal 
and the subordinate clauses. So in the apodosis of a conditional 
sentence we find xai as in Jo. 14:7. Cf. Heb. 7:26, where xai 
almost means ‘precisely,’ and Mt. 6:10, where it means ‘just so.’ 
Cf. Ro. 11:16. So with @ we find it in the apodosis (Jo. 5 : 19). 
Cf. also after Sorep in 5:26. Sometimes the cai seems to be 
redundant as in Lu. 11:1, xadas kai, or ws kai in 1 Cor.7:7. We 
may indeed have xai (‘also’) in both parts of the comparison, a 
studied balancing of the two members of the sentence as in Mt. 
18 : 33, kal c€ — ws kayw. So Ro. 1:18, xal & bytv xabas Kal ev Tots 
Aourots Cveow. See olda kai —otda xat (Ph. 4:12). 

The Ascensive Use (‘Even’). The notion of ‘even’ is an advance 
on that of mere addition which is due to the context, not to Kal. 
The thing that is added is out of the ordinary and rises to a climax 
like the crescendo in music. Cf. Latin adeo. Cf. ob pdvor, adda Kat 
(Ac. 21:18; Ro. 18:5). This use of cai depends wholly on the 
context. Cf. Mk. 1:27, kat rots mvebuact rots axabapros émiTdaocet. 
(So Lu. 10:17). Cf. also kai of reXSvar and kat of eOvixoi, Mt. 5: 
46f. See further Ac. 10:45; 11:1, 20; Gal. 2:13. The use of 
kal ef belongs here. (Cf. 1 Cor. 8 : 5.) 

The Mere Connective (‘And’). The difference between xai as 
‘and’ and xai as ‘also’ is very slight, whichever was the original 
idea. The epexegetic or explicative use of kat occupies a middle 
ground between ‘also’ and ‘and.’ Blass? treats it under ‘also.’ 
~ Cf. Lu. 3:18, rodX\ad xal érepa tapaxaddv, where the “connective”’ 
force of xai is certainly very slight. So also Jo. 20:30, wodda kai 
adda onueta. See further Jo. 1:16, cat yap avril xapiros, where the 
clause is an explanatory addition. Cf. (Ac. 22:25) kat axaraxputor, 
(1 Cor. 2:2) kat rodrov éoravpwyevov, (Ro. 13:11) kai rodro (Latin 
_ idque) which is our ‘and that too’ where we combine ‘and’ and 
‘also’ (‘too’) in the cal, (Heb. 11: 12) xai radra (frequent in ancient 


1 Cf. Deiss., B. S.; Hatch, Jour. of Bib. Lit., 1908, p. 142. 
2 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 263. 


1182 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK. NEW TESTAMENT 


Greck). See in particular Eph. 2:8, cai rodro otk é& tuav, where 
rodro refers to the whole conception, not to xapi7e. The simple 
copulative idea is, however, the most common use of kai where 
words are piled together by means of this conjunction. Sometimes 
the connection is as close as with ré. Thus 6 @eds xat rarnp (2 Cor. 
1:3); xadj xal aya (Lu. 8:15). But the words may be very 
loosely joined in idea, as of Papicato. kal Laddoveato. (Mt. 16:1). 
Kai may be used to connect all sorts of words, clauses and sen- 
tences. Thus \éyw "Epyxou, kai épyerar (Mt. 8:9). The use of xai 
after the imperative is seen in Mt. 11:29. The chain with xai 
as the connective may go on indefinitely. Cf. the four examples 
in Ph. 4:9; five in Ro..9 : 4; the six in ‘Rev.:7 : 12:(so 5: 12)s So 
we have xal é7c three times in 1 Cor. 15:4 (kai to connect dre 
clauses). In Rev. 12-16 every paragraph and most of the sen- 
tences begin with xai. In fact it is true of much of the Apoca- 
lypse. If one turns to First Maccabees, it is true even to a much 
greater extent than in the Apocalypse. In First Maccabees kat 
translates the Hebrew 1. But Thumb! has found this repetition 
of xat in Aristotle so that the Hebrew influence simply intensified 
a Greek idiom. We have noted the use of cat with 7é (ré — kat. 
Cf. Ro. 1:20). The use of xai—xat is far more common in the 
sense of ‘both—and’ as in Ac. 2:29, kat éreXedtyce kal éradn. 
Cf. Mk. 4:41; Ph. 2:13; Ac. 26:29. Sometimes the connection 
almost amounts to ‘not only, but also.’ In Col. 2:16 note 
kai — }. Cf. kav — cay (Lu. 12:38). A. Brinkmann contends that 
in the papyri and late Greek xav is sometimes ‘at any rate’ 
and is never a mere link (Scriptio continua und Anderes, Rhein. 
Mus. LXVII, 4, 1912). In Lu. 5:36 we have xai— kai — kai ob 
(so Jo. 6 : 36), and in Jo. 17 : 25 kai ob — 6¢— kai. It is usual to 
have xai ov after an affirmative clause as in Jo. 10:35. Cf. kai 
un in 2 Cor. 9:5. See Negative Particles. In Lu. 12:6 xal od 
follows a question with ovxi. Kai connects two negative sentences 
in Lu. 6:37. For otre—xai see Jo. 4:11. Sometimes xai be- 
gins a sentence when the connection is with an unexpressed idea. 
Children use “and” thus often in telling stories and asking 
questions. Cf. kal od jofa in Mt. 26 : 69 (and 73) like Ht tu, Brute. 
See also Mk. 10 : 26, kai ris dtvatrar cwOjvar. So also Lu. 10: 29; 
Jo. 9:36; 2 Cor. 2:2. Cf. also the use of xai in parenthesis as 
in Ro. 1:18, cat exwrvOnv axpe Tod depo. The context gives other 
turns to xai that are sometimes rather startling. It is common 
to find xai where it has to bear the content ‘and yet.’ So Jo. 
1 Hellen., § 129. 


PARTICLES (AI ITAPAOHKAI) 1183 


3:19; 4:20; 6:49; 7:30; 1 Jo.2:9. The examples are common 
in John’s Gospel (Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 135 ff.). See Jer. 23 : 21. 
In Mk. 4:4 note wey—xai. In 1 Cor. 10:21 we have od — kai in 
contrast. Cf. also Mt. 3:14, cai ob épxn zpds we; So also Ph. 
1:22, wal ri aipnoowa. This idiom occurs in Plato, and Abbott 
notes a number of them in the Gospel of John. Cf. 1:5; 2:20; 
Slovo vOg Teme 2.2 Sor, eben. Inanigd2:.24 Kal-is' almost 
equal to ada, that is, the context makes contrast. Cf. also Mt. 
6:26 (ov — xat); Mk. 12:12; Lu. 20:19; Jo. 18:28. Tholuck! 
so takes xat in Ro. 1:13 (the parenthetical xai). Sometimes kai 
seems imitative of the Hebrew 1 by almost having the sense of 
dre or iva (‘that’) as in Mt. 26:15; Mk. 14:40; Lu. 9:51; 12:15. 
In particular note kai éyévero xai (as in Lu. 5:1, 12,17, etc.). In 
Mt. 16:6 observe opadre cat. So Lu. 12:15 and Mt. 26:15. In 
modern Greek xai has so far usurped the field that it is used not 
only in all sorts of paratactic senses like ‘and,’ ‘but,’ ‘for,’ ‘or,’ 
‘and so,’ but even in hypotactic senses for va or rod, declarative 
and even consecutive (Thumb, Handb., p. 184). In Mk. 3:7 kai 
comes near taking the place of 6, for in the next verse there are 
five instances of cai co-ordinate with each other, but subordinate 
to kai in verse 7. Sometimes after cai we may supply ‘so’ as in 
kat Adume, Mt. 5:15; wai BrEerouev, Heb. 3:19. See also Ph. 4:7. 
This is a kind of consecutive? use of cai. Cf. Lu. 24:18. The 
fondness for co-ordination in the Gospels causes the use of kat 
where a temporal conjunction (d7e) would be more usual. Cf. 
Mk. 15:25, jv Spa tpirn kat éotabpwoar (Lu. 23:44). But Blass® 
admits that this is a classic idiom. Cf. Mt. 26:45; Lu. 19:48, 
where xai drifts further away from the ancient idiom. Cf. also 
kal ido’ in the apodosis, ‘and behold,’ as in Lu. 7:12. In 2 Tim. 
2:20 note xai followed by &@ pey—a 6e. In Ph. 4:16 note xai 
thrice (one= ‘even,’ two=‘ both — and’). 

(iii) Aé. This conjunction is generally ranked wholly as an ad- 
versative particle. Monro? says: ‘‘The adversative 6€ properly 
indicates that the new clause stands in some contrast to what 
has preceded. Ordinarily, however, it is used in the continuation 
of a narrative.”’ As a matter of fact, in my opinion, Monro has 
the matter here turned round. The ordinary narrative use 
(continuative) I conceive to be the original use, the adversative 
the developed and later construction. The etymology confirms 


1 Beitr. zur Spracherklarung d. N. T., p. 35. 


2 Blass, Gr: of N. T. Gk., p. 262. 4 So:Jann,, Hist. Gks Gr.,p: 407. 
ates 5 Hom. Gr., p. 245. 


1184 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


this explanation, though it is largely conjectural. Brugmann} 
associates it with the aksl. *e and possibly also? with 67 and the 
enclitic ending —6€ (otxa-de, 6-de, roods-de), while Hartung* connects 
it with dbo, dis, and Baiumlein! with deb-repos. The enclitic -de thus 
means ‘again,’ ‘back,’ while the conjunction 6€ would mean ‘in 
the second place’ or ‘a second comment’ or ‘an important addi- 
tion’ (67). But, however we take it, there is in the word no essen- 
tial notion of antithesis or contrast. What is true is that the 
addition is something new® and not so closely associated in thought 
as is true of 7é and cai. I prefer therefore to begin with the narra- 
tive and transitional (copulative) use of 6¢. Kiihner-Gerth® call 
this use of 6€ for ‘something new’ (elwas Neues) copulative and 
give it separate discussion. Abbott’ has the matter correctly: 
“In classical Greek, de, calling attention to the second of two 
things, may mean (1) in the neat place, (2) on the other hand.” 
The first of these uses is the original one and is copulative. The 
second is adversative. Abbott notes also that 6€ in both senses 
occurs in Matthew and Luke nearly three times as often as in 
Mark and John. Its use is mainly in the historical books of the 
N. T. It is so common there that, as with cai, Moulton and 
Geden do not give any references. A good place to note the mere 
copulative force of 6€ is in the genealogy in Mt. 1: 2-16 where 
there is no notion of opposition at all. The line is simply counted 
from Abraham to Christ. In verses 6 and 12 there are breaks, but 
the contrast is made by repetition of the names, not by 6, which 
appears with every name alike. In Mt. 23:4 we have both 
uses of 6€. The first is properly translated ‘yea’ and the second 
‘but’ (adversative). See further 1 Cor. 4:7 (6€ and éé xai) where 
there 1s a succession of steps in the same direction. So 15:35; 
2 Cor. 6:15 f.; Heb. 12 : 6; and in particular the list of virtues in 
2 Pet. 1:5-7. Sometimes a word is repeated with 6€ for special 
emphasis, as dixaootvn 6€ in Ro. 3 : 22 (cf. 9:30). A new topic 
may be introduced by dé in entire harmony with the preceding 
discussion, as the Birth of Jesus in Mt. 1: 18 (‘Now the birth of 
Jesus Christ,’ etc.). The use of 6¢ in explanatory parenthesis is 
seen in Jo. 3: 19 (‘And this is,’ etc.); 19 : 23 (‘Now the coat,’ etc.). 
Tor ws 6€ (‘and when,’ ‘so when’) in John see 2:9, 23. In John 


1 Griech. Gr., p. 547. 

2 Ib. Cf. also Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 410. Cf. Klotz ad Dev., II, p. 355. 
A Vath e eb 

4; Parten.5: 6 TT pias 

°° W- Lh pedo: 7 Joh. Gr., p. 104. 


PARTICLES (AI IIAPAOHKAI) 1185 


as elsewhere it is sometimes not clear whether 6€ is copulative or 
adversative. Cf. 3:1, qv 6é€. Is Nicodemus an illustration or 
an exception?! The resumptive use of 6¢, after a parenthesis, to 
go on with the main story, is also copulative. Cf. Mt. 3:1; Lu. 
4:1. There is continuation, not opposition, in the use of kal 6¢, 
as in Lu. 1: 76, xai ov 6€, where 6€ means ‘and’ and xai ‘also’ Cf. 
further Mt. 10:18; 16:18; Jo. 15:27. In Jo. 6:51 we have kai 
dé in the apodosis of the condition in this sense. Aé is always 
postpositive and may even occupy the third place in the sentence 
(Mt. 10 : 11) or even the fourth (Jo. 6: 51) or fifth (1 Jo. 2:2) or 
sixth (Test. xii, Patr. Jud. 9:1) as shown in chapter on Sentence. 
In accord with the copulative use of 6€ we frequently have ovédé 
and unde in the continuative sense, carrying on the negative with 
no idea of contrast. Cf. Mt. 6: 26, od oczeipovow otd€ Oepifovow 
ovdé cuvayouow. So also 6:28; Mk. 4:22, etc. In Jo. 7:5, ovdé 
yap, we have ovdé in the sense of ‘not even’ as often (Mt. 6 : 29, 
etc.). In Mt. 6:15 ov6€ means ‘not also’ (cf. also 21 : 27, etc.). 
All three uses of xai are thus paralleled in otéé (merely od de). For 
unde in the continuative sense see Mt. 7:6. It means ‘not even’ 
in 1 Cor. 5:11. For the repetition of continuative pnéé see 1 
Cor. 10: 7-10. In Mk. 14: 68, otre of6a ote ériorauar (Some MSS. 
ovk — olde), We come pretty close to having ovre — ore in the merely 
continuative sense as we have in otre — xai (Jo. 4:11; 3 Jo. 10). 
(iv) ’A\Aa. Here there is no doubt at all as to the etymol- 
ogy. ’AdAa is a virtual proclitic (cf. ém and éri), and the neuter 
plural was a\dé@ (adda, ‘other things’). Biaumlein? does take ada 
as originally an adverb. But in reality it is ‘this other matter’ 
(cf. radra and rotro). In actual usage the adversative came to 
be the most frequent construction, but the original copulative 
held on to the N. T. period. It is a mistake to infer that aos 
means ‘something different.’ In itself it is merely ‘another.’ 
Like 6€ the thing introduced by a\\a is something new, but not 
essentially in contrast.4 So the classic Greek used adda pny in the 
emphatic continuative sense.» Blass® observes that “the simple 
adda also has this force of introducing an accessory idea.” Cf. 
2 Cor. 7:11, moony xateipyacato butv orovinv, adda arodoyiav, aNd 
ayavakTynow, addAa PoBov, AAA ExiTOOnow, aA (Hrov, adAG Exdiknow. 
All these six examples are confirmatory and continuative. See 
further Lu. 24:21, adda ye cai obv racow Tobros, Where it is cli- 


1 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 105. 4 K.-G., II, p. 286. 
2 Unters. iiber griech. Partikeln, p. 7. ® Tb. 
3 Paley, Gk. Particles, p. 1. SEGr Ole Nel + Gk, ns269, 


1186 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


macteric, not contradictory. The story is carried on by ada 
Kal’ in verse’ 22. *Cfrvalso"2 (Gorel:9; bus 12 780 22 ieee, 
Ph. 1:18, yaipw, ada Kal xapnoouar, the connection is very close. 
The most striking example of all is Ph. 3:8, adda pevodvye kal 
wyodua. In 2 Cor. 11:1, adda xai avéxecbe, the tone of irony 
makes it doubtful whether to take 4\\a as copulative or adver- 
sative. These and similar passages are not a dropping of the 
adversative idea, but merely the retention of the original copula- 
tive meaning. Abbott! sees that “it is hard to find a satisfactory 
explanation of Jo. 8 : 26” along the usual line. If one no longer 
feels impelled to translate by ‘but,’ the trouble vanishes. Just 
make it ‘now’ or ‘yea’ and it is clear. Abbott? likewise considers 
adda “inexplicable” in 4:28, because it has to mean ‘but.’ Cf. 
Jo. 16:2, add’ Epxerar dpa, ‘yea, the hour comes.’ The same 
use of a\Ad occurs also in negative sentences. In 1 Cor. 3:3, 
GAN’ ov6€ viv dvbvacbe after otrw edtvacbe. In 4:3, GAXr’ ovde after 
an affirmative clause. In Ac. 19:2, add’ ot6’, the thought answers 
the preceding question and is probably adversative, as is possible 
in 1 Cor.3:3. The adda at any rate is negative like the ovéé. So 
as to adn’ odé ‘Hpwéns (Lu. 23 : 15). 

(b) Adversative. It should be stated again that not all of 
these conjunctions mean contrast (antithesis) or opposition, but 
the context makes the matter clear. The modern Greek keeps 
ANNA, Suws, TAY, but not dé and pera (Thumb, Handb., p. 185). 

(i) Ae. In Jas. 1:13 f. note the two uses of 6€ (continuative 
and adversative). Sometimes the positive and the negative are 
sharply contrasted and then 6é¢ is clearly adversative as in Mt. 
23:4, abrol 6€ ob O€Xovo.v. More obvious still is 6:14 f., ay adfre 
— édy 6€ un abate. Cf. also 6:23. So pu) Onoavpivere — Onoavpitere 
dé (6:19f.). Cf. 1 Cor. 1:10, etc. The contrast may lie in the 
nature of the case, particularly where persons stand in contrast 
as in éyw de (Mt. 5: 22, 28, 32, etc.), od de (Mt. 6:6; 1 Tim. 6: 
11); jets de (1 Cor. 1: 23); duets 6€ (Mk. 8 : 29); the common 6 6é 
(Mk. 1:45), of d€ (Mt. 2: 5); aires 6€ (Lu. 8 : 37), atréos dé *Incods 
(Jo. 2: 24), etc. The contrast is made more manifest by the use 
of yev (see Intensive Particles) as in Mt. 3:11. In 1 Cor. 2:6, 
copiay 6€ ob TOU ai&vos Tovrov, an exception is filed to the preceding. 
This adversative use of 6€ is very common indeed. Cf. further 
M32 183 oliu. 55 37999 al Seed AN Bie a om eos 

(ii) ’AAAa. Just as addos (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4) can be used in the 
sense of érepos (when it means ‘different,’ not merely ‘second’), so 

WO. Sate pa LU: 2 Ib., p. 99. 


a 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAI) 1187 


ad\\a can mean ‘another’ in contrast to the preceding. With a 
negative the antithesis is sharp as in Lu. 1: 60, oxi, adda KrnO7- 
cera “Iwavns. So Jo. 6:32, ob Mwvays — add’ 6 rarnp (cf. 6 : 38). 
Cie Nike 936 fle Cor 1573/72) In verse’39 of 1:Cor.-15 note 
adda &A\An wey — GANn 6€ where both adda and GAdn have the no~ 
tion of difference due to the context. In 1 Cor. 9:12 note adda 
twice. In Mt. 15:11 ov begins one clause and adda the other. 
Cf. 2 Cor. 4:5, ob yap éavrobs knptocouev, adda Xpiotov “Inoody 
xvpiov. So Mt. 5:17. In Lu. 12:51 note otxi, add’ 4, and in 2 
Cor. 1:18, a\\a — add’ 7, a sort of pleonastic use of a4\\a. This 
is a classical idiom.! Cf. also od pdvov — adda (Ac. 19:26) or 
adda kal (Ro. 5:3). See Negative Particles. For oty 671 — adda 
see Jo. 7: 22, for obx wa — adda see 6:38. For adda ye in apod- 
osis see 1 Cor. 9:2, for a\\a Col. 2:5, for ddd’ od, 1 Cor. 4: 
15. Sometimes add’ tva may be elliptical as in Mk. 14:49; Jo. 
1:8. ’AddAa alone may refer to an interruption in thought not 
expressed, as in Jo. 12:27. One of the most striking instances of 
adda occurs in Ac. 16 : 37, od yap, adda, where od yap means ‘not 
much’ with fine scorn (cf. cat viv; just before). Both Winer and 
W. F. Moulton (W.-M., p. 566) felt certain that adda never 
equalled ei un, not even in Mt. 20:23 and Mk.4:22. But J. H. 
Moulton (Prol., p. 241) quotes Tb. P. 104 (i/B.c.), kat py ebeorw 
Pirloxur yuvaika GdAAnv érayayeoOar add\a ’AToAAwViav, Where dda 
means practically ‘except.’ See also Gen. 21:26. Moulton sug- 
gests that, since ei wy (brachylogy) in Lu. 4:26 f.; Rev. 21: 27, 
means ‘but only,’ the same may be true of a\Aa. 

(iii) IAnv. Curtius gets it from m\éov (‘more’), but Brugmann? 
finds its original meaning to be ‘near by.’ At any rate it was 
a preposition (Mk. 12:32). Cf. Ac. 15:28, rdéov rdHv Tobrwr 
where the two words exist together. Probably its original use 
as a conjunction is seen in the combination Aj 67 (Ph. 1:18). 
It is chiefly confined to Luke’s writings in the N.T. As a con- 
junction it is always adversative (cf. Lu. 6 : 24; 12:31, etc.). In 
Mt. 26:39 note rdnv obxy ws— add’ as. The classical language 
used it as a preposition and with 67, but Aristotle* shows the 
existence of zAjv as a conjunction which developed in the ver- 
nacular. Blass‘ notes that Paul uses it at the end of an argument 
to single out the main point. Cf.1 Cor. 11:11; Eph. 5 : 33; Ph. 3: 
16; 4: 14. 

1. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 269. 


2 Gniech. Gr., p. 550. 
3 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 268. 4 Ib. 


1188 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(iv) Méyro. This word is a combination of two intensive par- 
ticles (uév, rot), and is used to mean ‘however.’ Cf. Jo. 4 : 27; 
12:42. It occurs in the N. T. only eight times. 

(v) “Ouws. This word is even more rare than pévro. It occurs 
with two participles (1 Cor. 14:7; Gal. 3:15) and once with yeér- 
ro. (Jo. 12 : 42). 

(vi) Eiwh. This phrase marks an exception, as in Mt. 12:4; 
Jo. 17:12. We even have éxrés ef un (1 Cor. 14:5;.15:2; 1 Tim. 
5: 19); 

(c) Disjunctives. Dionysius Thrax calls this construction otv- 
Oecis Svatevxtixn. It was always possible to express alternative 
ideas without any conjunction (cf. the Latin nolens volens) or by 
copulative conjunctions (6€, cai), a construction common in the 
vernacular! (cf. Hebrew 7). Dissimilar things may be united by 
kat as in Col. 3:11, but we do not have to take xai as being 7 or 
vice versa.” 

(i) "H. Its origin from 7 (enclitic) is held by Brugmann.? They 
are equivalent in Homer. We may have just 7 as in Mt. 5:17. 
For # xai see Mt. 7:10; Lu. 18:11. In the sense of ‘or’ 4 may 
be repeated indefinitely (Ro. 8:35). In Ro. 1:21 we have oix—7 
as in 4:13. See unrw—pnde— 7 (Ro. 9:11). This use in negative 
clauses appears in Thuc. 1, 122, and later writers. In 1 Th. 
2:19 note 7 odxt cai. In Mt. 21:23 we have xai ris, while in 
Lu. 20:2 (parallel passage) the reading is 4 ris. This does not 
prove xai and 7 to be synonymous. The logion was translated 
differently. The modern Greek retains otre, unre and 4 (Thumb, 
Handb., p. 185). In 1 Cor. 11:27, és av éo6in rov dprov 4 rivy TO 
ToTnpiov Tov Kupiov, some MSS. have xai, but # is the true text. 
This, however, does not mean that some partook of one element 
and some of the other, but that, whatever element was taken in 
this way, there was guilt. The correlative use of #— # (‘either 
—or’) is also frequent.4 Cf. Mt. 6:24; 1 Cor. 14:6. In Ro. 6: 
16 note jro. — 7. As a disjunctive we have zérepov— 4 in Jo. 
7:17.and 4—7—4%4—% in Mk. 13:35. For aply 4 see Mt. 
1:18; for 4 after 6é\w see 1 Cor. 14:19; after caddv, Mt. 18:8; 
after xapa, Lu. 15:7; for add’ 4, Lu. 12:51. Radermacher 
(N. T. Gr., p. 27) finds 4 ro. — 4, B. G. U. 956; 4% ror — 4 ron, 


! Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 406. 
2 W.-Th., p. 440. 
® Griech. Gr.; -p. 541. 


* Cf. Margolis, The Particle # in O. T. Gk. (Am. Jour. of Sem. Lang. and 
Lit., July, 1909). 


ae oe 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAI) 1189 


Vett. Val., p. 138, 11; jre— 4, I..G. XII, 2, 562, 5 (Roman 
time); re — jre, Quaest. Barth., pp. 24, 30. 

(ii) Eire — eire (€avte — éavte). These conditional particles are 
like the Latin sive— sive. Cf. 1 Cor. 10: 31, etre — dre — eize. 
So 12:13; 14:7. We have etre eight times in 3:22. In 14:7 it 
follows 7 — 7 in verse 6. For éavre — éavte see Ro. 14:8. 

(iii) Otre — obre (unre — unre). We have seen that there is noth- 
ing inherent in oire to make it disjunctive. Cf. Jo. 4:11; 3 Jo. 
10. It is simply od and ze (cf. ov 6€), a negative copulative con-> 
junction. In Rev. 5:3f. we have ot’éé— oire (cf. Gal. 1 : 12) 
and the next verse ovdeis — ote. In Ac. 24:12f. we have oire 
— ovre — otre — ovde. Cf. Lu. 20:35f. In Jo. 5:37 f. note oire 
—oire—xal ov. In 1 Cor. 6:10 note oire — ote — 03 — od. In 
Jas. 3:12 cf. otre after question. A good example of the correla- 
tive otre — ore is 1 Cor. 3:7. In Ro. 8:88 f. otrve occurs ten 
times. In Ac. 23:8 we find uy — wnre— unre. This is also just 
a copulative negative conjunction (uj ve). In Mt. 5 : 34-36 we 
have wn — pnre — pntre — enre — pyre. In 2 Th. 2: 2 we have 
pnde — unre — unre. In Lu. 7:33 wn— hte, while in 9:3 punédev 
is followed by pyre five times. There is often some confusion 
in the MSS. between pydée and unre, ovd€ and oie. Blass! rejects 
ore o10a ove émiorawae in Mk. 14: 68 (NBDL), but on whimsical 
grounds. 

(d) Inferential Conjunctions. It is not easy to draw a dis- 
tinction between ‘‘inferential’? and ‘‘causal.’’ There is no 
doubt about dpa and oty. These are inferential paratactic par- 
ticles. What about yap? Monro? calls it causal. KKiihner-Gerth# 
treat all three as causal. Perhaps it is just as well to reserve 
the term “causal’’ for the hypotactic particles éru, érei, ete. One 
has to be arbitrary sometimes. And even so these particles (apa, 
ovv, yap) were originally just transitional or explanatory in sense. 
Blass‘ calls them ‘consecutive’ co-ordinate conjunctions. 

(i) "Apa. The etymology seems to be clear, though not ac- 
cepted by all scholars. The root ap— (ap— ap— toxw, ‘to fit’) suits 
exactly.5 It means then ‘fittingly, accordingly.’ Cf. our ‘“ar- 
ticulate”’ (ar-ticulus). The word expresses some sort of corre- 
spondence between the sentences or clauses. It was postpositive 
in the ancient Greek, but in the N. T. it is not always so. Cf. 


ESGEAOL NY L Crik.,P. 200% BL paelis 

se riom.Gr., Pp. 200. OGrOLN cre Datae ok 

5 Cf. K.-G., II, p. 317f., for the discussion of the theories. So Brug., 
Griech. Gr., p. 539. 


1190 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Mt. 12:28; Ac. 17: 27.. It oceurs-some 50 times in the N-vT-; 
in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Paul’s Epistles, and Hebrews. 
The original notion of mere correspondence is apparently pre- 
served in. Lu. 11:48, apa uaprupes éore, ‘So ye are witnesses.’ Cf. 
also Ac. 11:18. In Mk. 11:18; Ac. 17:27, ef dpa has the idea 
of ‘if haply.’ Klotz takes dpa to describe the unexpected and 
strange, something extrinsic, while Baumlein considers it a par- 
ticle giving point to what is immediately and necessarily conclu- 
sive. Most of the N. T. instances seem to be clearly illative. Cf. 
Mt. 17: 26f.; Ro. 7:21. It has ye added three times (cf. Mt. 
7:20; 17:26f.; Ac. 17:27). Paul is specially fond of apa otv 
(Ro. 5:18; 7:3, 25, etc.). Once he has dpa viv (Ro.8:1). “Apa 
occurs also in the apodosis (Mt. 12 : 28; Gal. 2:21). We have 
unre dpa in a question in 2 Cor. 1: 17. 

(ii) Tap. There is no doubt as to the origin of this word. It is 
a compound of ye and aépa and is always postpositive. It is called 
ovvdecpos aitio\oyikos, but it does not always give a reason. It 
may be merely explanatory. We have seen that dpa itself was 
originally just correspondence and then later inference. So then 
vé can accent as an intensive particle either of these ideas. It 
is a mistake, therefore, to approach the study of yap with the 
theory that it is always or properly an illative, not to say causal, 
particle. It is best, in fact, to note the explanatory use first. 
Thayer wrongly calls the illative use the primary one. The word 
is common in all the larger books of the N. T. It is least common 
in the Gospel of John and in Revelation. In Matthew and Luke 
it is much more frequent in the discourses and is rare in the strict 
narrative. In Mark and John it is about half and half! In gen- 
eral the N. T. use of yap is in accord with that of the classic period. 
The explanatory use is common in Homer.? The N. T. examples 
are numerous. Cf, Mt. 19:12; Mk. 5:42; 16:4; Lu. 11:30; 
18:32. Here the explanation follows immediately. Sometimes 
the explanation comes in by way of appendix to the train of 
thought. So Mt. 4:18, joav yap adets. Cf. also Mk. 2:15; Ro. 
7:2. In questions we have good examples, particularly ri ydép. 
So Mt. 27: 23, ri yap xaxdv éroinoe; Cf. Ro. 3:3. In Ac. 16: 
37, ov yap, adda, We have to resolve yap into its parts and make 
the phrase= ‘not much, but.’ In Jo. 9 : 30, & robrw yap, the man 
uses yap with fine scorn, ‘why, just in this,’ ete. In Jo. 19:6 
it is hardly creditable to Pilate’s common sense to take yap as 
illative. Cf. also Jo. 7:41; Ac. 19:35; Mt. 9:5. Tép sometimes 

4 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 102. 2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 253. 


PARTICLES (AI ITAPAOHKAI) 1191 


gives the major premise (Mt. 26: 52), more often the minor prem- 
ise (2 Pet. 1:15f.), sometimes both (Jo. 3:19f.). The purely 
illative use of yap is simple enough, though the force of the 
ground or reason naturally varies greatly. See Mt. 1:21, atros 
yap owoe; (6:24) } yap; (Ro. 8:18) Noyifoua yap. Paul begins 
every sentence with yap in Ro. 8: 18-24. For kai yap see Ro. 
11:1; 15:3. The precise relation between clauses or sentences 
is not set forth by yap. That must be gathered from the con- 
text if possible. Cf. Jo.4:44. Note yap — é7u in 1 Tim. 6:7. 
(iii) Ody. The etymology of oty isunknown. Brugmann! thinks 
it probable that it is derived from *6 & or 6 6v (cf. dvtws, 7G dvTt). 
The Ionic also has ay (so Lesbian, Doric, Beeotian). But, how- 
ever that may be, it is important to note that the particle is 
not illative nor even consequential in Homer? It is merely a 
transitional particle relating clauses or sentences loosely together 
by way of confirmation. It was common in this sense in Homer, 
though rare in the Attic writers save in yey otv. But it is very 
frequent in the Gospel of John as a mere transitional particle. In 
this Gospel it occurs about 200 times, nearly as frequent as all 
the rest of the N. T., though it is rare in the other Johannine 
writings. In John’s Gospel, outside of 8 examples in the words 
of Jesus, the rest occur in the narrative portion.? Abbott‘? seems 
puzzled over the many non-illative instances of oty in John and 
suggests that ‘the writer perhaps had in view the objections of 
controversialists.”’ But this is wholly gratuitous and needless in 
the light of the history of the particle. Probably a majority of 
the instances in John’s Gospel are non-illative as in Homer, the 
original use of the word.’ Luke preserves the literary Attic idiom 
by the common use of pév ody as in Ac. 15:3, 30, etc. But John 
boldly uses oty alone and needs no apology for doing so. It just 
carries along the narrative with no necessary thought of cause or 
result. It is, because of John’s free use, one of the commonest 
particles in the N. T. and is oftener in the narrative books than 
in the epistles. It is interesting in John to take a chapter and 
note when ofy is merely continuative and when illative. Cf. ch. 
11, for instance, verses 3, 6, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 31, 32, 33, 36, 
38, 45, 47, 54, 56. So we start off again in 12:1 with 6 ody ‘Inaois 


1 Griech. Gr., p. 549. 3 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 165. 

2 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 255. 4 Ib., p. 168. 

6 Cf. K.-G., II, p. 326. See also Weymouth, App. A, Rendering into Eng. 
of the Gk. Aorist and Perfect, 1894. 

6 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 272. 


1192 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(continuative). It is the commonest connective between sen- 
tences in this Gospel. We moderns do not feel the same need 
for connecting-particles between independent sentences. The an- 
cient Greeks loved to point out these delicate nuances. The in- 
terrogative otxoty occurs only in Jo. 18:37. A good instance of 
the purely illative use is in Mt. 3:8, roujoare obv xaprov. It is 
common in Paul’s Epistles (Ro. 5:1; 6:12, etc.). Paul is fond 
also of &pa-otv (Ro. 8%: 12) and@oti7rt-ovv (Gal) Lo ee ouons 
etc.). Oty is always postpositive. 

2. Hypotactic CoNJUNCTIONS (cUvdecpot UTrotaxtikol). The 
conjunctions used in the N. T. with subordinate clauses have been 
discussed and the constructions given in detail already. See 
Modes (Subordinate Clauses). The relative, temporal, compara- 
tive, local, causal, final and consecutive, apprehensive, conditional 
and declarative conjunctions make a goodly list. But it is not 
necessary to go over the same ground again. Most of these con- 
junctions, as previously shown, are of relative origin. All are 
adverbs. It was necessary to treat at length the paratactic con- 
junctions which antedate the hypotactic in origin and were always 
exceedingly abundant in the vernacular. The hypotactic belong 
to the more highly developed speech, but one must not think that 
the hypotactic conjunctions regulate the construction of the sen- 
tence. They get their meaning from the sentence, not the sentence 
from the conjunction. The other view is a mechanical theory of 
language out of harmony with the historical growth of both mode 
and particle.2, Hypotaxis grew out of parataxis. This paratactic 
origin survives in many ways. Cf., for instance, the relative at 
the beginning of sentences, as é& ots (Lu. 12:1). So also é7c in 
1 Jo.3:11f. The Greek is particularly rich in its subordinating 
conjunctions as compared with the Sanskrit and the Hebrew. 
Hach subordinate clause possesses a case-relation toward the 
principal sentence as substantive, adjective or adverb, so that the 
sentence expansion is on the lines of the word-relations. In gen- 
eral the disappearance of the ancient Greek conjunctions from 
the modern Greek is noticeable. ‘Ozdre (érérav), apts, mexpts, el, 
ép’ @ “have entirely disappeared’? (Thumb, Handb., p. 186). 
Thumb goes on with the story. We have ws in cay and wore va= 
‘until.’ “Orc is gone before zod and vd, though ézws has revived. 


1 On the relative origin of conjs. like ért, dre, Srws, ds, €ws see Baron, Le 
Pronom Relatif et la Conjonction, 1891, pp. 95 ff. 

2 Cf. Nilsson, Die Kausalsiitze im Griech. bis Arist. See also Gildersl., Am. 
Jour. of Philol., 1907, p. 354 f. 


PARTICLES (AI IAPAOHKAI) 1193 


Na has greatly extended its functions. Some survive greatly 
modified, like aod, eav, eire — cite, evG, Ererdyn, piv, ws Tod (Ews), 
qo0 (érov), rporod, etc. The paratactic conjunctions are “pressed 
into service to form dependent clauses” as at the beginning. 
Parataxis turns into hypotaxis. 

VI. Interjections. Winer! considers interjections to be mere 
sounds, and so entirely outside of the sphere of syntax and in- 
- deed of grammar. But one? of the imperatival forms (aye) is 
exclamatory in origin. Or is the interjection an imperative in 
origin? We see this form still used as an interjection in Jas. 
4:13. So also tée in Jo. 1: 29, ide 6 duvos Tod Oeod. Cf. dedpo (Mk. 
10:21), dedre (Mt. 11: 28). Acdpo is very vivid in Jo. 11:48, 
Adgape dedpo €Ew. ‘Idov is either used absolutely (Mt. 11:10) or 
with the nominative (Rev. 4:1) and is of frequent occurrence. 
Kai iéov is good Greek, but its frequency reminds one of the 
Hebrew idiom. We have éa in Lu. 4:34. Once ova occurs (Mk. 
15 : 29) with the vocative. So ovai is found with the vocative in 
_ Lu. 6:25. It is found absolutely in Rev. 18:10, 16, 19, ovat, 
ovai. ‘Twice it is used with the accusative (Rev. 8:13; 12:12), 
as the object of thought. Usually the dative is found with ovai 
as in Mt. 11: 21; Lu. 6: 24f.; 11:42. The word occurs mainly in 
Matthew and Luke. Sometimes we have @ with the vocative 
Some VLierote os, @uyirate 90 AC. 13 310; Rov 2. le Gal 32 1. 
There is usually some vehemence or urgency when @ is used. 
But not always. See Ac. 1:1; 18:14. In Ro. 10:15 as is an 
exclamatory particle, as 7i is in Lu. 12:49. It is not quite true, 
therefore, to say that interjections lie quite outside of gram- 
mar. Indeed, language may come from just these ejaculatory 
sounds, like ‘‘mama”’ with the babe. 'Tragedians? naturally use 
interjections more frequently. People differ greatly in the use of 
“Oh” and “Ah.” The English audiences are fond of ‘ Hear, 
hear,’’ while the American crowds love to clap their hands or 
stamp their feet. Farrar‘ follows Scaliger and Destutt de Tracy 
in regarding them as words par excellence and as having high 
linguistic importance. Grammar can deal with emotion as well 
as with thought. 


1 W.-Th., p. 356. 2 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 171 f. 
8 Miiller, De interjectionum apud Sophoclem, Se aie que iste 1885, p. 3. 
4 Gk. Synt., p. 201. 


CHAPTER XXII 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (TrOPIriEIA 2XHMATA) 


I. Rhetorical, not Grammatical. Strictly speaking there is no 
need to go further in the discussion of the points of syntax. There 
are various matters that the grammars usually discuss because 
there is no N. T. rhetoric. These points belong to language in 
general, though in some of them the Greek has turns of its own. 
Each writer has, besides, his own style of thought and speech. 
See discussion in chapter IV. Under The Sentence we have 
already discussed the ellipsis (of subject, predicate or copula), 
matters of concord, apposition, the position of words (emphasis, 
euphony, rhythm, poetry, prolepsis, tarepov mpéorepov, postpositive 
words, hyperbaton, order of clauses), simple and compound sen- 
tences, connection between words (polysyndeton and asyndeton), 
connection between clauses and sentences (paratactic and hypo- 
tactic) and asyndeton again, running and periodic style, parenthe- 
sis, anacoluthon, oratio variata, connection between paragraphs. 
These matters call for no further comment. They could have 
been treated at this point, but they seemed rather to belong to 
the discussion of sentences in a more vital way than the remain- 
ing rhetorical figures. For attraction and incorporation see 
Cases and Relative Pronouns. The points now to be discussed 
have not so much to do with the orderly arrangement (civGects)! 
as with the expression and the thought. 

II. Style in the N. T. The characteristics of the N. T. writers 
received treatment in chapter IV. The precise question here is 
whether the writers of the N. T. show any marks of rhetorical 
study. We have seen already (The Sentence, Rhythm) that the 
scholars are divided into two camps on this subject. Blass? 
(but not Debrunner) argues that Paul’s writings and the Epistle 
to the Hebrews show the influence of the rules of rhythm of the 
literary prose of Asia (Asianism) and Rome (Pausanias, Cicero, 


1 Blass, Grof NW Gke pazup: 
* Die Rhythmen der asianischen und rémischen Kunstprosa, 1905. 


1194 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPrIEIA =XHMATA) 1195 


Curtius, Apuleius). Deissmann! will have none of it. It is a 
pretty quarrel and, as usual, there is truth in both views. One 
must get his bearings. We can all agree with Blass? at once 
that the N.T. writers are not to be compared on this point with 
the literary masters of Attic prose, but with writers like Polybius. 
We are surely not to look for the antithetic style of the Attic 
orators (Isocrates, Lysias, Demosthenes). If there is esthetic 
beauty in 1 Cor. 13 or Heb. 11, it may be the natural esthetic 
of Homer’s rhapsodies, not the artificialities of Isocrates. Blass 
admits the poverty of the Oriental languages in the matter of 
periods and particles and does not claim that the N. T. writers 
rose above the O. T. or rose to the level of Plato. And yet 
Norden in his Antike Kunstprosa claims that in his best diction 
Paul rises to the height of Plato in the Phadrus. Wilamowitz- 
Mollendorff likewise calls Paul “a classic of Hellenism.” Sir 
W. M. Ramsay is a stout advocate for the real Hellenic influence 
on Paul’s life.6 But Ramsay scouts the word “rhetoric” in con- 
nection with Paul: “I can hardly imagine that one who had ever 
experienced the spell of Paul could use the word rhetoric about 
the two examples which he mentions from First Corinthians, and 
Romans.”’® There was in Paul’s time artificial rhetoric with 
which Paul evidently had no connection, nor did any of the writers 
of the N. T. One cannot believe that Paul, for instance, studied 
at one of the famous schools of rhetoric nor that he studied 
the writings of the current rhetoricians. This much may be 
freely admitted about all of the N. T. writers, who wrote in 
the language of the people, not of the schools. Deissmann’ 
correctly says: “The history of Christianity, with all its wealth 
of incident, has been treated much too often as the history 
of the Christian literary upper class, the history of theologians 
and ecclesiastics, schools, councils and parties, whereas Chris- 
tianity itself has often been most truly alive in quarters remote 


1 Theol. Lit., 1906, p. 434; The Expositor, 1908, p. 74. See also his St. 
Paul (1912). 

2 Hermeneutik und Kritik, 1892, p. 198. The true grammarian is but too 
willing to see the other point of view. Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, 
p. 266. 

3 Hahne, Zur sprachl. Asthetik der Griech., 1896, p. 4. 

4 Hermeneutik und Kritik, p. 198. 

5 Cf. the controversy between him and Principal Garvie in The Expositor 
for 1911 anent Garvie’s book, Studies of Paul and His Gospel (1911). 

6 The Expositor, Aug., 1911, p. 157. 

7 Light from the Ancient East, p. 404. 


1196 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


from councils.” This is all pre-eminently true and we must never 
forget that Jesus was a carpenter, John a fisherman and Paul 
a tentmaker. And yet Deissmann! himself will say of John: 
“St. John has no liking for progress along an unending straight 
road; he loves the circling flight, like his symbol, the eagle. 
There is something hovering and brooding about his production; 
repetitions are in no wise abnormal with him, but the marks 
of a contemplation which he cherishes as a precious inheritance 
from St. Paul and further intensifies.”’ There is a perfection of 
form in the Parables of Jesus that surpasses all the rules of the 
grammarians and rhetoricians. The eagle flight of John makes 
the cawing of the syntactical crows pitiful. The passion of Paul 
broke through all the traditional forms of speech. He lacked 
the punctilious refinements? of the Stoic rhetoricians, but he had 
the cyclonic power of Demosthenes and the elevation of Plato. 
Even Blass? sees that ‘the studied employment of the so-called 
Gorgian assonances is necessarily foreign to the style of the N. T., 
all the more because they were comparatively foreign to the whole 
period; accident, however, of course produces occasional instances 
of them, and the writer often did not decline to make use of any 
that suggested themselves.” This would seem modest enough to 
satisfy Deissmann. In particular Blass* notes “the absence of 
rhetorical artifice in the Johannine speeches.”’ He finds little of 
that nature in Mark and Luke. ‘But in Matthew there really 
is some artistic sense of style,’ but it is “‘mainly drawn from 
Hebrew and not from Greek.” The many quotations in this 
Gospel show a close use of the LX X and the Hebrew O. T. And 
yet, on the whole, the Greek runs smoothly enough. Kénig has 
a valuable article on ‘Style of Scripture” in the Extra Volume of 
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, but he deals mainly with the 
O.T. There is in truth little that is distinctive in the style of 
the N. T. apart from the naturalness, simplicity, elevation and 
passion of the writers. It is only in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
that Blass® finds “the care and dexterity of an artistic writer’ 
as shown by his occasional avoidance of hiatus, but even here 
Blass has to strain a point to make it stick. Bultmann® draws a 
definite parallel between the style of Paul and the Cynic-Stoic 


1 Light from the Anc. East, p. 410. 

2 J. Weiss, Beitr. zur paulinischen Rhetorik, 1897, p. 168. 

3 Gr. of NN: TaGk.ype298: 

4° Tb. pscn02. 57 1D; ps 200% 

§ Der Stil der paulinische Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, 1910. 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (TOPTIEIA =XHMATA) 1197 


Diatribe and makes his point, but even so one wonders if after 
all Paul uses question and answer so skilfully by reason of definite 
study of the subject or because of his dialectical training as a 
rabbi and his native genius in such matters. It is per se, how- 
ever, entirely possible that Paul knew the common Stoic dialectic 
also as he did the tenets of current Stoicism (cf. Paul’s work in 
Athens). The examples of figures of speech in the N. T. are due 
to the nature of speech in general, to the occasional passion! of 
the writer, to the play of his fancy, to unconscious expression 
of genius, to mere accident. We must not make the mistake of 
rating men like Luke, Paul, James and the author of Hebrews as 
boorish and unintellectual. They lived in an age of great culture 
and they were saturated with the noblest ideas that ever filled 
the human brain. As men of genius they were bound to respond 
to such a situation. They do show a distinct literary flavour as 
Heinrici? has so well shown. In 1 Cor. 13 we have finish of form 
and thought. Even John, called aypauparos xai iduorns (Ac. 4 : 13), 
rose to the highest planes of thought in his Gospel. Deissmann 
in his St. Paul goes to the extreme of making Paul a mere man of 
affairs devoid of theological culture, — an untenable position in 
view of Acts and Paul’s Epistles when he says: ‘His place is with 
Amos, the herdsman of Tekoa, and Tersteegen, the ribbon-weaver 
of Milheim” (p. 6). We may brush aside the artificial rules of 
Gorgias as too studied efforts for the N. T. Indeed, the men of the 
time had largely refused to follow the lead of Gorgias of Sicily, 
though his name clung to the figures of speech. His mannerisms 
were not free from affectation and pedantry.’ The Attic orators of 
the fourth century s.c. had their own rules for easy and flexible 
practical speech. The writers and speakers of the later time 
modified these in their own way. We are not concerned here to 
follow Blass‘ in his effort to prove that Paul and the writer of 
Hebrews were students of the current rhetoricians. This we fail 
to see, but we do see that the language of the N. T. was a living 
organism and exhibits many of the peculiarities of human speech 
which the rhetoricians have discussed. For convenience, therefore, 
we adopt their terminology. 


1 Norden (Die ant. Kunstprosa, Bd. II, p. 508) speaks of Paul’s use of rhe- 
torical figures as due to his “Ton.”’ Heinrici (Zum Hellen. d. Paulus, Komm. 
zu II Kor.) sees Paul’s “Eigenart.”’ 

2 Der literarische Charakter d. neut. Schriften, 1908. 

8. Gr..of N: T. Gk., p. 295. 

4 Die Rhythmen der asianischen und rémischen Kunstprosa, 1905. 


1198 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ill. Figures of Idea or Thought (oxnpata dtavoias). Blass! 
observes that these figures of thought belong more to the later 
period of Attic oratory. Some of them are distinctly rhetorical 
in character, as the rhetorical question of which Paul makes 
abundant use, especially in the Epistle to the Romans. Blass? 
makes a good critique of such questions as showing dialectical 
liveliness and perspicuity, as in Ro. 3:1 ti oty 70 repiacoy Tod 
‘Tovdaiov; (4:10) ra&s oby eNoyiobn; Ev mEpLTOUH OvTL 7 ev akpoBvoTia; 
This is quite like the diatribe in Epictetus and other xow7 writers 
(Radermacher, N. 7. Gr., p. 182). Cf. 1 Cor. 7: 18 ff. Other ques- 
tions are quite emotional, as in 2 Cor. 11:22. In Ro. 8: 31-85 we 
have a “brilliant oratorical passage,” worthy of any orator in the 
world. There are others almost equal to it, Ro. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11; 
1 Cor. 3; 4,(8).9, 12218; Jo S27 Gore? 3 A4 eS eLOes ere ere 
we have oratory of the highest kind with the soul all ablaze with 
great ideas. The words respond to this high environment and 
are all aglow with beauty and light. Certainly the Epistle to 
Hebrews is oratory of the highest order, as are the addresses in 
Acts. Blass? thinks that Luke is distinctly ‘unprofessional (¢dio- 
tisch)’’ in his manner of presenting the great speeches in Acts, 
idtuwrikn ppacts, Not texvuxyn dpaors. That is true, but one would 
have a martinet spirit to cavil at the word eloquence here. The 
discourses of Jesus in Matthew, Luke and John are above all 
praise in content and spirit. One cannot think that Jesus was a 
technical student of rhetoric, but he sang with the woodrobin’s 
note, and that far surpasses the highest achievement of the best 
trained voice whose highest praise is that she approaches the 
woodrobin or the nightingale. There is perfection of form in the 
thoughts of Jesus whether we turn to the Sermon on the Mount 
in Matthew, the Parables in Luke 15, or the Discourses in the 
Upper Room and On the Way to Gethsemane in John 14-17. 
The style of the reporters does not conceal the consummate skill 
of Christ as the ‘Master Preacher”’ of the ages. 

There is undoubted use of ‘rony (eipwveia) in the N. T. We see it 
in the words of Jesus. See the high scorn in kai tyes tANpwoaTe TO 
MéTpov TOV TaTépwy buav (Mt. 23:32). This is the correct text, not 
TAnpwoere. SO also xadds aberetre Tiv evtoAnv Tod Geod (Mk. 7:9) and 
OTL ovK evdeXETAL TpodNnTny amodecOa E~w "lepovcadyju (Lu. 13 : 33). 


1 Gr. of NSTAGk pace 

2 Ib. The “ Terminology of Grammar”’ is not fixed like the laws of the 
Medes and Persians. Cf. Rep. of the Joint Com. on Gr. Terminol., 1911. 

*- Gr. of Ni Te. Gk pn305; 





FIGURES OF SPEECH (TOPIrIEIA =XHMATA) 1199 


There is more of it in Paul’s writings. Cf. 1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Cor. 
11:19f.; 12:13; Ro. 11:20. There was never a more nimble 
mind than that of Paul, and he knew how to adapt himself to 
every mood of his readers or hearers without any sacrifice of 
principle. It was no declaimer’s tricks, but love for the souls of 
men that made him become all things to all men (1 Cor. 9 : 22). 
He could change his tone because he loved the Galatians even 
when they had been led astray (Gal. 4: 20). The rhetoricians call 
it prodiorthosis, as in 2 Cor. 11:21, & ddpootirvn AEeyw (cf. also 11: 
1 f., 16 f., 23) and epidiorthosis, as in Ro. 3 : 5, kata &vOpwirov eyo. 
Cf. also 1 Cor. 7:6; 12:11; Ro. 8:34; Gal. 4:9. So Paul uses 
paraleipsis, aS in 2 Cor. 9:4, wh Tas KataoxvvOGyev juels, va pi) 
heywuev duets, instead of uy wore katacxvrO77e. As Blass! suggests, 
Paul’s innate delicacy of feeling makes him take the reproach 
on himself. Cf. also Phil. 19, tva wy Neyw bre Kal ceavrdv pou mpoco- 
¢ethees. So in Ro. 7:4 Paul says xal byets Cavatwbynre 7S vouw 
rather than bluntly assert xal 6 vouos areOavev (or Cavatwhyn). There 
is sometimes a lack of parallelism (heterogeneous structure). Cf. 
1 Jo. 2:2, tAKacuds wept Tv auapTiav Hudv, ov rept TAV HueTEpwv 
Lovoy, dAAd Kal OAoV TOU Kdcpov, instead of r&v odcv Tod Kdcpov. CE. 
also Ph. 2:22, rarpi— otv euot. Cf. repimarety cat domacuols in 
Mk. 12: 38 f., tiv pevovear év nut cal web’ Hudv éorar in 2 Jo. 2. 

IV. Figures of Expression (oxjpata AéEews). What Winer? 
ealls ‘Broken and Heterogeneous Structure” (anacoluthon, oratio 
variata) has had sufficient discussion under The Sentence. So as 
to asyndeton. ‘There remain a number of other points which may 
be grouped for convenience. 

(a) PARALLELS AND Contrasts (Parallelismus membrorum). 
There are many illustrations of this idiom in the N. T., both in 
the Gospels and Epistles. ‘The O.'T. is full of such words and 
phrases, particularly in the Psalms. One who read these hymns 
much would naturally have his eye and ear trained to this form 
of rhythm. We do not need to see conscious effort at poetry, 
though in 1 Tim. 3: 16 we probably have a fragment of an early . 
Christian hymn. The Hebrew parallelism is manifest in Lu. 1: 
42-45 (the song of Elizabeth), 46-56 (the song of Mary), and 
68-79 (the song of Zacharias), 2 : 29-32 (the song of Simeon). 
One does not have to go to the Greek rhetoricians. The spirit of 
rhapsody here shown is due to the Spirit of God moving the heart 
and stirring the highest impulses of the soul. There are other 
examples of primitive Christian song in the N. T., as in Eph. 5: 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 304. 2 W.-Th., p. 566. 


1200 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


14; Jude 24 f.; Rev. 5 : 12-14, and often in this book. There is 
the perfection of poetic form in the noble prose in 1 Cor. 13; 15: 
54-7; Col. 1:10-12. One hesitates to think that this use of 
antithesis or parallelism is artificial even if it is conscious. This 
parallelism may be synonymous (Mt. 10 : 26; Jo. 1:17; Ro. 11:33) 
or antithetic (Jo. 3:6; Ro. 2:7)! There are also examples of 
Chiasm or Reverted Parallelism (from the letter X) as in Phile- 
mon 5, 7iv ayarny Kal THY TloTLW HY Exes Els TOV KUpLov "Inoovy Kai eis 
mavras rovs ayious. So Mt. 7:6; Ph.1:15f.; 1 Th. 5:6; Ph. 3: 10. 
I doubt very much if Paul was at all conscious of the stilted paral- 
lelism that Blass? sees in 1 Cor. 1: 25 ff. with anaphora (the first 
words alike) as in od roAXNoi— ov ToAXol, or antistrophe (the last words 
alike) as in Tod 6eo0— rod Ocod0—Ta&v avOpHrwv—Tov avOpwrov, OY sym- 
ploce (both alike) as in é£eXeEaTo 6 Oeds va Katavoxbyy, EEeMEEaTO 6 Beds 
iva katacxtryn. Cf. Heb. 2:16. The manuscripts vary a dealin 1 
Cor. 1: 25ff., and Blass has to juggle the text in order to make 
it come out in “rounded periods of three sections.” What 
if this finesse was praised by dilettante rhetoricians when they 
found it in Demosthenes or Cicero? Surely Paul was not a 
“stylist”? of the fashion of Cicero nor even of Demosthenes. 
Perhaps no orator ‘‘would have regarded the eloquence of this 
passage with other feelings than those of the highest admiration.” 
Doubtless so, but for the passion and force, not for the mere 
word-play. Just so the three poetical quotations (Ac. 17: 28; 
1 Cor. 15 : 33; Tit. 1 : 12) do not justify straining after accidental 
lines in Ac. 23:5; Jas. 1:17; Heb. 12:12 f., or elsewhere. Blass‘ 
is so fond of finding poetic parallelism in the Gospels that he 
actually makes it tilt the scales against the best manuscripts 
in some passages as in Mt. 5:45; 7:138f.; 25:35. This seems 
much like evsegesis. 

(b) Contrasts IN Worps. There is the solemn repetition of 
a word with powerful effect (the epanadiplosts of the rhetoricians), 
but Blass does not claim this as a rhetorical device in the N. T. 
It is natural to strong emotion. Cf. émicrara émordra (Lu. 8 : 24); 
kipie kbpte (Mt. 25:11); cratpwoor crabpwoov (Jo. 19:6); Rev. 18: 2, 
érecev érecev. See Ph. 3:2. Cf. also the two hours of shouting in 
Ac. 19:34. Climax is as old as Homer. This is again a perfectly 
natural method of emphasis. Cf. the links in the list of virtues 
in 2 Pet. 1: 5-7. See also Ro. 5:3-5; 10:14. There is a cumu- 
lative force in the repetition. Per contra, zeugma puts together 


1 W.-Th., p. 639. *'"Gr of Nel. Gk Dp. uu te 
2 Green, Handb. to N. T. Gk., p. 355. $b. ipeo02. 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (roPriEIA =XHMATA) 1201 


words that do not properly go together, as in 1 Cor. 3:2, yada 
buds erotica, ov Bpdua. So also Lu. 1: 64, avewxOn 70 ordua avbrod 
Tapaxphua Kal 7 yA@ooa a’rod. Cf. 1 Tim. 4:3. This construc- 
tion is usually explained as elliptical, one verb (as above) being 
used where two are necessary for the full statement. Kihner- 
Gerth! treat it as a species of brachylogy. The use of synonyms 
_is not absent in the N. T., though not in the richness of the classic 
idiom. Cf. Lu. 8:15, & kapdia Kadf kal ayab7, and the use of aya- 
maw and drew side by side in Jo. 21: 15-17 where Peter makes a 
point of using diuiew. See chapter on Formation of Words.? The 
play on words takes many turns. The onomatopoetic words like 
yoyyv&m (cf. our ‘‘murmur’’) are very simple. Cf. Jo.6:41. Ex- 
amples of initial alliteration occur, like ovnpia, tXeovetia (Ro. 1: 
29); bBprotas, brepndavovs (1:30); aebets, aovverous, aavvbérous, 
aotTopyous, averenuovas (1:30 f.). It is hard to tell whether this is 
conscious or unconscious. There are also instances of paronoma- 
sia and annominatio. Paronomasia is rather loosely applied in 
the books. Winer’ uses it only for words of similar sound, while 
Blass‘ confines it to the recurrence of the same word or word- 
stem, like kaxods Kkax@s (Mt. 21:41); & wavri ravtore tacay (2 Cor. 
9:8); 6 vouos voutuws (1 Tim. 1:8), and uses parechesis for differ- 
ent words of similar sound, like Awol cai Noiuot (Lu. 21:11); euabey 
ad’ av érabev (Heb. 5:8); dOdvov dovov (Ro. 1: 29); aavverous aovv- 
Oérous (1:31). See also 2 Cor.10:12; Ro.11:17. The point isa 
fine one and need not be pressed. But annominatio deals with 
the sense as well as the sound. Thus Ilézpos and zérpa in Mt. 
16:18; yuwwoxes & dvaywwoxes (Ac. 8:30); trepppovetv — dpovety 
— owopoveiv (Ro. 12:3); pundév épyatouevous, adNAa TepLepyafopuevous » 
(Jeli ere aiso, Mt127- 9: Lus9): 60; Ace23% 37-2 Cor. 
Oe Seon elseon eb h.3; 21.572) Cor, 4)>8 f.09 Ro: 1220775: 
19; 12:15; Eph. 4:1. Even so there is a certain amount of 
overlapping in the two figures. The ancients did not smile because 
a pun was made. It was merely a neat turn of speech and was 
very common. So Jesus says to Thomas, yp} yivouv amicros adda 
motos (Jo. 20: 27). 

(c) CONTRACTION AND Expansion. It is difficult to draw lines 
between groups among these figures of speech. Zeugma, as we 
have seen, can very well come in here as a sort of ellipsis. The 
ellipsis of subject or predicate came up for discussion under 


ASL eps 10, 
2 Cf. Trench, N. T. Synonyms; Heine, Synonymik d. neut. Griech. 
8 W.-Th., p. 636. Solara ol Neila Gk, p.205. 


1202 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The Sentence. But a few more words are needed here. Cf. 
mustos 6 beds (2 Cor. 1:18); 6 xbpios eyyts (Ph. 4:5) as samples 
of the absence of the copula. So Jo. 14:11; Ac. 19: 28, 34; 2 
Cor. 11:6. It is not always clear what verb is to be supplied, 
though eiué and yivoua are the most common. Cf. dwry radw é& 
devrépou pos avrov, Ac. 10:15; otk & Aoyw 4 Bactrela Tod Beod, adr’ 
éy Suvvéwer, 1 Cor. 4:20. Cf. Jo. 21: 21; 1 Cor. 5:12. Usually the 
context makes clear what verb is wanting, as in Mt. 27: 25; 
Aci 18267 Ro. 4:2.9505 21S 2aCor Gee Galea Uae eee 
In 2 Cor. 8:15 the participle éywy must be supplied with 6 ac- 
cording to a common Greek idiom. Cf. also Ro. 13:7, 7@ rov 
dopov, where Winer! supplies dzod.ddvat xedevovtr. Cf. also 1 Cor. 
4:6. It is easy to supply 6 @eds in passages like Heb. 1:7 Xe- 
yet, 4:3 epynxe. The context supplies the noun in a case like 
Ac. 21:31, fnrobvtwy re abrov amoxretvar. Cf. Jo. 20:2, jpav rov 
xvpiov (‘people took away’). In Ac. 21:16, cuvpdOov Kal ray paby- 
tov, supply ries as in Lu. 11:49, twas. Many verbs are con- 
sidered clear enough without the object. So dvayw (sc. Biov) in 
Tit. 3:3; mpocexw (sc. vodv) in Lu. 17:3, éréxw in 14:7, exw (se. 
xodov) in Mk. 6:19; cuuBadrdrw (se. Aoyous) as in Ac. 4:15 (ef. Lu. 
24:17, dvriBadrere with object); cvAdNauBarw in Lu. 1:31. It is 
unnecessary (see Adjectives) to recount again the many instances 
of the adjective without a substantive where the gender and 
number and context make it clear. A few common examples suf- 
fice. For the absence of juépa note 7H Tpitn (Lu. 13 : 32); 7 aijprov 
(Mt. 6:34); ris onuepov (Mt. 27:8); 7H Exouern (Lu. 13 : 33); 7H 
ércovon (Ac. 16:11); 4 é€fs (21:1); rH érépa (Ac. 20:15). TH is 
easily supplied in Mt. 23 : 15, # &npa, and in Heb. 11: 26, & Alytr- 
tov. Supply yAéooa in Rev. 9:11, & 7H ‘EXAnvucH. So with 6d0s 
in Lu. 5:19, woias; 19:4, exeivns. We miss tuarioy in Jo. 20 : 12, 
év Nevkots, and towp in Mt. 10 : 42, Yoxpov. So with yelp in Mt. 6: 
3, 7 de&a, ) aprorepa and ywpa in Lu. 17: 24, ex ris — eis rnv. Much 
more serious is the ellipsis in Mt. 26:5, and Gal. 5:13, where 
the context must supply both verb and subject. Cf. also oix ért 
— add’ in Jo. 7:22. In a case like 2 Th.2:3f., 57 é4v— dr, 
there is no apodosis expressed. These are but samples of the 
ellipses common to Greek (cf. e 6€ uw) as to all languages more or 
less. It is not worth while to try to bring under this rhetorical . 
figure all the lapses and turns of style in each writer. Cf. the 
absence of the verb with iva in 1 Cor. 1:31, with 76 yA in 4:6, 
with & 6€ in Ph. 3:13, with rotro 6 in 2 Cor. 9:6, with iva 
1 W.-Th., p. 590. 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (TOPIIEIA =XHMATA) 1203 


again in Gale29. (Cf. also Mk. 14:29; 1) Cor. 10 : 24; 2 Cor. 
Healy 

Aposiopesis stands to itself since it is a conscious suppression of 
part of a sentence under the influence of a strong emotion like 
anger, fear, pity. Curiously enough Blass,! who sees so many 
rhetorical tropes in the N. T., denies that any instances of aposio- 
pesis occur in the N. T. I do not consider his objections well 
founded. We may dismiss Mk. 7:11 and Lu. 22 : 42 because of 
the true text (see W. H.), and need not quibble over épa uy in Rev. 
22:9. We may agree with Winer? that we have simply anaco- 
lutha in 2 Th. 2:3ff. But we have left others like Mk. 11:32, 
GAAG elirwpev’ EF aVOpwTwWY; — ehoBodyTo Tov dxdov. See also Lu. 
13:9, Kav wey roinon Kaprov eis TO we\NOV—el OE uNYE, ExKOWErs aUTHY. 
So again 19 :42, e& éyvws kai ob. So Jo. 6:62, éav ody Oewphre Tov 
viov Tov avOpwrou avaBaivoyta Grou Av TO Tpdtepov; Then again Ac. 
23:9, ef d€ mvedua EXadAnoe alta 7 ayyedos —. It is possible to 
regard Ro. 7:24 as aposiopesis. What differentiates these pas- 
sages from ellipses or abbreviations of other clauses (cf. Mt. 25: 
14; Mk. 13 : 34; 2 Cor. 3:13) is the passion. One can almost see 
the gesture and the flash of the eye in aposiopesis. 

We need not follow minutely the various sorts of breviloquence 
or brachylogy that are possible. Thought moves more rapidly 
than expression and the words often crowd together in a com- 
pressed way that may be not only terse, but at first obscure. A 
good illustration occurs in Mt. 9:6, tva dé eléfre dre EEouciav exer 6 
vids ToD avOpwmou eri THs ys advevac auaptias — ToTE heyer TH Tapa- 
uTiKGa "Evyerpe apov cov tiv kNivnv, krA. Here the Evangelist has 


‘inserted tore Neyer 7H tap. before the conclusion to make it clearer. 


The same thing is done in the parallel passages in Mk. 2 : 10; Lu. 
5:24 (an incidental argument for a common document for this 
paragraph). Cf. also Mk. 14:49, adr’ va rAnpabdow ai ypadai. 
So Jo. 18:18; 15:25. Cf. Ac. 1:1, where jpéaro implies xal dte- 
Tener before movety Te Kal diddoKe Axpt hs Huépas, KTA. See a similar 
use of dpédyevos in Mt. 20:8, Lu. 23:5. A case like Lu. 24: 47, 
apéauevor, amounts to anacoluthon or the use of the participle as 
a principal verb. Cf. also kaapitwy in Mk. 7:19. Various ex- 
amples of ellipsis-like zeugma are also instances of brachylogy. 
No clear line of distinction appears. So in comparisons we 


‘sometimes have to fill out the sense. Cf. Rev. 13 : 11, efye xépara 


dvo Guora apviw, 1.e. Kepacw dpviov. Cf. 1 Jo. 3:11f.; 2 Pet. 2:1. 
Other instances of brachylogy may be seen in Lu. 4: 26f.; Jo. 
2 Gr. obs NeLaGks p. 294. 2 W.-Th., p. 600. 


1204. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


5:36; 15:11; Ac. 27:22; Gal. 2:16. The so-called construc- 
tio praegnans belongs here also. Cf. 2 Tim. 4:18, cwoe els tiv 
Baovrelav, though eis of itself does not mean ‘into.’ But note dia- 
owowar pos Adia (Ac. 23 : 24) where the notion is that of taking 
to Felix and so saving Paul. Cf. also éa@nro mapa thy dddv (Mk. 
10:46). See also Lu. 11:13 6 rarjp 6 é& obpavod, (Col. 4: 16) 
riv & Aaoducias. Blass! distinguishes brachylogy from ellipsis in 
that brachylogy affects the thought rather than the grammatical 
form, but both ideas are usually present. Cf. Ro. 11:18. It would 
be wearisome to endeavour to put a name or tag upon every struc- 
ture that seems defective from the standpoint of formal gram- 
mar or rhetoric. ‘It will be seen that many of them are due to 
that agility and acuteness of the Greek intellect which enables 
the Hellene or Hellenist readily to sacrifice the grammar of a 
sentence to its logic, or in other words its form to its meaning. 
Hence arose the many forms of the sense-figure (cxfua mpds 70 
onuavouevov, constructio ad sensum).”? We have seen illustra- 
tions of this construction xara obveow under Concord (The Sen- 
tence) and only a few further are called for here. Indeed, this 
section is largely an illustration of this principle. In Jo. 15:6 
atta refers to ro kAqya; in Ac. 17:16 a’rod points to Christ, who 
has not been mentioned; in 7: 24, rov Alytrrv, though no Egyp- 
tian had been mentioned; in 1 Cor. 7: 36, yayeitwoav, the subject 
being drawn from the context (the two young people). Winer? 
was glad to note a decline in emphasis on these overrefinements 
in his day. These supposed abnormalities were called hypallage. 
From the present standpoint Winer himself yielded entirely too 
much to the very thing that he condemned. What is the use in 
figuring out the various ways that Paul could have expressed 
himself in 2 Cor. 3:7, for instance? The papyri have taught us 
to be chary about charging John with being ungrammatical in 
m\npns xapitos (Jo. 1:14). These matters simply show that the 
N.T. writers used a live language and were not automata.‘ It 
is doubtless true that no other writer used repetition of word and 
phrase as did the author of the Fourth Gospel, but no one will 
deny that he did it with consummate skill and marvellous vivid- 
ness and dramatic power. 


1 Gr. of Nw Gks pa204: 
2 Warrar, Gikoapyntsr coo: 3 W.-Th., p. 634. 


* Cf. Emil Heinrich, Die sogenannte polare Ausdrucksweise im Griech., 
1899, p. 26. 


5 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 401-465. 





FIGURES OF SPEECH (rOPIrIEIA =XHMATA) 1205 


There are many instances of pleonasm in the N.T. as in all 
vernacular speech. It is of many sorts. The same word may be 
repeated for clearness as in buds — buds (Col. 2:13); crobvdacov — 
taxews (2 Tim. 4:9). This redundancy is usually due to the cus- 
tom of the language with no thought of the repetition,! as in js 
—airtns (Mk. 7:25); mepiocotepws waddov (2 Cor. 7:13); ob — un 
(Ac. 20: 20, 27); éxrds ef un (1 Cor. 15:2); daexpidn Neywv (Mk. 
15:9); dvacrnOc Kat ropebov (Ac. 8: 26); 7 olxodecrory THs oikias 
like our ‘‘church-house” (Lu. 22:11); érecra pera rotro (Jo. 11:7); 
_ Tpodpaywy gumpoobey (Lu. 19:4); ebayer tw Rec. (24:50); dpxw 
d&puocev (Ac. 2:30); dpvobmevos dre otk eorw (1 Jo. 2: 22); wadw é& 
devrépov (Ac. 10:15), ete. Cf. also the cognate accusative. Re- 
dundances like these examples are not linguistic vices. They seem 
pleonastic to the technical student who is unwilling to allow for 
the growth of the language. Emphatic words have the constant 
tendency to become less so and to need re-enforcement. This 
love of emphasis in the N. T. is natural to conversation and to a 
certain extent has the Oriental richness and wealth of colour.? 
We see the same thing in the O. T. and in the papyri letters. 
It is a sign of life and in particular life in the East. These vivid 
details give life and beauty to the picture. Cf. exreivas tiv xetpa 
(Mt. 26:51); épxerat “Incots cal AauBaver (Jo. 21:13); ypawarres 
dua xerpos ai’tav (Ac. 15:23); ayoroynoe kal ovk jnpyncato (Jo. 1:20). 
Epexegetical clauses are common. Cf. ryv doyixyy AaTpelay budv 
(Ro. 12:1), in apposition with the infinitive clause, rapacrfjcat, 
xt. So 1 Cor. 7:26, drt kaddv dvOperw, aS an expansion of rodro 
kadov brapxev. In Jo. 7:35 dre is probably causal. 

We meet hyperbole in Jo. 21:25, ot6’ abrov otwat tov Kdcpov 
xwpnoev Ta ypadouera BiBdia. Cf. also Mt. 13:32. ILntotes is 
common enough, as in Ac. 1:5, ob pera roddds tabras juépas; 14: 
28, xpovov oix ddjiyov. See also 15:2; 19:11, 23 f.; 21:39; 27: 
14, 20; 28:2. Meiosis is, of course, only a species of hyperbole by 
understatement. Cf. Paul’s use*® of it in 1 Th. 2:15; 2 Th. 
3:2, 7. We may put together two remarks of Milligan. “St. 
Paul had evidently not the pen of a ready writer, and when he 
had once found an expression suited to his purpose found it 
very difficult to vary it.” “St. Paul had evidently that highest 
gift of a great writer, the instinctive feeling for the right word, 
and even when writing, as he does here, in his most ‘normal 

1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295. 


2 Cf. A. J. Wilson, Emphasis in the N.T., Jour. of Theol. Stu., VIII, pp. 75 ff. 
8 Milligan, Comm. on Thess. Epistles, p. Ivil. 491Ds8D. 1V2 1. 


1206 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


style, and with an almost complete absence of the rhetorical 
figures, so largely practised in his day, he does not hesitate to 
avail himself of the more popular methods of adding point or 
emphasis to what he wants to say.’”’ There is no necessary in- 
consistency in these two statements. Add another from Milligan} 
which will help to reconcile them. ‘‘We readily recognise that 
the arresting charm of the Apostle’s style is principally due to 
‘the man behind,’ and that the highest form of all eloquence, ‘the 
‘rhetoric of the heart,’ is speaking to us.” So it is with all the 
N. T. writers more or less. They are men of genius, of varying de- 
grees of culture, and men of love for Christ and man. Language 
with these men is not an end in itself. They do not say “pretty” 
things and toy with them. As the words of Jesus are spirit and 
life, for they throb and pulse to-day (Jo. 6 : 63), so the Letters of 
Paul are Bapetar kal icxvpai, as even his enemies admit (2 Cor. 10: 
10). The Judaizers at Corinth did not discuss the rhetorical 
niceties of these Letters. They felt the power of the ideas in 
them even when they resisted Paul’s authority. Paul used tropes,’ 
but he smote hearts with them and did not merely tickle the fancy 
of the lovers of sophistry.2 Paul denied that he spoke év zifots 
godias Novos, though his words seem to the lover of Christ to be 
full of the highest appeal to the soul of man. One must discount 
this disclaimer not merely by Paul’s natural modesty, but by 
contrast with the Corinthian’s conception of @os. They loved 
the rhetorical flights of the artificial orators of the time. 

(d) METAPHORS AND StmiLar Tropes. We need not tarry over 
antiphrasis, ambiguity, hendiadys, hypokorisma, oxymoron, peri- 
phrasis, polyptoton, syllepsis, and the hundred and one distinc- 
tions in verbal anatomy. Most of it is the rattle of dry bones 
and the joy of dissection is gone. We may pause over Metaphor 
(ueradopa), since little progress could be made in speech without 
the picture of the literal and physical carried over to the moral 
and spiritual as in 6 wo.uny 6 kados (Jo. 10:11). Cf. the greatest 
metaphor in the N. T., Paul’s use of céua for the church (Eph. 
1:22f.). The Simile is just a bit more formal, as is seen in the 
use of duous in Mt. 13:52, ras ypaumareds Guords éorw avOpwrw 
oixodeonoTn. Parables are but special forms of the metaphor or 
simile and form the most characteristic feature of the teaching of 
Jesus in so far as form is concerned. The parable (apaBod7) 

1 Comm. on Thess. Epistles, p. lvif. 


2 Cf. Heinrici, Zum Hellen. des Paulus, Komm. zu 2 Kor. 
Bh) Corn 2 aA, 


FIGURES OF SPEECH (TOPIIEIA =XHMATA) 1207 


draws a comparison between the natural and the moral or implies 
it. It may be a crisp proverb (Lu. 4: 23) or a narrative illustra- 
tion of much length, as in the Sower (Mt. 18). The Allegory 
(a4\Anyopia) is a parable of a special sort that calls for no explana- 
tion, a speaking parable (cf. the Good Shepherd in Jo. 10 and the 
Prodigal Son in Lu. 15). Metonymy (uerwvupia) and Synecdoche 
(cuvexdoxyn) are so much matters of exegesis that they must be 
passed by without further comment. 

It is certain that no words known to man are comparable in 
value with those contained in the N. T. Despite all the variety 
of diction on the part of the reporters, probably partly because 
of this very fact, the words of Jesus still fascinate the mind and 
win men to God as of old. Kat éyevero dre éréNecev 6 “Inaods Tods 
oyous TovTous, EEEmANTTOVTO Of OxXAOL El TH dibaxH a’Tovd’ HY yap 6b- 
dackwy adtovs ws é~ovciay éxwv Kal olx ws of ypaymatets abrav (Mt. 
7:28 f.). It is the constant peril of scribes and grammarians! to 
strain out the gnat and to swallow the camel. I may have fallen 
a victim, like the rest, but at least I may be permitted to say at 
the end of the long road which I have travelled for so many 
years, that I joyfully recognise that grammar is nothing unless it 
reveals the thought and emotion hidden in language. It is just 
because Jesus is greater than Socrates and Plato and all the Greek 
thinkers and poets that we care so much what Luke and Paul 
and John have to tell about him. Plato and Xenophon hold us 
because of their own message as well as because they are the 
interpreters of Socrates. It matters not if Jesus spoke chiefly 
in the Aramaic. The spirit and heart of his message are enshrined 
in the Greek of the N. T. and interpreted for us in living speech 
by men of the people whose very diction is now speaking to us 
again from the rubbish-heaps of Egypt. The papyri and the 
ostraca tell the story of struggle on the part of the very class of 
people who first responded to the appeal of Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 1: 
26 ff.). Christianity is not buried in a book. It existed before 
the N. T. was written. It made the N. T. It is just because 
Christianity is of the great democracy that it is able to make uni- 
versal appeal to all ages and all lands and all classes. The chief 
treasure of the Greek tongue is the N. T. No toil is too great if 
by means of it men are enabled to understand more exactly the 


1 Gildersl. is scornful of those who fear ‘‘that anthropology is going to invade 
the sacrosanct realm of syntax, which belongs, strictly speaking, to the microt- 
omists and statisticians — otherwise known as Dead Sea Apes.’ Am. Jour. 
of Philol., 1907, p. 235. 


1208 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mind of Christ. If one is disposed to think less of the N. T. 
because it stands in the vernacular xowy7, let him remember that 
the speech of these Christians was rich beyond measure, since out 
of it came the words of Jesus. These were carried in the common 
tradition of the period and written down from time to time (Lu. 
1:1-4). Paul was not a rhetorician, though a man of culture, but 
he cared much for the talk of the Christians that it should be 
worthy. ‘O ddyos buay mavrote éy xapiTe GAaTL HpTUpevos, Eldevar TAs 
det dwas evi exdoTw amoxpivecbar (Col. 4:6). That was good advice 
for the Colossians and for all speakers and writers, grammarians 
included, and makes a fitting bon mot to leave with the rhetori- 
cians who might care to quibble further over niceties of language. 
Tatra pedeTra, év TovTots tobe. 





ADDITIONAL NOTES 


1. Ka@apitw or kaSepifw (p. 183). Mr. H. Scott furnishes me 
the following table for the variations between a and e in the aug- 
mented tenses of kabapifw: 


éxabep éxabap 
Ne ee ee te US Le pee et OFS 
ORS ore ctee cic hire ly NLU OV Ree 
GaN 1 Ses Fite lt ad es ~y hed Meare ie in cy ah ee UE 
OP See Sina eka ee on aE Lh a eee eo 
UBS Ry) sy Ge ee ae OF CO ferme.) f) 


whe Bie) Bog eee aA ene on: Cia (ivAs 
For LXX see Helbing and Thackeray. 
2. Prothetic Vowels in the N. T. (p. 206). The following is a 


table of (probable) prothetic vowels in N. T. (supplied by Mr. 
He sScott): 

















BEFORE a € o t 
p é-pv0 pds 6-ploow 
€-pevyouat 

Xr a-eipa é-Aaxvs, é-ev Epos 
v a-vep.os , d-verdifw, d-vopa, O-vve 
be a-porBn, a-wbyw é-é, é-ds o-uixAN 
x9 €-x0és i-xObs 
OT a-oTnp [a-orpor] 

&-OTPATTW 
dp 6-ppvs 
K 4-Kovw é-Kel, €-KELVOS (ém-) 6-KeANW 
0 €-JedXw 
6 6-dbvn 

6-dupuds [6-dipouar] 

F a-cldw =adw 

a-016 =@67 
T 0-Tpbvw 





1209 


1210 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


3. Elision (p. 208). Mr. H. Scott adds oté’ éavy (Lu. 16:31, 
W. H. text), ot6’ 4 (Tisch., ot6€ 7 W. H.), ot6’ abrév (Jo. 21:25). 
We have both xaé’ and xara eis, but xara éxatrov (Mk. 6:40). There 
is much variation with prepositions before nouns. 


4. Ilappyoia (p. 212). Mr. H. Scott notes that out of 40 oc- 
eurrences in the N. T. 24 read zapp— without variant. In the 
remaining 16 N reads zapp— 13/16, B 10/16, A 14/14, C 9/10, 
D 7/14, L 8/9, Syr. 16/16. In Gospels B always has zap-— ex- 
cept in Jo. 11:14, N only in Jo. 11:14. 


5. Assimilation of é€v péow (p. 216). Mr. H. Scott notes that 
the phrase é yéow occurs 27 times in the N. T., of which 2 (Jo. 
8:3, 9) are in a spurious passage. Hort (Notes on Orth., p. 150) 
observes that NBD never have éupéeow. But A of Gospels and E 
of Acts always have éupeéow, while C has it 9/12 times. 


6. Rules for Assimilation of Consonants (p. 216). The fami- 
liar rules are given in all the school grammars (cf. Hadley and ° 
Allen, Goodwin, etc.), and need not be given here in detail. Note 
only these: | 


Before a 7 mute a 7 or x mute is co-ordinated. 
Before » a 7 mute changes to py, 

‘* “a « mute changes to yj, 
a 7 mute changes to o (analogy). 
Before o a 7 mute makes y, 

‘<a x mute makes &, 
a 7 mute drops out. 
Before a labial vy changes to uy. 

‘‘ a palatal » changes to y (nasal). 
dX or p, v is assimilated. 
c, vis dropped, and the preceding vowel is lengthened. 
Between two consonants o is dropped. 


ce (T9 
ce ce 


ce 


ce 


The insertion of o in some tenses is treated in the chapter on 
Conjugation of the Verb. 


2 

7. Metathesis (p. 221). We find ¢awddiov in P. Oxy. III, 531, 
14 (ii/A.D.), but also dar[Ao]viwy, B. U. iii, 816, 24 (iii/a.p.). So 
the modern Greek ¢eddv. Patvn (Lu. 2:7, etc.) is the Homeric 
and Attic form. Moeris (212, 9) says that 744vn is the Hellenistic 
form. Modern Greek has 746vn. Some LXX MSS. have it so. 
Cf. Thackeray, p. 106; Blass-Debrunner, p. 20. 





ADDITIONAL NOTES 


8. Enclitics and Proclitics (p. 233 f.). 


Mr. H. Scott: 


1211 


Rules for accent by 


ENCLITICS 


Indefinite, zis in all its forms. 
Pers. pron., pod, pol, ue; 
gov, aol, cé. 
Pres. indic., eiwi (except 2d sing. ef); 
dnul, pnoly, paciv. 
Particles, yé, sé and the inseparable 
—be. 
Indef. adverbs, zoré, rob, rép, 7H, Tas. 
Inelitics incline their accent when 
the preceding word is 
(a) proparoxytone, 
(b) properispomenon, 
(c) a proclitic. 
Enclitics lose their accent when the 
preceding word is 
(a) oxytone, 


(b) perispomenon, 
(c) paroxytone. 
Enclities retain their accent: 

(a) if they begin or end a sentence; 

(b) if dissyllables, after a paroxy- 
tone; 

(c) if dissyllables, after perispo- 
mena; 

(d) after an elided vowel; 

(e) if dissyllables, after a proclitic. 


If two or more enclitics occur to- 
gether, each one receives the accent 
of the preceding, the last being 
unaccented. Editors differ in 
practice as to this rule. 


PROCLITICS 


Art., 6, 4, ot, af. 
Prep., eis, tx, é&, &. 
Con]j., «i, ws. 


Negative, ov (otk, odx). 


9. Bovotpodyiov (p. 243). 


Proclitics receive the acute accent: 
(a) when they are at the end of a 
sentence; 
(b) when followed by an enclitic. 


The Greeks first wrote from right 


to left and then alternately. This alternate method (right to 
left, left to right) was called Bovorpodyddv, ‘as oxen turn at the 
plow.’ Cf. Geddes, A Compendious Greek Grammar, 1888, p. xiv. 
The Greeks had a fine system of abbreviations in frequent use. 
For full particulars see Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin 
Paleography, pp. 86-96. 


10. Perfect of dpdw (p. 364). Mr. H. Scott counts the perf. 
active (indic., inf., part.) 34 times in the N. T. (Luke, Gospel 3, 
Acts 2; John, Gospel 20, Epistles 6; Paul 3). Luke has —w— 
established 5 times, John’s Gospel 20. NACD so always, B 
20/24. In1Ep. John B has 6/6. -o-, Paul 3 -w— (N 3/8, B 2/3, 
C 2/2, D 1/8; -o— A 3/8). 


11. Augment in the Past Perfect (p. 366). Mr. H. Scott notes 
that of the 15 out of 22 verbs with past perfects in the N. T. 
the active verbs are equally divided as to augment. Of the 7 


1212 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


passive verbs only #ewedidw is unaugmented. Baddw is augmented 
in the passive, but not in the active. Tivoua and tornw have 
both the augmented and the unaugmented forms in the active. 


12. List of Important Verbs. (Purely normal verbs are not 
listed here. Only the tenses are given that occur in the N. T.) 
Mr. H. Scott has rendered valuable aid in preparing it. 


*Ayaddtdo. Pres. act. in 1 Pet. 1:8 and Rev. 19:7; aor. act. jyadXlaca 
(Lu. 1: 47), but the active does not occur in LXX. The middle isin LXX 
(Ps. 15:9) and the N. T. (Jo. 8 : 56, ete.). The aor. passive appears in 
Jo. 5:35 (ayadXabjvar, BL —cbfvac). 

*Ayyé&d\w (comp. dv—, am, di-, e&-, éw—, mpo-er—, KatT—-, mpo-kat—). Simplex 
only in Jo. 20:18 ayyé\Aovea, and Jo. 4:51 in 8D. -ayyedd, —jyyerda, 
—nyyeuar, —nyyéAnv. The classic aor. pass. yyyéAOnv does not occur in 
TE XXOr aN eee 

*’Ayvupe (only xar-ayvuw as in Attic and LXX). Three forms in N. T.: a fut. 
act. xar-eatee (Mt. 12:20; LXX has xardéw), an aor. act. xar-eatay (Jo. 
19:32 f.), an aor. pass. xareayGow (Jo. 19:31. Cf. xareayfvac in Plato, ete.). ° 
The copyists kept the augment where it did not belong, so that even a 
pres. act. xareadoow is found. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 253. 

“Ayw (comp. av—, éx-ay-, am—-, ovv-a—, bi-, eio—, Tap-cio—, e&-, em, KaT—, peT-, 
Tap—, Tepi—, mpo—, Tpoo—, ouv—, émt-cuv—, br—). The principal parts are reg- 
ular save the aorist active (usually the reduplicated second aorist form 
jHyayov, but sometimes the rare sigmatic aorist #£a as in Hesiod). 

Aipéw (comp. av-, ad-, bi-, é£-, xal—, repi-, mpo—). Simplex only middle. —ed@ 
(as LXX), aipnoouar, —arpeOjoowa; —ethov and —etda (middle also); —ypobunv, 
—nenuat, —npebny. 

Aipw (a1-, ¢&, éx—-, per—, ovv—, bep—). Principal parts regular. Only note 
imperative aor. act. apov and inf. aor. act. dpa, while ind. aor. act. is Apa 
and fut. act. apa. 

Aic@dvopar. Only once in N. T. (Lu. 9:45), aor. mid. aicOwvra. 

“Axotw (5i-, eio—, r—, tap—, rpo-, b7—-). *Akobow, Hxovoa, axhxoa (“Attic perf.’’), 
axovoouat, adxkovabncouat, jKovabny. 

*"AdAdoow (am—-, di-, Kat—, dmo-Kat—, wer—, ovv—-). *AAGEW, HAAaEa, AAAaEdUNY 
(Ro. 1:23, LXX); pass. —jAAayuar, —yANAynv, AAAayhoouat (1 Cor. 15:51). 

“Addopar (€&-, e¢—-). Aor. —dunv and —dunv. Confined to Acts save Jo. 4:14. 

‘Apaptdvew (rpo-). ‘Apuaprhow, iuaprov and judprnoa, judpryka. 

"Apdiatw. So W. H. in Lu. 12:28 instead of dudiéfw. 

"Audrévvupe, judlerpuat. 

*"Avaddddw (only comp.). *AveOddere (Ph. 4:10). 

"Avadlckw (only comp., also xar-av-). Other tense-stems from évadéw}; dva- 
Awow; aor. act. inf. dvahdoar; aor. pass. dvahwhjre (N. T. forms do not show 
augment). In 2 Th. 2:8 W. H. in margin give dévadot as present (so Attic 
and LXX). 

"Avolyw (di-, e€&, Ac. 12:16 D). The simplex otyw, otyryvue does not occur in 
LXX or N. T.- Imperf. dchvovye (Lu. 24:32); fut. avoltw; aor. act. Hror£e, 
avéwte, nvewte. The aor. ind. (22 times) is confined (H. Scott) to John (6), 
Acts (5), Rev. (10), except dujvortev (Lu. 24:45). The predominant form is 





ADDITIONAL NOTES ees 


#vof (16 times without v. r.) and read by W. H., except dvéwtey (Jo. 
9:14), and jqvéewtey (Jo. 9:17, 32). Pass. fut. avorxOqoerar (Lu. 11:9 f. A); 
avorynoerar (W. H., Mt. 7:7, 8=Lu. 11:9, 10). Aor. indic. occurs 9 times: 
nvolxOn— (Rev. 20:12 (bis), d-, Lu. 24:31); avewyOn— (Lu. 1:64); jvedx6n- 
(Mt. 3:16; 9:30; 27:52; Jo. 9:10; Ac. 16:26). 2d aor. indic. jvoiyn— (4 
times, Mk. 7: 35; Ac. 12:10; Rev. 11:19; 15:5); subj. Mt. 20:33. Perf. 
part. (only) 11 times: éd:-nvorypevos (Ac. 7:56); davewymévos (Ac. 9:8; 10: 
11; 16:27; Ro. 3:18; 2 Cor. 2:12); twewyyevos (Rev. 3:8; 4:1; 10:2, 8; 
19:11). 

*Avrdw (am-, kat—, cuv-, br—). The simplex does not occur. The parts. are 
regular. Fut. infin. xat-avytrncev (Ac. 26:7, W. H. marg.); fut. part. ovr- 
avrncovra (Ac. 20:22). 

*Arro-xrelvw. The simplex does not occur. Pres. varies between —xveivy, 
—xtevyw (2 Cor. 3:6 W. H. alt., Mt. 10:28 W. H. alt., Lu. 12:4 W. H. 
alt.) and —xréevyum (Mk. 12:5); fut. ao-xrevd; aor. aa-éxreva; pass. inf. 
ao-krévvecOar (Rev. 6:11); Ist aor. aa-exravOnr. 

“Amro (av-, kab—-, wepi-). “Ha, nlapnr, ipOnr. 

*Apvéopat (a7—-), apynoowa, —aprynOnoopuat, —nprnoaynv, jpvnuar. 

“Aptdtw (d:-, cvv—). ‘Aprdow, iptaca; pass. 2d aor. jpraynv; Ist aor. jpracOnr; 
2d fut. aprayjoopua. 

Batvw (only in comp., dva-, mpoo-ava—, avv-ava—, amo-, dia—-, éx-, eu-, én, 
KaTa—, MéeTa—, Tapa—, Tpo—, avu—, ovy-KaTa-—, brep—). —BHocopar, —EBnv, —BEBnKa. 
Short forms of the imperative avaBa, avaBare. 

Baédr\w (audi-, ava—, avti-, amo-, dia-, ex—-, Eu-, Ewt—, KaTa—-, peTa—, Tmapa—, Tap- 
€u—, Tept—, mpo-, ovy—, brep—, bro—). Imperf. €Badrov (€& éx— ovr—); fut. 
Bar (éx—-, émi—, map-eu—-, mepi—). Ist aorist (“‘Alexandrian’’) éBadav (Ac. 
16:37); é&— (Mt. 7:22 W. H. alt.; 21:39 W. H. alt.); ér— (Ac. 21:27; Mk. 
14:46); 2d aorist, €Barov (€&-, éx—, wap—, wepi—, ovy—, b7—); perf. BeBAnkws; 
pluperf. é-BeBdAnxe.. Mid. fut. wepi-Baretrar (Rev. 3:5); 2d aor. av—, mepi-, 
ovv-eBaddounv; pass. fut. BArAnOjooua, éx—-; Ist aor. d-, €&-, EBdHOnv; perf. 
BeBAnuar, wepi—; pluperf. eBeBAnTOo. 

Bapéw (émi-, xara—). ’EBapnoa, BeBapnuat, eBaphOnv (2\Cor-cb: 8) Luk 2h:34); 
Only passive save in compounds. 

Baptvw. The older verb is ousted in N. T. by Bapéw except in Mk. 14:40, 
kata-Bapuvopevor. It is read in Lu. 21:34 Rec. BapvvOdcr. 

Braordvo. This is the old form of the pres. The pres. in N. T. is BXacraw 
(Mk. 4:27). The aor. éB\aornoa may be from Bdaoréw or Bracréw, a form 
of the pres. occurring in LXX. 

Brérrw (ava-—, dro-, dia—, éu—, éwi—, wepi—, Tpo—). "EBXerov, BrAeYw, EBe~a; mepi- 
eBX\ereTO; wept-7po-BreVapevos. 

Tapéw. "Evyapuour, Attic éynua, late éyaunoa, yeyaunxa, éyaunOnv. Tauifw is a 
late form and only pres. active and pass. and imperf. pass. éyaulfovro ap- 
pear in N.T. Tapioxw likewise in pres. pass. stem appears in Lu. 20:34 
(W. H.) and éx-yauioxw in some MSS. in Lu. 20:34 Rec. 

Tlvopat (azo-, dia—, éxi-, mapa-, ovp-rapa-, mpo-). Never yiyvoua like Attic. 
"Eywéynv; yerhooua; part. yernodopevos (1 Cor. 15:37), éyevouny and éyerfOnv. 
Opt. yévorro; part. yevouevos. The frequent use of the part. in comp., 
dro-, dia—, émi—, wapa—, ovv-rapa-, is noteworthy. Tevapevos is a frequent 
variant. J. H. Moulton counts 69 instances of the part. (simple and 
comp.) in Luke’s writings, and 48 in remainder of N. T. It does not 


1214. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


occur at all in the Johannine writings. “Strong perfect,” yeyova, yeyern- 
pau. A in 1 Mace. 14:30 has éyeny, probably an error (cf. yéyova). 
Pluperf. yeyéver (Ac. 4:22), and eyeyove (Jo. 6:17). Tev— is a rather fre- 
quent spelling, e.g. Ac. 21:14 8B*AD; 23:10 B*; Lu. 22:26 8BD; 42 
“BAA:-1 Cor. 10:20 B*D*) etc: 

TwoaoKkw (ava—, dua—, éri—, Kata-, mpo-). Vvacoua, eyvwv, éyvwxa, eyvaxev, yvw- 
gua, éyvaoOnv, yrwoOnooua. Subj. aor. both yv (Jo. 7:51) and yvot (Mk. 
5:43; 9:30; Lu. 19:15); imper. yr@0; inf. yrdvar; part. yvobs. 

Tpada (amo—, éy—, émt-, KaTa-, mpo—). "Eypagov, ypayw, éypaya, yeypada; pass. 
vyéypappor, —eyeypauuny, éwi—-, eypadnv, wpo-. Mid. 1st aor. amo-ypayacbar 
(Lure). . 

Aclkvupe and Sexvio (ava—, dao-, &—, ért-, bro-). AclEw, WerEa; pass. édelxOnv 
(Heb. 8:5); perf. amo-dedevrypevos; mid. Ist aor. é&-edeEaunv. The pres. has 
forms from —yvur and —riw. 

Agpw. "Edepa, dapyoopat. 

Aéxouat (ava-, dmo-, dia, eio—, Ex-, am-ex—-, ey-, Emt-, Tapa-, Tpoo-, bro-). 
’"EdcEaunv; pass. dédeyuar, —edéxOqv. 

A€éw (rpoo—). ’Ededunv, edenOnv. In Lu. 8:38 W. H. read éde?70 rather than 
édéero (W. H. alt.) or édeetro. Impersonal de? and éé6e. 

Aéw (xata—, mepi—, avv—, bro-). Anow, ednoa, Séexa} PASS. dédeuat, wepi-cdedeuny, 
é5€Onv; mid. édnoaunv. 

AlSwpu (ava—, dvr-arro—, amo—-, dia—, éx—, émt-, pera-, Tapa—, mpo—). Pres. mwapa- 
didws (2d sing.), 3d pl. é:d5acw (Rev. 17:13); sub]. wapa-6.66 (1 Cor. 15:24, 
—d.60t BEG); imperf. édidocav (Jo. 19:3), wap— (Ac. 16:4); fut. dec; part. 
amo— (Heb. 13:17), rapa— (Jo. 6:64) d&c0wv; —Ka aor. t6wxa, 3d pl. edwxar; 
2d aor. 3d pl. wap-é50cav (Lu. 1:2); imper. 66s; subj. 63, 64s (Mk. 6:25), 
566 (Jo, 15:16); subj. 3d sing. cont. dot (Mk. 8:37), tapa— (Mk. 4:29), dam or 
duq (2 Tim. 2:25, Eph. 1:17); opt. 3d sing. 67 (Ro. -15:5; 2 Th. 3:16; 2 
Tim. 1:16, 18); inf. dodvac; part. dobs; perf. dé5wxa; plup. dedexev; mid. fut. 
Swoouar, ex— (Mt. 21:41); 2d aor. éfédero (& Mt. 21:33 =Mk. =Lu.) with vari- 
ant |. -oro in each passage; plur. without variant, am-éd000¢, —édovro. Pass. 
pres. and imperf. —édidero, du— (Ac. 4:35), wap— (1 Cor. 11:23), with variant 
—oro in each case; fut. do97coua, dvtaro—, mapa—. Ast aor. 6d0nv, aa—, éx-, 
map—; perf. dé50uac. Dr. Hort considers the change of the vowels in imperf. 
and 2d aor. from —oro to —evo as probably euphonic. Avdéw (ao-, dta—, rapa-). 
Pres. 563 (Rev. 3:9); imper. didov (Lu. 6:30; 11:3); part. aro-d:d00v (Rev. 
22:2); imperf. édidouv (Mk. 3:6; Ac. 1:20), ér—, wap—} fut. dca-dudcdcovor (Rev. 
17:13 Ree.) ex fictione Erasmi. 

Aivapat. Pres. 2d sing. divaca (Mt. 5:35; 8:2; Mk. 1:40; Lu. 6:42). Opt. 
duvaiuny (Ac. 8:31; 27:12, 39). ’*Eéduvauny and jduvaunr, duvqoowa, jdvvnOny 
and jduvacOnv. Adbvowa, 2d sing. divy (Mk. 9:22 f.; Lu. 16:2; Rev. 2:2). 
There are traces of this late Greek form in B in present tense in Mt. 19:12; 
26:53; Mk. 10:39; Ac: 4:20; 27:15. 

Atw (é-, ar-ex— [mid.], &-, ér-e-, map-eo—, ém-). Simplex only, Mk. 1:32. 
Pres. émi-dvérw; 2d aor. e6ur, @5voa (Mk. 1:32); mid. -edvodunv; pass. rapeo- 
edinv. 2d aor. (Ju. 4) ev-dedupévos. 

Atv (ex—). In pres. only. 4 

"Edw (arpoo—). Eiwv, tow, elaca. Augt. ecaf =eaf =e. See Jannaris, § 719. 

’"Eyyit{w (apoo—). "Hyyifov, éyyiow and éyyret (Jas. 4:8 W. H. alt.), qyyoa, 
iyyuca, 





ADDITIONAL NOTES E25 


"Byelpw (di-, €&-, ér-, ovv—).  "Evyep&, iyyepa, di-evelpero (Jo. 6:18 di-ny. alt.), 
éynyepuar, nyepOnv, evyepOnooua. In Mk. 2:9 éyetpov, but usually intransitive 
éyepe (cf. aye, éwerye) aS Mk. 5:41. "Evyerpar not in N. T., nor éypiyopa. 

*"E8adifw. ’Edadid (“‘ Attic” fut.). 

’’H0w. Obsolete in pres. Elwfa, ciwberv. 

HiSéw and eiSw (aa—-, ér—, tpo-, suv—, irep—). Not used in pres. Fut. eidjow 
(Heb. 8:11, LXX). Ist aor. cida, cidauer, eidare, etdav (W. H. text 18 times 
and 2 alt.). 2d aor. eidov and téov (ind. both complete); imper. t5¢; subj. i5w; 
inf. idetv; part. idwv. 2d perf. oiéa complete, and tare (?), tcaaw (Ac. 26:4); 
imper. tore (?); subj. 6; inf. eidevar; part. eidw@s; pluperf. jdev complete. As 
eldov and oiéa have the same root they are put together. It does not seem 
reasonable to divide the same root between eféov and épdw. See tbw. 

Hip (aa-, &-, €&-, wap-, obv-, ovp-rap—). "Hy and mid. jun, joda, hua; 
imper. pres. icf, éotw, 7rw, Ecrwoay (€ore 2d pl. does not occur); opt. env 
Ecouiar, EceoOar, éodouevos (Lu. 22:49). 

Hips. Only in comp. (az-, eio—, &-, ér-, obv—-). Only pres. (fut. sense) 3d 
pl. -iaov, eia— (Heb. 9:6); imper. eio-uie (Ac. 9:6 B) and imperf. (—7ewv). 

*EAatve (i.e. é\a-viw) (a47—-). Pres. inf. éXabvev. Ast aor. aa-fd\aca; perf. édnda- 
kws; lmperf. pass. 7Aavbvero. 

*EAxo. Pres. act. and pass. é&} imperf. efAxov; other tenses from é\xtw. ‘EAkiow, 
eiAkvoa. 

"Eire (av7r—-, aa—, mpo—). Pres. not used. Fut. éo&. 1st aor. efra, etc.; imper. 
eiwév (?), eimatw, —ate, —atwoar; part. eiwas. 2d aor. efrov; imper. eiwé; subj. 
elrw; inf. eiwetv; part. eixav. Perf. epnxa, 3d pl. —Kav and —xaow (Ac. 17:28); 
inf. eipnxévar; part. eipnxws. Pluperf. eipnxe. Mid. 1st aor. am-emdaueba. 
Pass. Ist aor. éop70n and éppén; part. pyfeis; perf. elpnrar; part. eipnuévos. 

*Epydfopar (kat—, wept-, mpoo—). Eipyatéouny (Ac. 18:3 HIP) and apyatouny 
(W..H.), jpyacauny (Gosp.) and xar-epyaoaro (2 Cor. 7:11), dpyacua (pas- 
sive). Ist aor. kat-epyacOnv and xat-np— (BDC, W. H. alt.). 

*”Hpxopat (ay—, éw-av, am—, bi—, eio—, éx-ero—, Tap-era—, ouv-erao—, EE-, bi-eE—, Exr—, 
KaT—, Tap-, avTi-map—, mepi—, mpo—, mpoo—, auvv—). "Hpxduny, éreboomat, 7dOov 
and #\9a, €\ndvda. Pluperf. ender. 

"Epwrdw (d-, ér—-). "Hpwrav and iparovy, épwricw, hpwrnoa; ér-epwrnfels, Ist 
aor. pass. 

"Hoiw and tow (kar—, ovv—). Pres. only. "Hofiov, dayoua, 2d sing. dayecat 
(Lu. 17:8); ébayov complete; opt. dayou (Mk. 11:14). 

Evayyedltw (apo-). Active only, Ist aor. (Rev. 10:7; 14:6). Tpo-, ebmyyed- 
Counv, ebnyyedcoaunv, ebnyyedAcoua, ebnyyedlaOnv. 

EvSoxéw (cvv—), (eb, nb)doxoduev (1 Th. 2:8), (eb, nb)ddxnoa (eb— in Gospels. In 
the Epistles the reading varies). 

Hivpickw (av—). Evpicxov and nip., ebpnow, edpov (ebpapuer, etc.) and eijpnoa (some 
MSS.), e’pnka, ni-, ebproxdunv, ebpiOnv, ebpOjcoua. Mid. ebpauevos. 

Ey (av-, dvt—, aa—, ev-, én—, Kat—, meT—, Tap—, Tept—, Tpo-, Tpog—, our-, brep-, 
imo-). Etyor (elxapev, elyooay, as well as efxay and elxor), é&w, éoxov, éoxnka, 
elxdunv, €Eouor; 2d aor. mid. dv-ecxdunv. 

Zdw (ava-, cvv—). Pres. £8, ffs, of; inf. fHv. "Ew, Show, Shoouar, Enoa. 

Zdvvvp. and fwyviw (i.e. Swo-vv-) (ava-, dia-, wept-, bro-). "Efavvvorv, Saow, 
—éfwoa, mid. fut. repi-fwoopa. Ist aor. Efwodunrv, —Efwopuac. 

“Hew (av—, xa-). "Hxov, HEw, #£a (in subj.), 7xa in Mk. 8:3. Some MSS. have 
ixovow instead of jxaow. BLA (W. H.) read eioiv. 


1216 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


‘Hoodopar once (2 Cor. 12:13). Elsewhere jrraopat, irrnuar, ar7HOnv. 

Odrrw (cvv—). TEOa~a, éradyy. 

Oavpdto (&-). "Efabyafov, Habpaca, Bavydaobny, Oavpacbncopar and mid. @av- 
pacoua (Rev. 17:8 8B). 

OvicKkw (aro-, cvvaro—). Simplex perf. only, da-évynoxov; —Oavodpar, —eéavor, 
reéovnxa. Both reOvavar and reOvnxevar (Ac. 14:19), but rebvnxas. 

*"Tdopar. Pres. idrat, impnr; mid. idcouat, iacdunv; pass. taya (tarac Mk. 5:29), 
idOny, iabnooua. 

"IS obsolete. For eZ5ov and efda see eldw (cidéw). 

‘Ix-véowar (4¢-, dt-, é¢-). Simplex not found in N. T. Pres. —cxvodpevos; 
2d aor. adixero; inf. ép-txéoPar; part. ad-txdpevos. 

“Tne (i.e. *or-on-m) (av-, ab-, Kal—, wap—, ovv—). Simplex does not occur in LXX 
or N. T. forms in -w. Pres. complete, av—-, a¢—-, ovv-. Fut. ag—, ovr-qow. 
Ist aor. &¢-, Kab-, ovv-fxa (complete). 2d aor. imper. ad-es; 2d pl. a¢-, 
oty-ere; Subj. av—-, ad-, ovv-&, etc.; inf. ad-, map-, ovr-etvar; part. av-, 
ad-els. Medio-pass. pres. dd-ieuat; part. xad-veuevos. Fut. ad-encoua; 
Ist aor. av—, &b-nv; sub]. ad-€09; perf. ad-ewvrar (Lu. 5:20); part. wap- 
euevos. —lw (4p-, ovv—-). Pres. ad-iouev (Lu. 11:4), a¢—-, ovv-iovow; subj. 
avp-lwor; part. ovv-iwy (Ro. 3:11); imperf. jd-rer (Mk. 1:34; 11:16). Pass. 
pres. a¢-lovra (Jo. 20:23 W. H. marg.). —éw (a¢—). Pres. ad-ets (Rev. 
2:20, 2d sing.). 

“Torn, iotdve, tordw (av, érar—, av0—, etav—, ad, bi-, &-, éf-, éx—[lorapail, 
ép-, kated-, ouved—, Kab—, avtixab—-, aroxab—-, we0—-, rap—, Twept—, mpo-, avr—). 
Simplex has not the pres. and imperf. active or passive. Zrjow; 2d. aor. 
éornv (complete), éornca (complete), gornxa, eililornxev; mid. fut. ornoo- 
Mar: éva-, éwava—, amo-, etc. Passive av6-, ad-, é&-voTdunv, éoraOnv, ora- 
Ojooua. Both éorws and éornkws, éf-eoraxeva and éoravar. Both éoraxa 
and éornxa. 

Kadalpw (dua-, éx—). —exdfapa, xexdbapua. Inf. xafGpar. 

Kabapltw (dia—). Kafapid, exafapica, xexabapiouar, éxabapicOnv and éxabepiaOn 
(Mt. 8:3=Mk.). 

Kadétopat (rapa—). The simplex éfoua does not occur in LXX or N. T. Pres. 
part. xaefouevos; imperf. éxabefounv. 1st aor. part. rapa-xabeobeis. 

Ka0npat (ovr). Pres. 2d sing. xa0p (Ac. 23:3); imper. xadov (Jas. 2:3); subj. 
kabjode (Lu. 22:30); inf. xabfjoOac; part. xkadnuevos; imperf. éxadfjunv; fut. 
Kka0jnooua. 

Kabl{w (ava—, émi—, tapa— [Rec.], ovy). The simplex ifm does not occur in 
LXX or N.T. Fut. xadiow; Ist aor. éka0coa; perf. cexaOixa; mid. fut. xadicecbe 
(Mt. 19:28). 

Kalw (éx—-, kara—). Kar-ékavovy, kata-Kabow, KaT-ékavoa, Kéxavuat, KaT-exdny, &£- 
exavOnv, KaTa-Kanoouat, Kata-kavonoowat. In 1 Cor. 18:3 some MSS. have xav- 
Onowyar (fut. subj., Byz.). 

Kanéw (avti-, ev, eio— [-war], éri—-, wera—, mapa—, ovvrapa—, mpo-, mpoo—, avy-). 
*Exadouv, Kadéow, ekadeoa, KeKAnKa, KEeKANUaL, Em-EKEKANTO, EKATNONY, KANOHTOMAL. 
Mid. fut. éri—, wera-Kadécouat, émi—, wera—, mpoo-exadeodunv. 

Kdpvo. "Exayov, xexunka. 

Kepd-vvv-ut, Kepa-vytw (ovy—). The present does not occur in N. T. ’Exépaca, 
KEKEPaTMaL, TUY—. 

KepSalvw. Pres. and imperf. do not occur. Fut. xepdavd (1 Cor. 9:21 W. H.); 
aor. subj. xepdarw: a matter of editing. 





ADDITIONAL NOTES L217 


KepSao. Fut. xepdjow (Jas. 4:13); aor. exépdnoa; subj. Kepdjow (1 Cor. 
9:19-21). Pass. fut. xepdnOnoouae (1 Pet. 3:1). 

Kvralo. "Exdaov, kdabow, Exravoa, KAabvoowa (Rev. 18:9 W. H. marg.). 

KAdw (ék-, kata—). "Exdaoa, éx\doOnv, é&-. 

Knrtelw (ao-, éx-, kata-, avy—). Knrelow, Exderoa, KéxNecouat, éxreloOnv. 

KAtva (ava-, &k-, xata-, mpoo—). ’Ava-kwv, Exdwa, Kexixa. Pass. fut. ava- 
KALOnoomat, —exALOnv, ava—, KaTa—, Tpoo—. 

Kopitw (éx-, ovy—, éxduroa, auv—). Pass. é&-exouifero; mid. xouicouar and kopod- 
wae (1 Pet. 5:4; some MSS. in Col. 3:25), éxoutodunv. 

Kéoarw (amo-, éx—-, &-, Kata-, mpo-, mpoo—). "Exomrov, éx—, mpo-Kd~w, exova; 
pass. 2d aor. é&-exomnv; 2d fut. éx-Kkomnoopat, exoWaunv, KoWoua, aro-. 

Kopévvupt, kexoperpévos, xopeobeis. 

Kpdtw (ava-). "Expafor, xpaéw, expata and éxéxpata; 2d aor. av-éxpayov; 2d 
perf. xéxpaya. Some MSS. have kexpafoua in Lu. 19:40. 

Kpépapar, kpepavvte, kpepdato and kpepdw (é«—). The active pres. does not 
occur. ’Expéuaca, éxpeudobnv. In Lu. 19:48, é&-expeuwero and —uaro. 

Koplvw (ava-, amo-, avraro— [-uar], dia-, ev-, émt-, Kata-, ovy—, bro-, ovvuTo—). 
Avexpwva, Kp; pass. éxpivounv; xata-kpwev (both a question of accent), éxpuva, 
KeKpLKa, Kexplketv, KeKptmat, explOnv, KpLiOnoouac. Mid. 1st aor. da-expivdunv. 

Kptrrw (aro-, év-, mept—). "Expupa; 2d aor. repi-expuBev (Lu. 1:24). [This 
may be the imperf. of xptBw.] Kéxpuymar, éxpbBnv. 

Kvdlw (ava-, aro-, mpoo—). ’Amo-KuvNicw, amo-, mpoo-exiNioa; pass. éxuAlero, 
KekbALO aL, ava-, amro—. 

Aakéw or \doxw. Both presents could give é\axnoe (Ac. 1:18). 

AapBdave (ava-—, avti—, cvvarti— [-yat], ao-, ért—, Kata-, peTa—, Tapa—, ovr-Tapa-, 
Tpo—, Tpoo—, avv—-, auv-ept—, biro—). *ENauBavov, AnmPoua, €daBorv; opt. Ad Bor. 
AaBe, not AaBE; EXdBare (1 Jo. 2:27); wap-eAaBooay (2 Th. 3:6), €\aBav (Jo. 
1:12). EidAnda; eidAndes (Rev. 11:17); —eiAnupar, EAnudnv. Pass. fut. wapa- 
AnudOjcouar; mid. 2d aor. é\aBdunv; imper. ért—, tpoo-daBod. 

Aav0dve (éx—-, éx— [-war]). Simplex active only, €\afov. ’Em-edalounv, —\édno- 
pat (éx—, ém-). 

Aéyw, ‘say’ (avti-, dia—, émt-, tpo—). The simplex has pres. and imperf. act. 
and pres. mid. only. Imp. édeyov, avt—, mpo-; édeyav (Jo. 11:56 8D). Pass. 
imperf. di-eheyounv; Ist aor. di-edéxOnv; mid. Ist aor. dc-edeEdunr. 

Aéyw, ‘choose’ (&-—, émi-, xara-, tapa-, ovA—). Simplex has not this meaning. 
XvA— is the only compound with active forms. Fut. cvA-\e~w; Ist aor. cvve- 
AeEa; mid. pres. kata-, tapa—, sv\—; imperf. ef, wap-edeyounv; Ist aor. 6-, 
éx—, émt-edeZaunv; pass. perf. éx-e\eypuevos. 

Aclarw (aro-, dua—, &—-, éwit—, Kata—, &y-Kata—, wept—). Simplex only pres. (act. 
and pass.) except Tit. 3:18 W. H. marg. ”EXeov, —\elWw, —eeupa, eur; 
pass. —AéXexupar, —edelInv. (Some MSS. have a compound of Xi-y-7ayw in 
pres. and imperf., Ac. 8:24.) 

Aoyltopar (ava-, dua-, wapa-, ov\—). "Fdoyfounv,, é\oyuoaunv, éroylaOnv, oyt- 
oOjoopuat. 

Aotw (aro-). "Edovea; pass. édovuar and dédAovoepar (Heb. 10: 22); mid. 1st 
aor. é\ovaduny. 

Mav0dvew (kata—). "Euadov, peudOnxa. 

Médw. Only pérge, Eueder, impersonal. Pass. wédomar, émi—-, wera—-; mid. fut. 
émi-uedjoouar. Pass. per-euedounv, éEri—, pwet-eueAnOnv; wera-wednOjnoouat. 

Méd\d\ow. "Eveddov and jyeddov, weddAQow. 


1218 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Mévaw (ava—, dia—, év—, Emi—-, KaTa—-, Tapa—, ouy-Tapa— [Rec.], wept-, mpoo—, b7ro-). 
"Euevov, wevd, Enea, —Memevnka, MEMEVTKELY. 

Mualvo. Meuliaumar, euavOnv. 

Mityvupe and plo-yo (avv-ava—). “Emeéa, weueypac. 

Mipvyacko (ava—, ém-ava-, bro-). —pyhow, weuvnuat, éuvnoOnv, uvnoOjoopa. 

Myyotetw. "Eurnorevpat, éuvnotev0nv. 

Nioow (kata-). “Evia; 2d aor. pass. xat-eviynv. 

Enpatvo. Pres. does not occur. ’Eénpava, é€npaupar, éEnpavOnv. 

vpdw. The form fvpacda occurs (1 Cor. 11:6), which may be accented Evpa- 
ofa (pres. inf.) or Etpacdar (1st aor. mid. inf.). "Eitpnuar, Evphoopat. 

OixoSopéw (av-, ér—-, ovv—-). 7 QuKodduovv, oixodounow, @Koddunoa (also oixod-), 
@kodounmat, @Kodoununv, @kodounInv (also oixod—), oixodounOjoomat. 

”OdAvpr and 6AAvw. Simplex does not occur in N. T. It is confined in LXX 
to Job, Prov. and part of Jer. (Thackeray, p. 279). Comp. am-, ovv-ar-. 
Pres. act. az-o\d\iw; pres. pass. aa-d\\vpar; Imperf. az-wAdAvyTo (1 Cor. 10:9); 
fut. dr-od€ow and az-0d (1 Cor. 1:19 Q); Ist aor. az-wdeca; 2d perf. az-okwdws ; 
mid. imperf. aa-wdAdAbunv; fut. am-ododuar; 2d aor. aa-wddounv, cuv-ar—; inf, 
am-oeo0ar; part. aa-odduevos. 

‘Opoidw (a4¢—). ‘Oporwow, wporwInv (also duorwnv), duowIjcouar, ab-wyowwpéevos. 

‘Opdaw (afp-, xaf-, rpo—). Pres. complete. Imper. dpa, dépare; imperf. éopwy (5d 
pl., Jo. 6:2); perf. éwpaxa (Gospels and Acts. In Paul and 1 John variation 
between éw— and é0-); plup. éwpaxer; pass. pres. Kxa0-oparac; imperf. mpo- 
opwunv (LXX). Stem é-: fut. dYouar; fut. pass. d¢O7coua; 1st aor. pass. 
HpOnv; [st aor. mid. subj. éynode (Lu. 13:28). Stem i$—: see cidéo. 

"Opicocw (.-, €-). "Qpovia, €&-, dt-opvxOjvac OF dt-opvyjvar (Wa tait.)3 

Tacx (rpo-, ouu-). “Enabov, rérovba. 

Tlatw (ava-—, éx-ava-—, ovv-ava [—nar], kara—). Simple aor. act. once only. Tlatcw, 
éxavoa; mid. ravouat, éravounv, waboouat, éravodunv, réravuar, —ranoouat. 

Tle(@m (ava—). “Ezeov, éreca, réroa, éreroifev; pass. éreOounv, méwecopar, 
éreiaOnv, weccOnooua. 

Thdatw and méefw, ériaca, wemicouar, ErtacOny. 

TIiuaAnpr. Pres. part. éumurd@v, Erdnoa, éu-werdgnopevos, erAHaOnv, rAnTOjooper. 

IItvw (kata-, ovu-). Tléowar (wieoat, Lu. 17:8), érvov (both wety and mretv, but 
only wie), mémwka, Kat-erdOnv. 

Ilumpackw, wérpaxa, wémpapat, érpadnv. 

Ilimtrw (ava-, avti-, amo-, tx—-, &—-, émt-, xara-, Tapa—, Wepi—, mpoo—, cup—). 
“Emimtov, tecovpar, éreoor, éreoa (3d pl. érecav, Gospel 5, Acts 2), rértwxa. 
In Rev. 2:5 wéerrwxes, Rev. 18:3 rérrwxar. 

TIdéw (a7r0-, da-, &x-, kara-, mapa-, bwo-, —érdcov (3d sing. é£-érAe contracted), 
—émevoa. 

TIAéxw (€u- only comp.), wAéxouar; aor. act. part. mdétas; 2d aor. pass. éu- 
mAakels. 

TTqoow (é-, ém—). Act. Ist aor. subj. éi-rdjégs (1 Tim. 5:1); pass. pres. 
éx-7AHooecOar; imperf. é£-erAnoodunv; 2d aor. érA\nyn (simplex) and é£-erd\aynv 
(see Veitch). 

TIviyw (aro-, émi-, ovy-). “Enveyov, érvita, éxveyounv, an-erviynv. 

TIpacow. paiw, érpata, rérpaxa, térpaypuat. 

IIvv@dvopar. ’ErurPavounv, éxv0dunv. 

‘Pavtitw. *Epdvrica (Some MSS. épparr.), pepdvricuat (so W. H., but some MSS. 
épp.). Mid. Ist aor. subj. pavriowvrac (Mk. 7:4). 


ADDITIONAL NOTES 1219 


‘Péw (rapa—-). ‘Pebow; 2d aor. pass. —eppinv. 

‘Phoow (dua-, repi-, tpoo— and pjyvum). The active forms belong to pjoow 
and the passive to pyyvum. Act. pres. proce, dca—; fut. pnEw; Ist aor. ép(p)n£éa, 
6i—, Tept—, Tpoo—; Pass. pres. PyYVVT ac; impertf. dt-ep(p)yvuro (Lu. 5:6). The 
reading of Lu. 5:6 varies between 6:-ep(p)jyvuvro and 6é:-ep(p)jacero. 

SPévvopr and cRevvdw, cPévvvpar, stem ofBe(o)—. Pres. cBevure, cPécw, eo Beoa; 
pass. oPevyvpar 

Xelw (ava-—, dua-, kata-). ’Av-di-Kar-éoeoa, celow}; PASS. pres. ceduevos; Ist aor. 
éoeloOnv. 

SKdtrw (kata—). “Eoxava, —eoxappar (Ac. 15:16 Rec.). 

XKérropat is not found in N. T. save in émxérrecOa (Jas. 1:27; Heb. 2:6 Q), 
émt-oxeYouar; Ist aor. mid. ér-eoxeWaunv. 

Dirdw (ava—, aro-, dia—, Ewc—, wept—). Pres. inf. dro-oray, dva-ordow, an-toraca; 
pass. Tepi-eoTwpnv, —eoraoOnv, av—, amo-—, dua—; perf. inf. di-eordoOa. Ast aor. 
mid. oracdpevos (simplex). 

Ltretpw (ta—, émi—).  “Eorretpa, éorrappar, éordpny, di-. 

=7é\Aw. Simplex only in pass. pres. (’Amo-, é£-aro-, ovv-aro-, dia-, émt-, 
Kata—, ov(v)—, bro-). *Tr-éoreddov, dt-eoTeAOuNv, —TTEAG, —éoTELa, AT-éTTAAKA 
(aréoradkay in Ac. 16:36), —éoradpar, ar-ecradnv, dt—, br-ecTELdaunv. 

Zrqxw. Cf. modern Greek oréxw from éornxa. Imperf. éornxov in Jo. 8: 44 
and Rev. 12:4 according to W. H. 

Brnplt{w (éri—). LUrnpi—~w (—tow in MSS., 2 Th. 3:3, W. H. alt.; cf. 6 in LXX), 
éornpréa and éorhpioa, ornpita (opt. and inf.), éorhpeywar, éornplxOnv. 

Urpédw (ava-, dro-, dia-, &k-, émi-, Kata-, pera-, ov(v), bro-). ‘Tx-éotpedor, 
-oTpeyw, toTpepa, —EoTpappar, éoTpadny, peTa-cTpapyoopuar. 

Urpdvvupt or otpwvviw (kara-, bro-). Present does not occur. “Eorparrvor, 
éoTpwoa, EoTpwpat, KaT-eoTpwOnv. 

Thato (xara—). Present does not occur. LUdatw, éopata, Eopaypar, éopaynv. 

Ladtw (da-, &k—-). Lwow, towoa, céowka, towfounv, céowopar, eowlyv, cwlnoouat. 

Técow. (ava-— [—ywac], avti—, arro—, bra—, Et-dra- [—pwar], éri—, [rpo—] rpoo—, ovr-, 
tro—). “Eraka, bra-retaxévar, téeray— [—war]; 2d aor. b-, ba-eraynv, dra-ratouar; 
2d fut. bro-rayjooua; Ist aor. dia-raydeis; Ist aor. mid. érakdunv. 

Tedéw (A0-, bia—, ex—-, Ewi—, avv—). —TedETw, ETédETA, TETéAEKA, TETEAETUAL, ETE- 
AEaOnv, TeNcoOHoOMAL. 

T&Xw (ava—, éEava—, &v—). Simplex does not occur in N. T. Ist aor. av-, 
éEav-érecha; perf. dva-réradxa; mid. pres. é-ré\Nouar; fut. é&-redXoduar; perf. 
év-réraduar; mid. Ist aor. é-ereeAaunr. 

Téyvw (repc-, ovy—). Simplex does not occur. 2d aor. qepi-éreuov; inf. repi- 
Trewetv; pass. pres., Ist aor. wepi-erunOnv; perf. mepi-rerunuevos. 

TiOnp. (ava—, wpoo-ava—, ao-, dia-, avTi-dia-, Ek—, Ewt—, OUV-ETL—, KaTA-, oUY-KaTa-, 
MeTa—, Tapa—, TeEpt—, TPO-, Tpod—, GvyY-, iro). Act. pres. complete. Imperf. 
érifer and éridecav, ériovy (from riWéw); fut. Onow; aor. ynxa, —Kas, —Kkav (3d 
pl.); imper. 0és (émi-, tpoo—); subj. 04 (complete); inf. Oetvac; part. eis; perf. 
Tea; mid. and pass. rifewat, THeuar, ovv-eTHewTo, érWEunv (€E-, poo—); mid. 
fut. dva—, émt-Onoouar; 2d aor. &éunvy (complete); imper. 000 (aapa—); bécbe 
(amo-); inf. 0éo0ar (amo-, kata—); part. Oeuevos (aro-, dua—). Pass. fut. reb7- 
couar; aor. éréOnv; inf. reAAvac; part. rebels. 

Tlkrw. Teéetouar, érexov, EréexOnv. 

Tpérw (ava—, do—, éx—, év—, émt—, peta-, rept—, mpo—-). Simplex not in N. T. 
Ist aor. dv—-, éw-érpeva; mid. pres. imperf. &-erperdunv; Ist aor. part. apo- 


1220 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


tpevapevos; pass. “strong” fut. é-, &-rpamjoovrar; 2d aor. é&x-, éx-erparny; 
perf. ém-rérparra (1 Cor. 14:34 Rec.). 

Tpépw (ava-, Ex-, év-). "E0pela, —Opefaunv, reOpauyar, —erpadnv. 

Tpéxo (eio—, KaTa-, TEpi—, TPO—-, Tpoo—, avv—, éml-cvV-, vro-). Pres. complete. 
"Erpexov, Edpapov. 

Tp(Bw (d.a-, cvv—). Simplex does not occur. Pres. da-, ovy—; imperf. d:-érprBov; 
fut. cvv-rpivw; Ist aor. &:—-, cvv-Erpupa; pass. pres. ovy-rpiBouar; 2d fut. ovr- 
Tpisjoouar; perf. inf. ovy-rerpipOar; part. ovv-rerpiupéevos. 

Tuyxdve (év-, brep-ev—, Emt-, Tapa-, ouv—-). “Ertvxov, opt. tbxor, térvxa (Heb. 
8:6, 8*AD*KL), rérevxa (Rec., BE, or even rerbxnxa in MSS.). 

Palvw (ava—, éri—). Pres. fava (pavn, Rev. 8:12, 18:23 is variously accented), 
éparnv, pavjncouar and ¢avodua (LXX). 

PelSopar. Peicouar, epecaunv. 

Pépw (ava-, dmo-, dua-, eio—, Tap-ero—, EK-, EwI—, KaTA-, Tapa, TEpL—, TPO-, TpoT—, 
auv—, w1o—-). "Edepov, éfepounv, olow, —hveyxa, indic. jveyxov; other parts 
nvexOnv; 2d perf. act. Tpog-evivoxa. 

Petyw (amo-, dia-, &-, xara—). Mid. fut. debfouar; 2d perf. e-repevyévar, 
épuyov. 

@0dvw (xpo-). "Eddaca, paca (1 Th. 2:16 W. H. marg.). 

P0e(pw (Sia—, xara—). Imperf. (?) edbeper (Rev. 19:2). BbepS, epOerpa, —EpOap- 
pat, ép0apnv, Plapnoopar. 

Ppdcow. “Edpata, ebpayny, ppayncopuar. 

@Piw (&-, ovv—). Pres. part. diwy; pass. 2d aor. part. dvév, cuvr-dvetca. A 
further form éx-dun (Mt. 24: 32=Mk.) may be accented —dty (W. H.) and 
will then be active pres. subj. or lst aor. subj.; or —év9 and will then be 
pass. 2d aor. subj. In this case 7a ¢b\Xa is considered the subject. 


Xéw (é-, émi-, xara-, ovy—). Simplex does not occur in N. T. and yxiww 


(simplex not in LXX or N.T.). Comp. é&-, iwepex—, cvv—-. Active part. 
émi— (Lu. 10:34); imperf. cuv-exuvvey (Ac. 9:22); fut. éx-xe@ (LXX); Ist aor. 
éx-, xat-éxea; inf. éx-xéae (Ro. 3:15, LXX); 2d aor. (?) imper. é&-xéere 
(Rev. 16:1), ovv-exeov (Ac. 21:27). Hort. (II, p. 165) would refer the 
above forms “to an otherwise virtually unknown 2d aor.” Pass. pres. 
éx-xetrar (Mt. 9:17) and éx-cuv—, —icep-ex-xbvvowar; Imperf. é£-exivvero (Ac. 
22:20); fut. éx-xv0j7oouar; Ist aor. €&, ovv-exbOnv; perf. éx—, cvv-Kéxupar. 

Xplw (éy-, ém-). Aor. Expioa, éy-xpioa (Rev. 3:18) may be inf. of Ist aor. 
active (W. H.) or imper. of Ist aor. mid. (éyxpucat). 

Xalpw (cvv—). “Exarpov, éxapnv, xapjoouar, Some MSS. yapé (Rev. 11:10). 

Xapifopar. Mid. xapioouar, éxapiodunv; pass. Kexapiouar, éxaploOnv, xaprcOnoo- 
pat. 

Xpdopar (xara-). "Expaunv, éxpnodunv, xexpnuat. Impers. xp4 only once (Jas. 
3:10). 

Wiyxw (ava-, do-, &k—-, Kata—} dv—, éx-, xat-ebvéa). Wvyfooua. 

"Ovéopar. "Qvncdaunv, not empraunv. 


13. Ablaut. It is important for the student to note the part 
played in Greek words, both root-syllables and other syllables, 
by ablaut or vowel-gradation. We find qualitative ablaut, as 
dhépw, ddopos and Xeizw, A€doura. Then there is quantitative or 
qualitative-quantitative ablaut, as in twev, e2ue and dure?v, deizw. 





eS 





ADDITIONAL NOTES 122% 


The subject is still more or less obscure as to the precise order of 
these: vowel-changes and the precise factor in each change (ac- 
centuation, vowel-contraction, compensative lengthening). For 
a brief account see Wright, Comparatwe Grammar of the Greek 
Language, 1912, pp. 49-61; Brugmann, Kurze vergl. Gr., pp. 
138-50; Hirt, Handbuch der griech. Laut- und Formenlehre, pp. 
84-105. For a fuller discussion see Hirt, Der indogermanische 
Ablaut; Brugmann, Grundrif, vol. I, pp. 482-505. 


he 


% 
’ n uj ro 
‘ yy 
aes 








INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


References to pages. 


A 


&: see Sinaiticus. 

a-text: see Syrian text. 

A: see Alexandrinus. 

Abbreviations: of personal names, 
171-3. 

Ablative case: form, 248; Doric geni- 
tive-ablative, 254; Attic gen.-abl., 
255 f.; name, 514; meaning, 514; 
rare with substantives, 514 f.; with 
adjectives, 515f.; with preposi- 
tions, 516f. and ch. XIII; with 
verbs, 517-20 (of departure and 
removal 518, of ceasing and ab- 
staining 518, of missing, lacking, 
despairing 518, of differing, excel- 
ling 519, of asking and hearing 519, 
with the partitive idea 519, attrac- 
tion of relative 519 f.); after com- 
parative, 667. 

Ablaut: 1220 f. 

Absolute: use of cases, 416; nomina- 
tive, 459 f.; accusative, 490 f.; geni- 
tive, 512-4; positive adjective in 
absolute sense, 661; inf., 1092 f.; 
participle, 1130-2. 

Abstract nouns: 152, 794. 

Accent: discussion of, 226-36 (age of 
Greek accent 226-8, significance 
of, in the xown 228 f., signs of 229, 
later developments in 229 f., short- 
ening stem-vowels 230 f., separate 
words 231f., difference in sense 
232 f., enclitics and proclitics 233- 
5, proper names 235, foreign words 
235 f.); rules for accent of enclitics 
and proclitics, 1211. 

Accidence: in the vernacular xow7, 


A complete List of Topics is not attempted 


72 f.; in the N.T., 82; part II, 141- 
376. 

Accumulation of prepositions: see 
prepositions. 

Accusative case: form, 248; double 
accusative, 257; singular in third 
decl., 264f.; plural, 265f.; like 
nom. in —es, 266; singular of adjec- 
tives, 274; name, 466 f.; meaning 
of, 467 f.; with verbs of motion, 
468 f.; extent of space, 469; for 
time, 469-71; with transitive verbs, 
471-7; cognate, 477-9; double, 
479-84; with passive verbs, 484-6; 
adverbial, 486-8; by antiptosis, 
488; by inverse attraction, 488; 
with the infinitive, 489 f.; acc. ab- 
solute, 490 f., 1130; with preposi- 
tions, 491 and ch. XIII; compared 
with genitive, 506-10. 

Achean: origin, 16; Achsan-Doric, 
17, 54, 266; Achzean-Dorian kow7?: 
53, 63. 

Active voice: endings, 337-9; displa- 
cing future middle, 356; meaning 
of, 799; transitive or intransitive, 
799 f.; effect of prepositions, 800; 
variation in tenses, 800 f.; causa- 
tive, 801 f.; with reflexives, 802; 
impersonal, 802; infinitives, 802; 
as passive of another verb, 802 f. 

Acts: 120-3. See Index of Quota- 
tions, and passim in the volume. 

Adjectives: with formative suffixes, 
157-60 (primitive, 157 f.; secon- 
dary, 158-60: from verbs 158, from 
substantives 158, from adjectives 
159 f., from adverbs 160); com- 
pound, 161-9 (with inseparable 


1224 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


prefixes 161f., agglutinative or 
juxtapositive 168 f.); declension 
of adjectives, 270-6 (origin of the 
adjective 270f., inflection of ad- 
jectives with one termination 271 f., 
with two terminations 272 f., with 
three 273 f., the accus. singular 
274, contraction in 274f., inde- 
clinable 275 f.); comparison of, 
276-81 (positive 276, comparative 
276-8, superlative 278-81); in pred- 
icate, 401; and substantive, 407; 
gender in, 412f.; with vocative, 
464; with genitive, 503-5; with 
ablative, 515 f.; with locative 
or instrumental, 523; with da- 
tive, 537; distinguished from ad- 
verbs, 549f., 657; syntax of, ch. 
XIV, 650-75; origin of, 650; adjec- 
tival or appositional use of sub- 
stantive, 651f.; as substantive, 
652-4 (any gender 652, masculine 
652, feminine 652 f., neuter 654 f.); 
agreement with substantives, 654 f. 
(number 654f., gender 655, case 
655, two or more adjectives 655); 
attributive, 655 f.; predicate, 656 f.; 
personal construction, 657 f.; with 
cases, 658; with the inf. and clauses, 
658 f.; as adverb, 659; positive, 
659-61 (relative contrast 659 f., as 
comparative or superlative 660 f., 
with prepositions 661, comparison 
implied by 74 661, in absolute sense 
661); comparative, 662-9 (contrast 
or duality 662 f., degree 663, with- 
out suffixes 663, double 663 f., with- 
out object of 664-6, followed by 4 
666, by the ablative 666f., by 
prepositions 667, displacing the su- 
perlative 667-9); superlative, 669- 
71 (vanishing 669, few true in N. T. 
669 f., elative 670, no “ Hebrais- 
tic’? 671); numerals, 671-5; with 
inf., 1076 f.; part. originally, 1100 f.; 
adjectival aspects of part., 1104—- 
10; negatives with, 1163 f. 

Adverbs: with formative suffixes, 
160; agglutinative compounds, 
169-71; neglect of adverbs, 293; 


formation of, 294-7 (fixed cases 
294, accus. 294f., ablative 295, 
genitive 295, locative 295, instru- 
mental 295 f., dative 296, suffixes 
296, compound adverbs 297, anal- 
ogy 297, comparison of adverbs 
297); adverbial stems, 297-9 (sub- 
stantives 298, adjectives 298, nu- 
merals 298, pronouns 298, verbs 
298 f.); use of adverbs, 299-300 
(manner 299, place 299f., time 
300); scope of, 300-2 (relative be- 
tween adverbs and _ prepositions 
301, adverbs and _ conjunctions 
301 f., adverbs and intensive par- 
ticles 302, adverbs and interjec- 
tions 302); adverbial accusative, 
486-8; genitive with, 505; dative 
with, 537f.; syntax of, ch. XII, 
544-52; special difficulties, 544; 
nature of, 544; narrower sense of, 
544 f.; adverbs with verbs, 545 f. 
(commonest 545, N. T. usage 545, 
predicate uses 545 f., with éxw 546, 
with participles 546, loose relation 
546); with other adverbs, 546; with 
adjectives, 546f.; with substan- 
tives, 547; as substantives, 547 f.; 
frequent use of, 548; as marks of 
style, 548 f.; distinguished from ad- 
jective, 549f. (different meaning 
549, difference in Greek and Eng- 
lish idiom 549 f.); adverbial phrases 
550-2 (incipient adverbs 550, prep- 
ositional phrases 550 f., participles 
551, 1109 f.); the verb, 554 f.; prep- 
ositions, 554 f.; adjective as, 659; 
article with, 765 f. 

Adversative particles: 1187 f. 

Eolic: lyric odes, 17; persistence of, 
52; relation to Doric, 17, 53; influ- 
ence on xow7, 63; on the N. T., 82; 
and here and there, ad libitum. 

fEschylus: see Index of Quotations. 

Affixes: 146. 

Agent: words expressing, 153 f.; da- 
tive of, 542; with passive, 820. 

Agglutinative: type of languages, 37; 
compounds, 163-71. 

Agreement: see concord, 





INDEX OF 


Aktionsart: 344 f., 823 f., 828 f., 831- 
5, 850 f., 858 f. 

Alexander the Great: 44, 49-51, 53 ff., 
60-3, 66-8, 71, 239, etc. 

Alexandrian: grammarians, 31; do 
not treat adjectives, 650; no Alex- 
andrian dialect, 68, 91, 100, 213, 
215; 227, 242. 

Alexandrian type of text: 180 and 
passim. 

Alexandrinus: 179 and passim. 

Allegory: 1207. 

Alliteration: 1201. 

Alphabet: original Greek, 178; law 

' enforcing Ionic alphabet, 181, 209, 
222. 

Alternative: pronouns, 745-50 (see 
distributive); questions, 736 f. 

Amplification: of subject, 398-400; 
of predicate, 400 f. 

Anabasis: passim. 
Quotations. 

Anacoluthon: discussion of, 435-40 
(suspended subject 4386 f., digres- 
sion 4387-9, participle in 489f., 
asyndeton 440); distinction from 
oratio variata, 440f.; kinds of, 
1203 f. 

Analogy: passim. 

Anaphora: 1200. 

Anaphoric: see article, demonstra- 
tive, relative. 

Anarthrous: attributive, 782-4; pred- 
icate, 790-6; participle, 1105 f. 

Annominatio: 1201. 

Antecedent: see demonstrative, rela- 
tive, preposition. 

Antiptosis: 488. 

Antistrophe: 1200. 

Antithesis: 1199 f. 

Aorist: second aorist of —u verbs, 
307-11; forms of, strong and weak, 
second and first, 345-50; passive, 
816 ff.; name, 831; Akéttonsart in, 
831-5 (constative 831-4, ingressive 
834, effective 834 f.); indicative, 
835-48 (narrative or historical 
tense 835 f., gnomic 836 f., relation 
to imperfect 837-40, relation to past 
perfect 840 f., relation to present 


See Index of 


SUBJECTS L220 


841-3, relation to present per- 
fect 843-5, epistolary 845 f., rela- 
tion to the future 846 f., in wishes 
847, variation in use of tenses 847, 
translation of aorist into English 
847 f.); subjunctive and optative, 
848-55 (no time-element 848, fre- 
quency of subj. 848-50, Aktions- 
art 850 f., aorist subj. in prohibi- 
tions 851-4, aorist subj. with 63 uh 
854, aorist opt. 854 f.); imperative, 
855 f.; infinitive, 856-8; participle, 
858-64 and 1112-4 (Aktionsart 
858 f., 6 and aorist 859f., ante- 
cedent action 860, simultaneous 
action 860 f., subsequent action 
861-3, aorist participle in indirect 
discourse 863 f.). 

Aoristic: see punctiliar, present, per- 
fect, future. 

Apheresis: 205 f. 

Apocalypse: 101, 135 f.; solecisms in, 
413-6 and passim. See Index of 
Quotations. 

Apocrypha: passim. 
Quotations. 

Apodosis: see 921-3 and conditional 
sentences, 1007-27. 

Aposiopesis: 1203. 

Apostrophe: use of, 244. 

Appian: see Index of Quotations. 

Apposition: with substantive, 368- 
400; partitive, 399; predicative am- 
plifications, 401; peculiarities in, 
413 ff.; to vocative, 464; genitive of, 
498 f.; appositional use of substan- 
tive, 651 f.; with otros, 698-700; 
éxetvos, 708; appositional inf., 1078 f. 

Aquila: see Index of Quotations. 

Aramaic: 24; spoken by Jesus, 26-9; 
distinct from the Hebrew, 102; 
portions of the O. T. in, 103; the 
vernacular of Palestine, 103 f.; Jo- 
sephus’ use of, in his War, 104; 
signs of, in the N. T., 104f.; pos- 
sible use by Mark and Matthew, 
105; proper names, 214 f., 236; on 
prepositions, 556 f.; and passim. 

Arcadian: 63, 67, 82, 84, 184, pas- 
sim. 


See Index of 


1226 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Aristophanes: and the vernacular, 
66. See Index .of Quotations. 

Aristotle: shows influence of Ionic 
and marks transition to xow7, 55, 
58, 128, 146, 148-53, 168 f., 171, 
passim. See Index of Quotations. 

Arrangement: see sentence. 

Arrian: see Index of Quotations. 

Article: use by Peter, 127; with voca- 
tive, 465 f.; as possessive, 684; with 
possessive, 685; with reflexive, 690; 
with otros, 700-2; with éxetvos, 708; 
origin and development of, 754 f. 
(a Greek contribution 754, derived 
from demonstrative 755); signifi- 
cance of, 755; method employed 
by, 756-8 (individuals from indi- 
viduals 756, classes from classes 
757, qualities from qualities 758); 
varied usages of, 758-76 (with sub- 
stantives, context, gender, proper 
names, anaphoric 758-62, with ad- 
jectives, resumptive, adj. alone,with 
numerals 762-4, with participles 
764 f., infinitive 765, with adverbs 
765 f., with prepositional phrases 
766, with single words or whole 
sentences 766, with genitive alone 
767, nouns in predicate 767-9, dis- 
tributive 769, nominative with = 
vocative 769, = possessive 769 f., 
with possessive 770, with airés 770, 
with demonstratives 770f., with 
dos, was [a&ras] 771-4, with zodbs 
774 f., &xpos, jurous, €cxaros, méoos 
775, with &@dos and érepos 775 f., 
with ydvos 776); position with at- 
tributives, 776-89 (with adjectives, 
normal, repetition, one with sev- 
eral, anarthrous substantives, par- 
ticiples 776-9, with genitive, 
between article and gen., after gen. 
without repetition, repetition with 
gen., absent with both, correlation 
of article 779-82, with adjuncts or 
adverbs, between article and noun, 
repeated, only with adjunct, only 
with noun, when several adjuncts 
occur, phrases of verbal origin, 
exegetical questions, anarthrous 


attributive 782-4, several attribu- 
tives with kai, same person or 
thing, when distinguished, treated 
as one, point of view, difference in 
number or gender, with disjunctive 
particle 785-9); position with pred- 
icates, 789f.; absence of, 790-6 
(with proper names 791, with geni- 
tives 791, prepositional phrases 
791 f., with both preposition and 
genitive 792 f., titles 793, words in 
pairs 793, ordinal numerals 793 f., 
in predicate 794, abstract words 
794, qualitative force 794, only ob- 
ject of kind 794-6) ; with inf., 1062- 
8; articular part., 1106-8. 

Article, indefinite: «is as, 674; 7us 
and eis, 796. 

Articular infinitive: 1062-8. 

Articular participle: 1106-8. 

Artistic prose: see literary kow7. 

Asianism: 60, 73, 87 f., passim. 

Aspirate: 191, 209; doubling of, 215; 
aspiration of consonants, 219; ori- 
gin of the aspirate, 221 f.; varia- 
tions in MSS., 223-5; transliter- 
ated Semitic words, 225; use with 
p and pp, 225 f.; question of airod, 
226. 

Assertion, sentence of: see indirect 
discourse. 

Asseverative particles: 1150. 

Assimilation: of consonants, 215-7; 
rules for, 1210. 

Associative case: see instrumental. 

Asyndeton: 427-44; imperative in, 
949. 

Athens: losing its primacy in culture, 
67, passim. 

Attendant circumstance, participle of: 
see participle. 

Attic: 16, 17, 20, 22, 35f., 41-4; tri- 
umph of, 51; vernacular, the base 
of the xow7y, 60-2; influence on 
N. T., 82; Attic inscriptions show 
indifference to hiatus, 207; geni- 
tive-abl., 255f.; “Attic”’ declension, 
260; ad libitum in the book. 

Attica: 181 f. 

Atticism: not part of the xoww7, 50; the 


ae 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Atticistic reaction and its influence, 
58-60, 73; conservative influence 
of, 177 f.; pronunciation, 239, pas- 
sim. 

Attraction of relative: inverse, 488; 
to genitive, 512; to ablative, 519 f.; 
with és, 714-9; dc0s, 732 f. 

Attributive: adjective, 655 f.; positive 
article, 776-89. See participle. 

Augment: discussion of, 365-8 (origin 
of 365, where found 365, purpose 
of 365, syllabic 365f., temporal 
366 f., compound verbs 367, double 
367 f.); in past perfect, 1211 f. 

Authorized version: influence of, on 
English language, 92. 


B 


B: see Vaticanus. 

B-text: see Neutral text. 

Bezae, Codex: 179 f., passim. 

“Biblical”? Greek: 5; view of E. 
Hatch refuted by Deissmann, 24 f.; 
the new point of view, 30; N. T. 
not “biblical Greek,’ 77-9, 88, 
92, 112 f., passim. 

Bilingualism: in Palestine, 27-30; in 
Brittany, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, 
30, 69, 102 f. 

Blending: see cases. 

Beotian: 16, 52; influence of, 61, 63; 
monophthongizing, 204 f.; pronun- 
ciation, 240; passim. 

Boverpodpydov: 1211. 

Brachylogy: 1201, 1203. 

Breathings: 221-6; use with p and 
pp, 225 f.; in Ionic, 240. 

Breviloquence: see brachylogy. 

Brittany, bilingual: 29. 

Broken continuity: see perfect and 
past perfect. 

Byzantine Greek: literature on, 22-4, 
43, 155, 179, 183, 191, 210, passim. 


C 


C=Codex Ephremi: passim. 
Cardinals: see numerals. 


Cases: number of, 247-50 (history of | 


1227 


the forms 247 ff., blending of case- 
endings, syncretism of the forms 
249 f., origin of case-suffixes 250); 
concord in, 413-6 (adjectives 413, 
participles 418, the Book of Reve- 
lation 413-6, apposition 416, abso- 
lute 416); syntax of, ch. XI, 446- 
543; history of interpretation of, 
446-9 (confusion 446, Bopp’s con- 
tribution 446 f., modern usage 447, 
Green’s classification 447 f., syn- 
cretism of the cases 448, freedom 
in use of 448f.); purpose of the 
cases, 449 (Aristotle’s usage, word- 
relations); encroachment of prepo- 
sitions on, 450-3 (reason 450, no 
“‘governing”’ of cases 450, not used 
indifferently 450f., original use 
with ‘local’? cases 451, 567, in- 
creasing use of 451 f., distinction 
preserved in N.T. 453); distinctive 
idea in each case, 453-6 (funda- 
mental idea 453 f., cases not yet 
interchangeable 454, vitality of 
case-idea 454, historical develop- 
ment of the cases 454 f., method of 
this grammar 456); nominative, 
456-66; vocative, 461-6; accusa- 
tive, 466-91; genitive, 491-514; 
ablative, 514-20; locative, 520-5; 
instrumental, 525-35; dative, 535- 
43; functions of prepositions with, 
567-71; see discussion of each prep- 
osition in ch. XIII; adjective and 
substantive, 655; with adjectives, 
658; és, attraction and incorpora- 
tion, 714-9; dors, 728f.; of inf,, 
1058-62; with inf., 1082; participle, 
1119. 

Causal participle: see participle and 
causal clauses. 

Causal particles: see conjunctions 
and causal sentences (hypotactic). 

Causal sentences: use of és, 724 f.; 
paratactic, 962 f.; with hypotactic 
conjunctions, 963 f.; relatives, 965 f.; 
da 76 and the infinitive, 966; par- 
ticiple, 966, 1128; inf., 1091. 

Causative verbs: 150; active, 801 f.; 
middle, 808 f, | 


a 


1228 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cautious assertion: see final and con- 
secutive sentences. 

Chaldee (Aramaic): 211. 
maic. 

Chiasm: 1200. 

Chinese: 250. 

Christian ‘element in N. T. Greek: 
chiefly lexical, 112-6; new conno- 
tations of familiar words, 115 f. 

Chrysostom: passim. 

Circumlocutions: 330, 648 f. 

Circumstantial participle: see parti- 
ciple. 

“Classical Greek’’: 5, 89, passim. 

Clause: paratactic, 428 f.; hypotac- 
tic, 429-31; inf. and part., 431 f.; 
clauses with the adjectives, 658 f. 

Climax: 1200. 

Collectives: see gender and number. 

Colloquial: see vernacular. 

Colon: 243. 

Comma: origin of, 243. 

Common speech: see xouv7. 

Comparative: see adjectives. 

Comparative clauses: with relative 
dcos, 966 f.; relative with xara, 967; 
xabért, 967; ws and its compounds, 
967 ff. 

Comparative grammar or philology: 
8-12; the linguistic revolution, 8; 
sketch of Greek grammatical his- 
tory, 8-10; the discovery of San- 
skrit, 10; from Bopp to Brugmann, 
10 ff.; importance of, 36; the origi- 
nal Indo-Germanic speech, 38; 
Greek as a “‘dialect’’ of, 39 f.; ap- 
plied to N. T. word-formation, 144; 
system of affixes, infixes, prefixes, 
suffixes, 146-247, 250, passim. 

Comparison: of adjectives, 276-81; 
of adverbs, 297; syntax of, 661-9. 

Complementary infinitive: see infini- 
tive (with verbs). 

Complementary participle: see parti- 
ciple. 

Composition: compound words com- 
mon in the N. T., 82; compound 
verbs in —éw, 147 f.; discussion of 
composita in the N. T., 160-71 
(kinds of, proper, copulative, de- 


See Ara- 


rivative 161, inseparable prefixes 
161-3, agglutinative or by juxta- 
position 163-71). 

Compound sentences: order of clauses 
in, 425; two kinds of sentences, 
425 f.; two kinds of compound 
or complex, 426; parataxis, 426; 
hypotaxis, 426 f. 

Conative action: 880, 885. 

Concessive: imperative as, 
clause, 1026; participle, 1128. 

Concord: and government, 397 f.; in 
person, 402 f.; in number, 403-9; 
in gender, 410-3; in case, 413-6. 

Conditional sentences: apodosis of 
second class, 921-3; two types, 
1004-7; four classes, 1007-22 (de- 
termined as fulfilled 1007-12, de- 
termined as unfulfilled 1012-6, un- 
determined, but with possibility 
of determination 1016-20, remote 
possibility of determination 1021 f.); 
mixed conditions, 1022; implied 
conditions, 1022 f.; elliptical, 1023-— 
6; concessive clauses, 1026 f.; other 
particles with ei and éav, 1027; par- 
ticiple, 1129. 

Conjugation of verb: ch. VIII, 303-76. 

Conjunctions: adverbs, 301; in sub- 
ordinate clauses, 951f.; and all 
through the discussion of hypotac- 
tic clauses, 950-1049; paratactic, 
1177-92 (copulative: 7é 1178 f., xaé 
1179-83, d€ 1183-5, adda 1185 f.; 
adversative: 6¢ 1186 f., rAjv 1187, 
mevrot 1188, duws 1188, ei uh 1188; 
disjunctive: 4 1188f., etre and 
éavre 1189, ore and pire 1189; in- 
ferential: apa 1189f., yap 1190f., 
ovv 1191 f.); hypotactic, 1192 f. 

Consecutive: use of és, 724; clauses, 
see final and consecutive. 

Consonants: changes, 209-21 (origin 
and character of the consonants 
209 f., the insertion of 210, the 
omission of 210 f., single or double 
211-5, assimilation of 215-7, inter- 
change and changing value of 217— 
9, aspiration of 219, variable final 
219-21, metathesis 221). 


949; 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Constative action: see aorist. 

Constructio ad sensum: illustrated 
in, 400-424, 683 f., 1204. 

Constructio praegnans: 1204. See 
also prepositions. 

Contraction: discussion of, 203 f.; in 
second declension, 260 f.;in third de- 
clension, 268; in adjectives, 275 f.; 
in verbs, 341-3. 

Contrasts: in Greek words, 175 f.; in 
comparison, 662 f. 

Co-ordination: 443 f.; between parti- 
ciples, 1135 f. 

Coptic: 215, 250 f., passim. 

Copula: not necessary, 3965 f. 

Copulative conjunctions: 1177-86. 

Coronis: 244. 

Correlation of article: see article. 

Correlative pronouns: 289 f., 
709 f., 732. 

Crasis: 208. 

Cretan dialect: passim. 

Crete: early Greek culture in, 43. 

Culture: variations in N. T. writers, 
381. 

Cynic-Stoic diatribe: 420f., 1196f. 

Cyprus: as purveyor of Greek culture, 
43; language and N. T. Gk., 82, 
passim. 


298, 


D 


D: see (Codex) Bezae. 

$-text: see Western text. 

Dative: form, 248 ff.; syncretism, 
535; decay of dative, 535 f.; idea 
of, 5386; with substantives, 536 f.; 
with adjectives, 537; with adverbs 
and prepositions, 537f. and ch. 
XIII; with verbs, 5388-43 (indirect 
object 538, dativus commodi vel in- 
commodi, 538 f., direct object 539- 
41, with intransitive verbs 541, 
possession 541, infinitive in dative 
541 f., of the agent 542, because of 
preposition in composition 542 f.); 
ambiguous examples, 543; eth., 539. 

Declarative clauses: 915f., and see 
indirect discourse. 

De-aspiration: increasing, 222 f. 

Declensions: ch. VII, 246-302; his- 


1229 


tory of the, 246 f.; first or a declen- 
sion, 254-9 (Doric genitive-ablative 
singular 254 f., Attic genitive-abla- 
tive 255, vocative in -a 256, words 
in —pa and participles in —-via 256, 
retention of —a in gen.-abl. 256, 
double declensions 257, heterocli- 
sis and metaplasm 257-9, inde- 
clinable substantives 259); second 
or 0, 259-63 (the “‘Attic’’ 260, con- 
traction 260 f., vocative 261, het- 
eroclisis and metaplasm 261-3, 
mixed declension 263, proper names 
263); third decl., 263-9 (nomi- 
native as vocative 264, accus. sin- 
gular 264 f., accus. plural 265f., 
peculiarities in the nominative 
267 f., gen.-abl. 268, contraction 
268, proper names 268 f., hetero- 
clisis and metaplasm 269); inde- 
clinable words, 269 f.; declension of 
adjectives, 270-81; numerals, 281-— 
4; pronouns, 284-93; adverbs, 293- 
302. 

Defective verbs: in voice, 799. See 
verbs. 

Deictic: see demonstrative. 

Deliberative: future, 875 f.; subjunc- 
tive, 934f.; opt., 940; questions, 
1046. 

Delphian: 266. 

Delta: 91. 

Demonstrative pronouns: inflection 
of, 289 f.; nature of, 693; shades of 
meaning, 693; 6, 7, 76, 6938-5; és, 
695 f.; d5«, 696 f.; ovd7os, 697-706 
(the deictic use 697, the contemp- 
tuous use 697, the anaphoric use 
697 f., In apposition 698-700, use 
of article 700f., without article 
701 f., contrast with éxetvos 702 f., 
antecedent of relative 703 f., gen- 
der and number 704, adverbial uses 
704 f., phrase rotr’ éorw 705, with 
other pronouns 705, ellipsis 705, 
shift in reference 706); éxetvos 706-9 
(the purely deictic 707, the con- 
temptuous use 707, the anaphoric 
707, the remote object 707 f., em- 
phasis 708, with apposition 708, 


1230 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


with article 708, antecedent to rela- 
tive 708, gender and number 708 f., 
independent use 709); adrés, 709; 
correlative demonstratives 709 f.); 
article derived from, 755; article 
with, 770 f. 

Demosthenes: in the New Attic, 52; 
pronouncing Greek, 238. See In- 
dex of Quotations. 

Denial and prohibition, with od pi: 
see aorist subj. and fut. ind. 

Denominative verbs: 147. 

Deponents: 332 f., 811-3, 817 f. 

Derivation: derivative verbs, 147-50. 

Design, sentences of: see final. 

Diacritical marks: 226. 

Dieresis: 204 f.; marks of, 244. 

Dialects: fuller knowledge of the 
dialects, 16 f., 39 f., 41-4, 46, 52 f., 
71, 79, 110 f.; dialect-coloured ver- 
nacular, 61-9, 82, 178 f.; accent in, 
229-31, 238 ff.; declension in, 247; 
passim. 

Diatribe, Cynic-Stoic: 420 f., 1196 f. 

Diffuseness: see pleonasm. 

Digamma: 209, 223 f. 

Digraphs: 209. 

Digression: 437 f. 

Diminutives: frequent in the N. T., 

_ 82; less common than in modern 
Gkra ib: 

Diodorus Siculus: see Index of Quo- 
tations. 

Diphthongs: 204 f. 

Direct discourse: exchange with in- 
direct, 442 f.; with recitative drt, 
1027-4: 

Discord: see concord. 

Disjunctive particles: negative, 
1165 f., 11738; conjunctions, 1188 f. 

Dissimilation: see assimilation. 

Distributive numerals: see numerals. 

Distributive pronouns: inflection of, 
292 f.; syntax of, 748, 744-50; au- 
porepor, 744 f.; exaoros, 745 f.; &ddos, 
746-8 (absolutely, for two, adjec- 
tive, with article, @\X\os ado, ellip- 
sis, @\dos and €érepos, different, a\X6- 
tpwos); érepos, 748-50 (absolutely, 
with article, pair, different, three 


or more, contrast, antithetic); ar- 
ticle as, 769. 

Division of words: not in old MSS., 
243 f. 

Doric: purest Hellenic, 17; tenacity 
of, 52; Doric-Aolic, 53; influence 
on the xow7, 63; on the N. T., 82; 
genitive-ablative, 254, passim. 

Doric: 16 f., 52-4, 62 f., 82, 118, 184 f., 
193 f., 211, 224, 229, 240, 249, 254 f., 
267, passim. 

Double comparative and superlative: 
663, 670. 

Double compounds: 160, 165, 565. 

Double consonants: 211-5. 

Double declension: 257. 

Double interrogative: 737. 

Dual: origin and disappearance of, 
Dee 

Duality: in the comparative adjec- 
tive, 662 f.; with érepos, 749. 

Durative (linear) action: 823 f., 879- 
92. 

Dynamic: see middle voice. 


E 


Ecbatic tva: see consecutive clauses. 

Ecbatic infinitive: see consecutive 
clauses and infinitive. 

Editor’s prerogative: 244 f. 

Effective action: see aorist. 

Egypt: 21, 56; peculiarities of xoww7 in, 
68, 91, 100 f., 111 f., 178, 186, 189, 
191, 195 f., 200, 202, 257, passim. 

Elative: 278 f., 670. 

Elean: 266. 

Elision: 72, 206-8, 223, 226, 1210. 
Ellipsis: of subject or predicate, 391; 
of odros, 705 f.; in general, 1201 f. 
Emphasis: position of, 417 f.; in pro- 

nouns, 677 ff., 684 f., 686, 708. 

Enallage: 454. 

Enclitics: accent of, 233 ff.; pronouns, 
681 f.; rules for accent of, 1211. 
English: best English spoken in Edin- 

burgh and Louisville, 69. 

Epanadiplosis: 1200. 

Epexegetic infinitive: 1086 f. 

Epexegetical apposition: 399. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Epic: 185, 204, passim. 

Epicene: gender, 252. 

Epidiorthosis: 1199. 

Epimenides: see Index of Quotations. 

Epistles: distinction from letters, 
70 {., 85 ff.,. 197, 200, 239. 

Epistolary aorist: see aorist. 

Erasmus: on pronunciation of Greek, 
237, 240. 

Etacism: 191. 

Etymology: work of the philosophers, 
31; use of term, 143 f. 

Euphony: 419-23. 

Euripides: see Index of Quotations. 

Euthalius: 241. 

Exclamation: 461, 739, 741. 


F 


Fayfim Papyri: see Index of Quota- 
tions. 

Feminine: see gender. 

Figures of speech: ch. XXII, 1194— 
1208; rhetorical, not grammatical, 
1194; style in the N. T., 1194-7; 
figures of thought, 1198 f. (rhetor- 
ical question, oratory, Irony, prodi- 
orthosis, epidiorthosis, paraleipsis, 
heterogeneous structure); figures 
of expression, 1199-1208 (parallels 
and contrasts: parallelism, synony- 
mous or antithetic, chiasm or re- 
verted parallelism, anaphora, an- 
tistrophe, poetry 1199 f.; contrasts 
in words: epanadiplosis, climax, 
zeugma, brachylogy, synonyms, 
onomatopoetic, alliteration, paro- 
nomasia, annominatio, parechesis, 
pun 1200f.; contraction and ex- 
pansion: ellipsis, aposiopesis, brevil- 
oquence or brachylogy, constructio 
praegnans, constructio ad sensum, 
hypallage, pleonasm, hyperbole, 
litotes, meiosis 1201-6; metaphors 
and similar tropes: metaphor, sim- 
ile, parable, allegory, metonymy 
1206 f.). 

Final and consecutive clauses: kin- 
ship, 980; origin in parataxis, 980 f. ; 
pure final, 981-91 (iva 981-5, d7rws 


1231 


985-7, ws 987, un, uh roTE, uh Tws 
987-9, relative 989, infinitive 989- 
91, participle 991, 1128 f.); sub- 
final, 991-7 (iva 991-4, d7ws 994 f., 
Ln, uh more, uh tws 995f., relative 
996, infinitive 996 f., 1087-9, et and 
dre 997); consecutive, 997-1003 (iva 
997-9, dore 999f., ds 1000f., dre 
1001, relative 1001, infinitive 1001 
ff., 1089-91). 

Final consonants (letters): 194, 219- 
21, 248. 

Finnish: 250. 

First or a declension: 254-9, 267. 

Foreign words: 108-11, 235f. See 
Latinisms. 

Formation of words: in the vernacu- 
lar xowh, 72; ch. II, pp. $143-76; 
formative suffixes, 146-60; by com- 
position, 160-71. 

Forms, rare: see declensions and con-~ 
jugation of verbs. 

Formulas of citation: 1027 f. 

Fourth Book of Maccabees: see Index 
of Quotations. 

Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse: see 
Index of Quotations. 

French: accent, 230; cases and prepo- 
sitions of, 252; gender, 252; pas- 
sim. 

Future: conjugation of, 353-7 (origin 
of 353 f., Ionic-Attie 355, synco- 
pated 353 f., of liquid verbs 356, 
active and middle 356, second pas- 
sive 356 f., first passive 357, peri- 
phrastic 357); syntax of middle, 
813 f.; passive, 818-20; relation of 
aorist to, 846 f.; punctiliar (aoris- 
tic), 870-6 (‘‘“mixed”’ tense, punc- 
tiliar or durative 870-2, modal as- 
pect of, merely futuristic, volitive, 
deliberative 872-6, in the modes 
876-9: indicative 876, subjunctive 
and optative 876, infinitive 876, 
participle 877 f., periphrastic sub- 
stitutes for 878 f.); durative (linear), 
888-9 (three kinds of action 889, 
periphrastic 889); fut. ind. and aor. 
subj., 924 f.;fut. ind. as imperative, 
942 f., 1118 f. 


1232 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Future perfect: 361, 906 f. 

Futuristic: modal aspect of future, 
merely futuristic, 872-4; present, 
869 f., 881; pres. part., 992; present 
perfect, 898; subj., 928-30; opta- 
tive, 937-9. 


G 


y-text: see Alexandrian text. 

Gender: of adjectives, 156 f.; in sub- 
stantives, 252-4 (grammatical gen- 
der 252, kinds of 252, variations in 
252 f., LXX illustrations 254); no 
feminine inflection in second de- 
clension, 259, 261 f.; concord in, 
410-3 (fluctuations in 410 f., neu- 
ter singular 409, 411, explanatory 
& éorw and rTotr’ éorw 411f., the 
participle 412, adjective 412 f.); of 
adjectives without substantives, 
652-4; agreement with substan- 
tives, 654; obros, 704; éxetvos, 708; 
ds, 712 ff.; doris, 729. 

Genealogy in Matthew: 270. 

Genitive: form, 248, 263, 491 f.; Doric 
genitive-abl., 254 f.; Attic geni- 
tive-abl., 255 f.; name, 492; speci- 
fying case, 493 f.; local use, 494; 
temporal use, 495; with substan- 
tives, 495-503 (possessive 495 f., 
attributive 496 f., predicate 497 f., 
appositive or definitive 498 f., sub- 
jective 499, objective 499-501, of 
relationship 501 f., partitive 502, 
position of 502 f., concatenation of 
503); with adjectives, 503-5; with 
adverbs and prepositions, 505 and 
ch. XIII; with verbs, 505-12 (very 
common 506, fading distinction 
from acc. 506, verbs of sensation 
507 f., of emotion 508 f., of sharing, 
partaking, filling 509f., of ruling 
510, of buying, selling, being worthy 
of 510 f., of accusing and condemn- 
ing 511, due to prepositions in 
composition 511 f., attraction of 
relative 512); of infinitive, 512; 
absolute, 512-4, 1131 f. 

German: passim. 


Gerundive: 157. See verbal adjec- 
tives. , 

Gnomic: aorist, 836 f.; present, 866; 
present perfect, 897. 

Gorgian figures: 1197 ff. 

Gothic: passim. 

Grammar: the ideal grammar, 3; the 
pre-Winer period, 3; the service 
of Winer, 4; the modern period, 
the service of Deissmana, Thumb, 
Moulton, ete., 5-7; the new gram- 
matical equipment, 8-31; sketch of 
Greek grammatical history, 8-10; 
advance in general Greek grammar, 
12; critical editions of Greek au- 
thors, 13; grammatical monographs, 
13; grammatical commentaries, 29; 
new point of view, 30; comparative, 
31-48; in Alexander’s time, 58-61; 
Greek grammarians and Latin, 
822; Alexandrian grammarians and 
adjectives, 650; passim. 

Greek authors: 13 f., 55, 57-9, 86f., 
94, 109, 121, 128 f., 147, 191, 199, 
203, 218, 227, 238, 251, 265 f., chap- 
ter on Formation of Words, and 
passim. See Index of Quotations. 

Greek language: sketch of Greek 
grammatical history, 8-13; relation 
to earlier tongues, 39; regarded as a 
whole, 40-45; unity of, 41 f.; peri- 
ods of, 43; the Greek point of view, 
46-48; passim. 

Greek culture: 14 ff., 35; subject to 
non-Greek influences, 49, 58, 67, 
75, 84f., 111 f., passim. 

Greek, later: see Byzantine or mod- 
ern Greek. 

Greek point of view: 46-8. 


H 


Headings, anarthrous: see article. 

Hebraisms: 3; the old view, 24 ff.; 
the revolt of Deissmann, 25 f.; 
number of, in N. T., 76 ff., 89; the 
traditional standpeint, 88 f.; trans- 
lation, 89f.; papyri and inscrip- 
tions disprove many, 90 f.; real, in 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


N. T., 94-6; greater indirect influ- 
ence of the LXX, 96-102; trans- 
literated words, 225; variety in 
N. T. writers, 106-8; on preposi- 
tions, 556 f.; doBetcba a6, 577; use 
of cis, 595 f.; superlative, 671; tense, 
822; passim. 

Hebraists: 76 ff., 88f., 90f. 

Hebrew: proper names, 214; trans- 
literated Hebrew words, 225; ac- 
cent of proper names, 236, 259, 
263, 268 ff., passim. 

Hebrews: literary quality of, 106; 
peculiarities of, 1382f.; alone of 
the N. T. books avoids hiatus, 206, 
218; rhythm in, 1196 f. 

Hellenism: influence on Paul, 86. 

Hellenistic: see xouv7. 

Hendiadys: 1206. 

Herculaneum: 196, 223, passim. 

Hermas: see Index of Quotations. 

Herodotus: 13, 57, 59, 266, passim. 

Heteroclisis: 257-9 (the first and 
second decls., the first and third); 
between second and third, 261 f.; 
between masculine and neuter of 
second, 262 f.; third decl., 269. 

Heterogeneous structure: 441 f., 
1199. 

Hiatus: 206-8, 219. 

Historic present: see present. 

Historical method of study: ch. II, 
31-48; historical element essential, 
31; descriptive historical grammar, 
41, 71, 78, 173-5; syntax, 386. 

History of words: 173 f. 

Homer and Homeric Greek: 249, 252, 
passim. See Index of Quotations. 

Hypallage: 1204. 

Hyperbaton: 423 f. 

Hyperbole: 1205. 

Hypocoristic: 171-3. 

Hypotaxis: 426f., 429f.; hypotactic 
sentences, 950-1049 (relative 953- 
62, causal 962-6, comparative 966— 
9, local 969f., temporal 970-9, 
final and consecutive 980-1003, 
wishes 1003 f., conditional 1004—27, 
indirect discourse 1027-48, series 
of subordinate clauses 1048 f.). 


1233 


Hypothetical sentences: see condi- 
tional sentences. 
Hysteron proteron: 423. 


I 


Identical pronouns: see intensive pro- 
nouns. 

Illative particles: see (inferential) con- 
junctions. 

Illiteracy: in the papyri, 70 f.; diver- 
sity of culture, 85; passim. 

Imperative: origin of, 320, 327-30 
(non-thematic stem 327, thematic 
stem 327 f., suffix —-# 328, suffix —rw 
328, old injunctive 328 f., forms in 
—cat 329, form in —gov 329, first per- 
son 329 f., prohibitions 330, perfect 
330, periphrastic 330, circumlocu- 
tions 330); perfect, 360 f.; use of 
aorist, 855 f.; present, 890; perfect, 
908; imper. and subj., 925; origin 
of, 941; meaning of, 941; disap- 
pearance of imperative forms, 
941 f.; alternatives for, 942-6 (fut. 
ind. 942 f., subj. 948, opt. 943, in- 
finitive 943 f., participle 944-6); 
uses of, 946-50 (command or ex- 
hortation 946 f., prohibition 947, 
entreaty 947f., permission 948, 
concession or condition 948 f., in 
asyndeton 949, in subordinate 
clauses 949 f., tenses 950, in indi- 
rect discourse 950); negative with, 
1161 f., 1170. 

Imperfect: relation of, to aorist, 837- 
40; doubtful, 882f.; descriptive 
tense in narrative, 883 f.; iterative or 
customary, 884; progressive, 884; 
inchoative or conative, 885; ‘‘nega- 
tive,” 885; potential, 885-7; in in- 
direct discourse, 887; periphrastic, 
887 f.; past perfect as, 888. 

Impersonal verbs: active, 802; con- 
struction, 820. 

‘‘Improper’’ prepositions: see prepo- 
sitions, 554, 636 ff. 

Inceptive action: 150. 

Incorporation of antecedent: 718 f., 
731, 733. 


1234 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Indeclinable words: accent, 236; sub- 
stantives, 259; various foreign 
words, 269 f.; adjectives, 275 f.; ri, 
736; 7, 744. 

Indefinite article: 674 f., 796. 

Indefinite pronouns: inflection of, 


292; ris, 741-4 (accent 741, relation - 


to ris 741f., as substantive 742, 
with numerals 742, with substan- 
tives 742 f., with adjectives 743, as 
predicate 743, position of 743, as 
antecedent 743, alternative 748, 
negative forms 748 f., indeclinable 
rt 744); eis, 744; was, 744; 6 detva, 
744. 

Independent sentences: 
taxis. 

Indicative: real mode, 320 f.; no mode 
sign, 322 f.; use of aor. ind., 835- 
48; future, 876; meaning of, 914 f.; 
kinds of sentences using, 915-8 
(declarative or interrogative 915-7, 
positive or negative 917 f.); special 
uses of, 918-24 (past tenses, for 
courtesy 918f., present necessity, 
obligation, ete. 919-21, apodosis 
of second class conditions 921-38, 
impossible wishes 923, present 
923 f., future 924); in indirect dis- 
course, 1032-6; negative with, 
1157-60, 1168 f. | 

Indirect discourse: exchange with 
direct, 442 f.; aorist participle in, 
863 f.; imperfect ind., 887; present 
part., 992; perfect in, 897; inf. perf., 
908; recitative 67 in oratio recta, 
1027 f.; change of person in indirect 
discourse, 1028 f.; change of tense 
in, 1029f.; change of mode in, 
1030 f.; limits of indirect disc., 
1031 f.; declarative clauses (indi- 
rect assertions), 1032-43 (é7 and 
indicative 1032-6, infinitive 1036- 
40, 1082-5, participle, 1040-2, 
1122-4, kai éyeero 1042 f.); indi- 
rect questions, 1043-6 (tense 1043, 
mode 1043 f., interrog. pronouns 
and conjunctions used 1044 f.); 
indirect command, 1046 f., 1082-5 
(deliberative questions 1046, con- 


see para- 


junctions wa and érws 1046, in- 
finitive, 1046 ff.); mixture, 1047 f.; 
the subordinate clause, 1048. 
Individuality of N. T. writers: 116-37. 
Indo-European: see Indo-Germanic. 
Indo-Germanic: 10, 37 ff., 145 ff., 209, 
217, passim. See comparative phil- 
ology (grammar). 
Inferential conjunctions: 1189-92. 
Infinitive: ending, 246; forms of, 368- 
71 (original terminology 368, fixed 
case-forms 368 f., with voice and 
tense 369f., no personal endings 
370, article with 371, disappearance 
of inf. 371, N. T. forms 371); in ap- 
position, 399 f.; in clauses, 431 f.; 
accusative with, 489 f.; in genitive, 
512; in dative, 541 f.; with adjec- 
tives, 658 f.; article with, 765; and 
voice, 802; use of aorist, 856-8; 
future, 876 f.; perfect, 908 f.; as im- 
perative, 943 f.; causal use of 6a 
76, 966; temporal use of, 978 f.; 
purpose, 989-91; sub-final, 996 f.; 
consecutive, 1001-3; in indirect 
discourse, 1036-40; in indirect 
command, 1046-8; origin of inf, 
1051 f.; development, 1052-6 (pre- 
historic period 1052, earliest his- 
toric period 1052-4, classic period 
1054-6, later period 1056-8); sub- 
stantival aspect& of inf., 1058-79 
(case, subject or object 1058-62, 
articular 1062-8, prepositions with 
1068-75, with substantives 1075 f., 
with adjectives 1076 f., with verbs 
1077 f., appositional and epexe- 
getical 1078 f.); verbal aspects of, 
1079-95 (voice 1079 f., tense 1080— 
2, cases with 1082, in ind. disc. 
1082-5, personal construction with 
1085 f., epexegetical inf. 1086 f., 
purpose 1087-9, result 1089-91, 
cause 1091, time 1091 f., absolute 
1092 f., negatives with 1093-5, 
1162, 1171, av with 1095); relation 
between part. and inf., 1101-3. 
Infixes: 146. 
Inflectional languages: 37. 
Ingressive action: see aorist. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Injunctive mood: 321, 328 f., 913. 

Inscriptions: the Greek inscriptions, 
14-6, 52, 56f., 66 ff., 76-80; more 
literary than the papyri, 84, 90 f., 
96 f., 100 f., 106, 116, 130 f., 188 f., 
148, 180, 181-938, 200, 202, ad libi- 
tum through the book. See Index 
of Quotations. 

Inseparable prefixes: 161-3. 

_ Instrumental case: endings, 249 f.; 
term, 525f.; syncretistic, 526; 
place, 526 f.; time, 527 f.; associa- 
tive idea, 528-30; with words of 
likeness and identity, 530; manner, 
530-2; with adjectives, 523, 530; 
measure, 532; cause, 532; means, 
532-4; with prepositions, 534 f. and 
ch. XIII. 

Instrumental use of év: 589-91. See 
also locative. 

Intensive particles: adverbs, 302; 
prepositions, 563 f.; limitations, 
1144-7; yé, 1147-9; 67, 1149; ef uny, 
vy and vai, 1150; perv, 1150-3; wép, 
1153 f.; roi, 1154 f. 

Intensive perfect: see perfect tense. 

Intensive pronouns: declension of, 
287; nominative use of atrés, 685 f.; 
varying degrees of emphasis, 686; 
avtés With otros, 686; airés almost 
demonstrative, 686, in oblique 
cases, 686 f.; side by side with re- 
flexive, 687; 6 abrés, 687. 

Interjections: 302, 1193. 

Interrogative particles: single ques- 
tions, 1175-7 (direct, no particle, 


negative, others, interrogative 
pronouns, conjunctions, indirect, 
pronouns, conjunctions); double 


questions, 1177 (direct, indirect). 
Interrogative pronouns: inflection of, 
291 f.; ris, 735-40 (substantival or 
adjectival 735, absence of gender 
735, =otos 735f., indeclinable ri 
736, alternative questions 736f., 
double 737, as relative 737 f., pred- 
icate ri 738, adverbial 738 f., with 
prepositions 739, with particles 
739, as exclamation 739, indirect 
questions 739, ris or 7ls 739 f.); 


1235 


motos, 740 (qualitative, non-quali- 
tative, indirect questions); zéaos, 
741 f. (rarity, meaning, indirect, 
exclamatory); aorepos, 741 (rare, 
indirect questions) ; rorazés, 741; in 
indirect questions, 1044 f. 

Intransitive: 330 f., 797 f., 806, 815 f. 

Inverse attraction: 488, 717 f. 

Ionic: earliest in literature, 16, 17; in- 
fluence on the xow?, 62 f.; on the 
N.T., 82, 181-93, 200, 203-6, 210f., 
217 f., ad libitum. 

Iota adscript: 194 f., 209. 

Iota subscript: 194 f. 

Ireland, bilingualism in: 30. 

Irony: 1198 f. 

Irrational final v and v: 194, 219-21. 

“Irregular” verbs: see list, 1212-20. 

Isolating languages: 37. 

Isolation of Greek, not true: 36-39. 

Itacism: 72, 178 ff., 182, 191 ff., 194~ 
7, 198-200, 239f., 265f., ad libi- 
tum. See ch. on Orthography and 
Phonetics. 


J 


James, peculiarities of: 123f. See 
Index of Quotations. 

Jesus, language of: both Aramaic 
and Greek, 26-9. 

“Jewish” Greek: see “Biblical” 
Greek, Hebraisms, Aramaic, xouw7. 

Jews: 83, 98 f., 102, ete. 

John, peculiarities of: 133-7. See 
Index of Quotations. 

Josephus: 28; an illustration of Atti- 
cistic Gk. in contrast with 1 Mac- 
cabees, 87, 236, 269, passim. See 
Index of Quotations. 

Jude: peculiarities of, 124 f. See In- 
dex of Quotations. 

Justin Martyr: see Index of Quota- 
tions. 


K 


Kalapetovoa: 18; artificial modern 
Greek, 36, 60, passim. 
Kinship of Greek words: 174 f, 


1236 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Kow?: 17, 18, 21-4, 32, 46; chapter 
on, 49-74; term, 49; origin, 49; tri- 
umph of the Attic, 51; fate of the 
other dialects, 52f.; influence of 
the dialects on the xow7, 53; partial 
koines, 53; effect of Alexander’s 
campaigns, 53f.; spread of the 
xown, 54-60; a real world-speech, 
54-56; vernacular, 56; literary, 57 f.; 
the Atticistic reaction, 58-60; char- 
acteristics of the vernacular koww7, 
60-73; vernacular Attic, the base 
of the xown, 60-2; the other dialects 
in the cow, 62-64; non-dialectical 
changes in, 64 f.; new words in, 65; 
new forms of old words, 65 f.; poet- 
ical and vernacular words, 65; new 
meanings to old words, 66; i/A.D. 
the climax of the xow7, 66; provin- 
cial influences in, 66-9; xowy in 
Asia Minor and in Alexandria, 67 f.; 
in Palestine, 69; cow a single lan- 
guage, 69; personal equation, 69— 
71; résumé of the characteristics of 
the vernacular xow7, 71—4 (phonetics 
and orthography 71 f., vocabulary 
72, word-formation 72, accidence 
72 f., syntax 73 f.); adaptability of 
the xow7 to the Roman world, 74 f.; 
place of the N. T. in the xown, 
76-140, 152 f., 159 f., 161-8, 171; 
accent in, 228 f.; pronunciation in, 
236-41; ad libitum in the book. 


L 


Labials: assimilation before, 216, 264, 
1210. 

Language of Jesus: 26-9, 99, 102 f., 
105. See Jesus. 

Language, study of: the fascination 
of, 3; the new point of view, 8-12; 
as history, 31; a living organism, 
origin of, evolution in, changes in 
vernacular, 33f.; Greek not iso- 
lated, 36; common bond in, 37, pas- 
sim. 

Late Greek: see Byzantine. 

Latin: 36, 39, 46 f.; late Latin as in 
kowh, 55, 74, 79, 103; Latinisms in 


the N. T., 108-11, 181, 187, 144, 
passim. 

Latin authors: 85, 108 f., 128, passim. 
See Index of Quotations. 

Latin versions: passim. 

Latinisms: 108-10, 131, ete. 

Lesbian: 17, 184, 249. See AXolic. 

Letters: as distinct from epistles, 70, 
85 ff. 

Lewis Syriac: passim. 

Lexical: new knowledge of words, 
65f.; N. T. lexicography needing 
reworking, 144, passim. 

Limitative infinitive: see infinitive. 

Linear action: see durative. 

Literary element in N. T.: 83-8. 

Literary xow7: true part of the Kou, 
50, 57 f.; literary elements in the 
N. T., 83-8, 106; high standard of 
culture in the Greco-Roman world, 
85. 

Literary plural: 406 f., 677 f. 

Litotes: 1205. 

Local cases: 451. See cases. 

Local clauses: 969 f. 

Locative: form, 249f.; name, 520; 
significance, 520 f.; place, 521 f. 
time, 522 f.; with adjectives, 523; 
with verbs, 523 f.; with substan- 
tives, 524; with prepositions, 524 f. 
and ch. XIII; pregnant construc- 
41002020. 

Lucian: see Index of Quotations. 

Luke: literary element in, 106; pecu- 
liarities of, 120-3, 135, 179, 240, 
passim. See Index of Quotations. 

Luther’s German Bible: influence of, 
92. 

LXX: see Septuagint. 

Lycaonian: vernacular surviving in 
Kown, 55 f, 


M 


Macedonian: influence on the xow%, 
63 f.; words, 111. 

Magnesia: 196, 200, 208, 223, passim. 

Manner: sce adverbs, instrumental 
case, participle. 

Manuscripts of N. T.: vary in or- 
thography, 179-89, 191-231; show 





INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


changes in pronunciation, 239 ff.; 
have beginnings of chapters and 
paragraphs, 241 f.; uncials have no 
distinction between words, 242 ff.; 
ad libitum. 

Mark: Aramaic influence in, 106; 
Latin, 110; peculiarities of, 118 f. 
See Index of Quotations. 

Masculine: see gender. 

Matthew: Aramaic influence in, 106; 
peculiarities of, 119 f., 135, passim. 
See Index of Quotations. 

Means: see instrumental case, é, par- 
ticiple. 

Meiosis: 1205 f. 

Metaphor: 1206. 

Metaplasm: 257-9, 261-3, 269. 

Metathesis: 221, 1210. 

Metonymy: 1207. 

Middle: passive displacing, 333 f.; 
endings, 339 f.; giving way to ac- 
tive, 356; perfect, 359; with reflex- 
ive pronoun, 690 f.; origin of, 803; 
meaning of, 803 f.; acute difference 
from active, 804; use of not obli- 
gatory, 804—6; transitive or intran- 
sitive, 806; direct, 806-8; causative 
or permissive, 808 f.; indirect, 809 f.; 
redundant, 811; dynamic (depo- 
nent), 811-3; middle future though 
active present, 813 f.; retreating in 
INTs, S14: 

Minuscules: 217, passim. 

Mixed declension: 263. See declen- 
sions. 

Mode (mood): conjugation of, 320- 
30 (number of 320f., distinctions 
between 321f., indicative 322 f., 
subjunctive 323 ff., optative 325 ff., 
imperative 327-30); syntax of, ch. 
XIX, 911-1049; introductory dis- 
cussion, 910—4; in paratactic sen- 
tences, 914-50 (indicative 914-24, 
subjunctive 924-35, optative 935- 
40, imperative 941-50); in hypo- 
tactic sentences, 950-1049 (use of 
modes in 950, use of conjunctions 
in 951 f., logical varieties of sub- 
ordinate clauses 952-1049: relative 
953-62, causal 962-6, comparative 


1237 


966-9, local 969 f., temporal 970-9, 
final and consecutive 980-1003, 
wishes 1003 f., conditional 1004-27, 
indirect discourse 1027-48, series 
of subordinate clauses 1048 f.); 
change of mode in indirect dis- 
course, 10380 f. 

Modern Greek: literature on, 22-4; 
importance for N. T. Gk., 44-6; 
illustrating N. T. Gk., 137 f., 147, 
150, 155, 177 f., 557, ad libitum. 

Mood: see mode. 

Music: 228. 

Mycenzan age: 43 f. 


N 


Names of persons: see proper names. 

Narrative, tenses in, in Greek: see 
aorist, imperfect, present, present 
perfect. 

Negative particles: in relative clauses, 
962; with inf., 1093-5; with parti- 
ciple, 1186-9; objective od and its 
compounds, 1155-66 (origin 1155, 
history 1156, meaning 1156 f., with 
the indicative, independent sen- 
tences, subordinate clauses 1157— 
60, with the subjunctive 1160 f., 
with the optative 1161, with the 
imperative 1161 f., with infinitive 
1162, with the participle 1162 f., 
with nouns 1163 f., cai od 1164, 
redundant or pleonastic od 1164, 
repetition of od 1164, intensify- 
ing compound 1164 f., disjunctive 
1165 f.); subjective uA and its com- 
pounds, 1166-75 (history of uf 
1166 f., significance of 1167, uses 
of uy, indicative 1168 f., subjunc- 
tive 1169 f., optative 1170, impera- 
tive 1170, infinitive 1171, participle 
1172, nouns 1172, intensifying com- 
pounds 1172f., cat py 1173, dis- 
junctive use 1173); combination of 
two negatives, 1173-5 (u7 ob 1173f., 
ob wy 1174 f.). 

Negative pronouns: ovdels, oiels, ode, 
els, els — od, 750 f.; otrts, uh tis, 


751 {.; ob was, uw) was, 752 f, 


1238 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Neuter: as substantive, 156, 267 f.; 
see gender. 

Neutral type of text: 180, 212, 219, 
passim. 

New material: ch. I, 3-80. 

New Testament, Greek of: place in 
the xown, 76-140; chiefly the ver- 
nacular, 76-83; not a biblical Greek, 
77-79; proof that in the vernacu- 
lar, 79-83; the lexical proof from 
the papyri and inscriptions, 80-2; 
accidence corroborated by papyri 
and inscriptions, 82; syntactical 
peculiarities, 82f.; phrases com- 
mon to N. T. and papyri, 83; liter- 
ary elements in N. T. Gk., 83-8; 
literary quality in the N. T., 84; 
controversy now whether there is 
appreciable Semitic colouring in the 
N. T., 88 f.; view of Deissmann and 
Moulton, 89-93; some real Hebra- 
isms in the N. T., 92 f.; little direct 
Hebrew influence, list of probable 
Hebraisms, 94-6; deeper impress 
of the LXX in vocabulary, acci- 
dence and syntax, though great 
variety in the LX X, 96-102; Ara- 
maisms in the N. T., in vocabulary 
and in syntax, 102-5; variation in 
Aramaic and Hebrew colouring in 
different parts of the N. T., 106-8; 
Latinisms in the N. T., names of 
persons and places, military terms, 
words and phrases, syntax, 108-11; 
sporadic foreign words in the N. T., 
111; the Christian addition, 112-6; 
transfiguration of the vocabulary, 
116; individual peculiarities of N. 
T. writers, 116-37; see separate 
writers by name; N. T. Gk. illus- 
trated by modern Gk., 137 ff.; syn- 
tax of, 381-3. 

N. T. authors: 28 f., 76-139. See In- 
dex of Quotations. 

Nominative: nominativus pendens in 
the vernacular xow, 73; form as 
vocative, 264, 461; N. T. forms in, 
267 f.; not the oldest case, 456; 
reason for, 457; predicate, 457 f.; 
sometimes unaltered, 458 f.; abso- 


lute, 459f.; parenthetic, 460; in 
exclamations, 461; absolute, 1130. 

Non-thematic present stems: sce 
present tense. | 

Northwest Greek: remains of, in the 
kown, 53}; influence of, 61, 63; on the 
N. T., 82, 266, passim. 

Nouns: root-nouns, 145; substantive 
and adjective, 246; verbal, ch. XX; 
negatives with, 1163 f., 1172. 

Number: in substantives, 251 f.; 
concord in, 403-9 (subject and pre- 
dicate 403-7, substantive and adjec- 
tive 407 f., representative singular 
408, idiomatic plural in nouns 408, 
idiomatic singular in nouns 409, 
special instances 409); adjective 
and substantive, 654 f.; oiros, 704; 
éxetvos, 708; ds, 714; dares, 729; oios, 
ole 

Numerals: declension of, 281-4 (ori- 
gin of 281, different functions of 
281, cardinals 281-3, ordinals 283 f., 
distributives 284, proportionals 
284, adverbs 284); syntax of, 671-5 
(ets and mp&ros 671 f., simplification 
of the ’teens 672, inclusive ordinal 
672, distributives 673, cardinal 
ér7a 673f., substantive not ex- 
pressed 674, adverbs with 674, els 
as indefinite article 674 f., efs=7us 
675, distributive use of eis 675); 
ts With, 742; article with ordinals, 
793 f. : 


O 


Object of verb: see cases. 
Object-clauses: see hypotaxis. 
Oblique cases: 247. See cases. 

Old Testament: 99. See Septuagint 
and Index of Quotations. 

Onomatopoetic: 1201. 

Optative: origin of form, 320, 325-7; 
perfect, 360 f., 907 f.; use of aorist, 
854 f.; future, 876; present, 889 f.; 
opt. and subj., 925f.; history of, 
935 f.; significance, 936f.; three 
uses, 937—40 (futuristic or potential 
937-9, volitive 939 f., deliberative 
940); as imper., 948; in indirect dis- 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


course, 1030f., 1043f.; negative 
with, 1161, 1170. 

Oratio obliqua: see indirect discourse. 

Oratio recta: see direct discourse. 

Oratio variata: 440-3 (distinctive 
from anacoluthon 441 f., heteroge- 
neous structure 441 f., participle in 
442, exchange of direct and indirect 
discourse 442 f.). 

Oratory: in Hebrews, 1198. 

Ordinals: see number. 

Orthography: in the vernacular xovv7, 
71f.; ch. VI, 176—245; the ancient 
literary spelling, 177 f. 

Ostraca: 17-21; texts of, 22, 91, 191, 
266, passim. 

Oxyrhynchus papyri: see Index of 
Quotations. 


L 


Palatals: 216 f., 1210. 

Papyri: literature on, 17-22, 52, 56f., 
66 ff.; illustrate the vernacular xow7, 
69; illiteracy in, 70f.; and the N. 
T. Gk., 80-3; agreeing with the un- 
cials in orthography, 181; accidence 
and syntax of, 381; ad libitum 
through the book. 

Parable: 1206 f. 

Paragraph: discussion of, 241 f.; con- 
nection between, 444. 

Paraleipsis: 1199. 

Parallelism: 1199 f. 

Parataxis: 426, 428; modes in para- 
tactic sentences, 914—50, 953, 980F. ; 
paratactic conjunctions, 1177-92. 

Parechesis: 1201. 

Parenthesis: 433-5; parenthetic nom- 
inative, 460. 

Paronomasia: 1201. 

Participle: in —v7a, 256; forms of, 371- 
6 (name 371f., verbal adjectives 
372 f., with tense and voice 373 f., 
in periphrastic use 374-6); gender 
in, 412; case, 413; in clauses, 431 f.; 
in anacoluthon, 439 f.; in oratio 
variata, 442; ace. absolute, 490 f.; 
gen. absolute, 512-4; adverbs with, 
546; as adverbs, 551; article with, 
764 f., 777-9; use of aorist, 858-64; 


1239 


future, 877 f.; present, 891 f.; per- 
fect, 909 f.; participle as imperative 
944-6; causal, 966; temporal use, 
979; purpose, 991; in indirect dis- 
course, 1040-2; history of part., 
1098-1100 (Sanskrit 1098, Homer’s 
time 1098, Attic period 1098 f., 
korn 1099, modern Gk. 1099 f.); 
significance, 1100—4 (originally an 
adjective 1100 f., addition of verbal 
functions 1101, double aspect of 
1101, relation between part. and 
inf. 1101-8, method of treating 
1103 f.); adjectival aspects of, 
1104-10 (declension 1104, attribu- 
tive, anarthrous, articular 1105-8, 
predicate 1108, as a substantive 
1108 f., as an adverb 1109 f.); ver- 
bal aspects of, 1110-41 (voice 
1110f., tense 1111-9, timelessness 
1111, aorist 1112-4, present 1115 f., 
perfect 1116-8, future 1118 f., cases 
1119, supplementary 1119-24, peri- 
phrastic construction 1119f., di- 
minution of complementary 1120f., 
with verbs of emotion 1121 f., in- 
direct discourse 1122-4; circum- 
stantial, participial clauses 1124— 
32 (general theory 1124, varieties 
of, time, manner, means, cause, 
purpose, condition, concession 
1125-80, absolute nominative, ac- 
cusative, genitive 1130-2); inde- 
pendent, 1132-5; co-ordination 
between, 1135 f.; od and yp with, 
1136-9, 1162 f., 1172; other par- 
ticles with, 1139-41). 

Particles: elision with, 207; with sub- 
ordinate clauses, 950-1049; with 
participle, 1036-41; scope, 1142- 
4; intensive or emphatic, 1144— 

55; negative, 1155-75; interroga- 
tive, 1175-7; conjunctions, 1177-93 
(paratactic, 1177-92, hypotactic 
1192 f.); interjections, 1193. 

Partitive: apposition, 399, 746; geni- 
tive, 502, 519; ablative, 519; use 
of é, 599; with éxacros, 746. 

Passive: supplanting middle, 333 f.; 
endings, 340 f.; future, second and 


1240 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


first, 356f.; perfect, 359; o in 
aorist, 362; with accusative, 484-6; 
origin of, 814f.; significance of, 
815; intransitive or transitive, 
815f.; syntax of aorist, 816 ff.; 
passive ‘‘deponents,”’ 817 f.; future, 
818-20; agent with, 820; impersonal 
construction, 820. 

Past perfect: relation of aorist to, 
837-40; double idea, 903; a luxury 
in Greek, 903 f.; intensive, 904; ex- 
tensive, 904 f.; of broken continu- 
ity, 905 f.; in conditional sentences, 
906; periphrastic, 906; éxeiuny, 906; 
augment in, 1211 f. 

Patronymics: 155. 

Paul: 54 ff.; and Hellenism, 84-8, 106; 
peculiarities of, 127-31, 135, 179, 
195, 218, ad libitum. See Index of 
Quotations. 

Perfect, future: see future perfect. 

Perfect, past: see past perfect. 

Perfect, present: of —w verbs, 319 f.; 
imperative, 330; conjugation of, 
359-62 (name 359, original perfect 
359f., « perfect 358f., aspirated 
359, middle and passive 359, decay 
of perfect forms 359 f., in subjunc- 
tive, optative, imperative 360, in- 
dicative 360-2, o in middle and 
passive 362); reduplication in, 363- 
5; completed state, 823 f.; relation 
of aorist to, 848-5; present as per- 
fect, 881; perfect as present, 881; 
idea of, 892-4 (present, intensive, 
extensive, time); present perfect in- 
dicative, 894-903 (intensive 894 f., 
extensive 895f., of broken con- 
tinuity 896, dramatic historical 
896 f., gnomic 897, in indirect dis- 
course 897 f., futuristic 898, “‘ aoris- 
tic’? present perfect 898-902, peri- 
phrastic 902f.); subj. and opt., 
907 f.; infinitive, 9O8f. (indirect 
discourse 908 f., not indirect disc., 
subject or object, preposition 909) ; 
participle, 909 f. and 1116-8 (mean- 
ing, time, various uses, periphras- 
tic). 

“Perfective”: use of prepositions, 


563 f.; ard, 576f.; 5:4, 581f.; &, 
596 f.; éri, 600; xara, 606; rapa, 613; 
rept, 617; rpds, 623; abv, 627 f.; bzép, 
629; “perfective” and “‘imperfec- 
tive,’ 826-8. 

Pergamum: a centre of culture, 56 ff., 
61, 63, 66, 75, 111, 208, 223, passim. 

Period: use of, 242 f. 

Periodic structure: 432 f., 1200. 

Periods of N. T. grammatical study: 
3-7. 

Periods of the Greek language: 
43 f. 

Periphrasis: with participle, 330, 357, 
374-6, 826, 878, 887f., 889, 906, 
1119 f. 

Persian: words in N. T., 111. 

Person: concord in, 402 f,, 
change in ind. disc., 1028 f. 

Person-endings: 329, 335; active, 
335-9. 

Personal construction: with adjec- 
tive, 657 f.; with inf., 1085 f. 

Personal equation: in the xouv7, 69 ff., 
179. 

Personal pronouns: question of airod, 
226; inflection of, 286 f.; nomina- 
tive, 676-80 (emphasis in 676, first 
677 f., second 678, third 679 f.); 
oblique cases, 680-2 (originally 
reflexive 680 f., abrod 681, genitive 
for possessive 681, enclitic forms 
681f.); frequency of, 682 f.; re- 
dundant, 683; according to sense, 
683 f.; repetition of substantive, 
684. 

Peter: peculiarities of, 125-7. See 
Index of Quotations. 

Philo: see Index of Quotations. 

Philology: see comparative grammar. 

Phocian: 266. 

Pheenician: words in N. T., 111, 182, 
209, passim. 

Phonetics: in the vernacular xowv7, 
71f.; ch. VI, 177-245. 

Phrygia: old dialect of, 67. 

Pindar: see Index of Quotations. 

Pindaric construction: 405. 

Plato: see Index of Quotations. 

Play on words: 1201. 


712; 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Pleonasm: in pronouns, 683; od, 1164, 
1205. 

Pluperfect: see past perfect. 

Plural: 251. See number. 

Plutarch: see Index of Quotations. 

Poetry: see rhythm. 

Point-action: see punctiliar. 

Polybius: see Index of Quotations. 

Polysyndeton: 1194. 

Pompeian: 186, passim. 

Pontic infinitive: 1056, 1063. 

Position: of words, 417-25 (freedom 
417, predicate 417, emphasis 417 f., 
minor words in 418f., euphony 
and rhythm 419-23, prolepsis 423, 
hysteron proteron 423, hyperbaton 
423 f., postpositives 424f., fluc- 
tuating words 424f., order of 
clauses in compound sentences 
425); of genitive, 502 f.; of article 
with attributive, 776-89; with pred- 
icate, 789 f. 

Positive: adjective, 276, 659-61. 

Possessive pronouns: inflection of, 
288 f.; article as, 684; only first 
and second in N.T., 684; emphasis, 
684 f.; with article, 685; possessive 
and genitive, 685; objective use, 
685; instead of reflexive, 685; ar- 
ticle as, 769 f.; article with, 770. 

Postpositive: 424; some prepositions, 
553. 

Potential: 
937-9. 

Predicate: essential part of sentence, 
390 f.; only predicate, 390 f.; verb 
not the only, 394 f.; copula not es- 
sential, 395 f.; one of the radiating 
foci, 396f.; expansion of, 400 f. 
(predicate in wider sense 400, inf. 
and part. 400, relation between 
predicate and substantive 400, pro- 
noun 400, adjective 401, adverb 
401, prepositions 401, negative par- 
ticles 401, subordinate clauses 401, 
apposition and looser amplifica- 
tions 401); agreeing with subject, 
403-6; position, 417; pred. nomina- 
tive, 457 f.; vocative in, 464 f.; ad- 
jective, 655 f.; nouns with article, 


imperfect, 885-7; opt., 


1241 


767-9; article with, 789f., 794; 
participle, 1108. 
Prefixes: 146; inseparable, 161-3. 


Pregnant construction: 525, 548, 
584 f., 591-3. 

Prepositional adverbs: new ones, 
169 f. 


Prepositions: double in composition, 
160, 165; adverbs, 301; encroach- 
ment on cases, 450-3; accusative 
with, 491; genitive with, 505; effect 
of compound preps. on case, 511 f., 
542 f.; with ablative, 516 f.; with 
locative, 524 f.; with instrumental, 
534 f.; with dative, 537 f.; phrases, 
550 f.; ch. XIII, 553-649; name, 
553 f. (some postpositive 553, orig- 
inal use not with verbs 553, expla- 
nation 553f.); origin of, 554 f. 
(originally adverbs 554, reason for 
use of 554, varying history 555); 
growth in use of, 555-7 (once none 
555, still adverbs in Homer 555, 
decreasing use as adverbs 555 f., 
Semitic influence in N. T. 556f., 
modern Greek 557); in composition 
with verbs, 557-65 (not the main 
function 557 f., prep. alone 558, in- 
creasing use 558, repetition after 
verb 559f., different preposition 
after verb 560 ff., second preposi- 
tion not necessary 562 f., dropped 
with second verb 563, intensive or 
perfective 563f., double compounds 
565); repetition and variation of, 
565-7 (same prep. with different 
case 565, repetition with several 
nouns 566, repetition with the rela- 
tive 566f., 721, condensation by 
variation 567); functions of, with 
cases, 567—71 (case before prep. 567, 
notion of dimension 567, original 
force of the case 567f., ground- 
meaning of the prep. 568, oblique 
cases alone with 568, original free- 
dom 568 f., no adequate division 
by cases 569, situation in N. T. 
569 f.: with one case, with two, 
with three, one with four, each 
prep. in a case 570f.); “proper” 


1242 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


prepositions in N. T., 571-636; ava, 
571 f.; avri, 572-4; ard, 574-80 
(original significance 575 f., mean- 
ing “back” 576f., ‘‘translation- 
Hebraism” in ¢oBetcbac ard 577, 
comparison with é 577f., com- 
parison with zapa 578 f., compared 
with td 579 f.); da, 580-4 (root- 
idea 580, by twos or between 580 f., 
passing between or through 581 ff., 
because of 583 f.); é, 584-91 (old 
use with accusative or locative 
584 f., older than eis 585f., place 
586, time 586 f., among 587, in the 
case of 587f., as a dative 588, 
accompanying circumstance 588, 
amounting to 589, instrumental 
use of 589-91); eis, 591-6 (original 
static use 591-3, with verbs of mo- 
tion 593 f., time 594, like a dative 
594, aim or purpose 594 f., predica- 
tive use 595 f., compared with é7i, 
mapa and pds 596); &, 596-600 
(meaning 596, in composition 596 f., 
place 597, time 597, separation 
597 f., origin or source 598 f., par- 
titive use of 599, é and & 599 f.); 
éri, 600-5 (ground-meaning 600, in 
composition 600, frequency in N. 
T. 600f., with the accus. 601 f., 
with the gen. 602-4, with the loc. 
604 f., the true dative 605); xara, 
605-9 (root-meaning 605f., dis- 
tributive sense 606, in composition 
606, with ablative 606 f., with geni- 
tive 607, with accusative 607-9); 
pera, 609-12 (root-meaning 609, in 
composition 609 f., loss of locative 
use 610, with genitive 610-2, with 
accusative 612); zapa, 612-6 (sig- 
nificance 612, compared with zpés 
613, in composition 613, with the 
locative 614, with the ablative 
614 f., with the accusative 615 f.); 
mepi, 616-20 (root-meaning 617, in 
composition 617, originally with 
four cases 617, with the ablative 
617 f., with the genitive 618 f., with 
the accusative 619 f.); apé, 620-2 
(original meaning 620, in composi- 


tion 620f., cases used with 621, 
place 621, time 621 f., superiority 
622); mpos, 622-6 (meaning 622 f., 
in composition 628, originally with 
five cases 623, with ablative 623 f., 
with the locative 624, with the ac- 
cusative 624-6); civ, 626-8 (mean- 
ing 626 f., history 627, in composi- 
tion 627 f., N. T. usage 628); iép, 
628-33 (meaning 629, in composi- 
tion 629, with genitive 629 f., with 
ablative 630-2, with accusative 
632 f.); tré, 6383-6 (meaning 633, 
in composition 633, cases once used 
with 634f., with the accusative 
635, with the ablative 635 f.); the 
“adverbial” or “improper”’ prepo- 
sitions, 636-48 (aua 638, avev 638, 
avrixpus 638, avrizepa 688 f., arévayte 
639, drep 639, axpr(s) 639, evyyis 
639 f., éxrds 640, Eurpoober 640, evar- 
tt 640, évavriov 640, évexa 641, evrds 
641, &aomov 641 f., €&w 642, eravw 
642, érexeva 642, ow 642 f., ews 643, 
katevavtt 643, katrerwriov 644, KuKdd- 
bev 644, Kixrw 644, weoov 644, yera- 
£b 645, wexpr 645, dmicbev 645, dzriow 
645, ove 645f., mapardnoov 646, 
mapextos 646, repay 646, rAnv 646, 
twAnolov 646, brepavw 646 f., brepe- 
kava 647, brepexrepiccod 647, do- 
Katw 647, xapw 647, xwpis 647 f.); 
compound prepositions, 648; prep- 
ositional circumlocutions, 648 f. 
(uécov, Svoua, mpdcwmov, xelp); ad- 
jectives of comparison with, 661, 
667; article with, 766; effect on ac- 
tive voice, 800; with infinitive, 
1068-75. 


Present tense: 78, 119 £::1237°145, 


150, 203; of -ue verbs, 311-9; 
classes of present stems, 350-3 
(non-thematic reduplicated 350, 
non-thematic with —va and —yv 351, 
simple thematic 351, reduplicated 
thematic 351, thematic with suffix 
001, 351-8, with o dropped 353); 
relation of aorist to, 841-3; punc- 
tiliar (aoristic), 864-70 (specific 
865 f., gnomic 866, historical pres- 


ee 


ea ee 


INDEX OF 


ent 866-9, futuristic 869f.); du- 
rative (linear) indicative, 879-82 
(descriptive 879, progressive 879 f., 
iterative or customary 880, inchoa- 
tive or conative 880, historical 880, 
deliberative 880 f., as perfect 881, 
perfect as present 881, futuristic 
881 f.); durative subj. and opt., 
889 f.; durative imperative, 890; 
durative infinitive, 890 f.; durative 
participle, 891 f. and 1115-6 (rela- 
tive time 891, futuristic 891, de- 
scriptive 891, conative 892, ante- 
cedent time 892, indirect discourse 
892, with the article 892, past ac- 
tion still in progress 892, ‘‘subse- 
quent’’ 892, durative future 892). 

Principal parts of important verbs in 
N. T.: 1212-20. 

Proclitics: accent of, 235; rules for 
accent of, 1211. 

Prodiorthosis: 1199. 

“Profane Greek’’: 5, 89. 

Prohibition: see imperative, aorist 
subj., future indicative, infinitive. 

Prolepsis: 423. 

Pronouns: 226, 234; declension of, 
284-93 (idea of 284 f., antiquity of 
285, pronominal roots 285 f., classi- 
fication of 286-93); syntax of, ch. 
XV, 676-753; personal, 676-84; 
possessive, 684f.; intensive and 
identical, 685-7; reflexive, 687-92; 
reciprocal, 692 f.; demonstrative, 
693-710; relative, 710-35; inter- 
rogative, 735—41; indefinite, 741-4; 
alternative or distributive, 744-50; 
negative, 750-3. 

Pronunciation: 71 f., 236-41. 

Proper names: abbreviated, 171-3, 
184, 205; doubling of consonants 
in Hebrew and Aramaic, 214 f.; ac- 
cent of, 235; foreign names, 235 f.; 
mixed declension of, 263; in third 
decl., 269f.; article with, 759 ff., 
791, passim. 

“Proper”? prepositions: 554, 636 f. 

IIpoowSia: 228. 

Protasis: see conditional clauses, 
1007-27. 


SUBJECTS 145 


Prothetic vowels: 205 f., 1209. 

Psilosis: 191, 222-5. 

Psychological treatment of grammar: 
32. 

Ptolemaic: 210, 220, 256, passim. 

Pun: 1201. 

Punctiliar action: 823f., 830-79 
(aorist 831-64, present 864—70, fu- 
ture 870-9). | 

Punctuation: discussion of, 241-5 (the 
paragraphs 241 f., sentences 242 f., 
words 243 f., editor’s prerogative 
245). 

Purists: 3, 76 ff., 88, 90f., 160, pas- 
sim. 

Purpose: see final clauses. 


Q 


Qualitative use of anarthrous nouns: 
see article. 

Questions: és in direct, 725; és in in- 
direct, 725 f.; dc7s, direct 729 f., 
indirect 730 f.; otos, 731; dc0s, 733; 
see direct discourse, indirect dis- 
course, interrogative pronouns, in- 
terrogative particles, mode; indi- 
rect, 1043-6; deliberative, 1046; 
single, 1175-7; double, 1177; par- 
ticles in direct, 1175 f.; indirect, 
1176 f. 

Quotations in O. T.: 206, 242 f. 


R 


Reciprocal pronouns: inflection of, 
292 f.; reflexive as, 690; syntax of, 
692 f. 

Recitative §ri: 1027 f.; see direct dis- 
course. 

Redundance: see pleonasm. 

Reduplication: discussion of, 362-5 
(primitive 362, both nouns and 
verbs 362, in three tenses in verbs 
362 f., three methods in 363, in the 
perfect 363-5). 

Reflexive pronouns: inflection of, 
287 f.; personal originally so, 680 f., 
685; distinetive use, 687f.; no 
nominative, 688; indirect, 688; in 


1244 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


singular, 688 f.; in plural, 689 f.; 
article with, 690; in reciprocal 
sense, 690; with middle voice, 690 f., 
811; use of iévos, 691 f.; with active 
voice, 802. 

Relative pronouns: inflection of, 290f.; 
inverse attraction, 488; attraction 
to genitive, 512; attraction to ab- 
lative, 519 f.; repetition of preposi- 
tions with, 566 f.; list in the N. T., 
710f.; name, 711; bond between 
clauses, 711; és, 711-26 (Gn Homer 
711, comparison with other rela- 
tives 711 f., with any person 712, 
gender 712ff., number 714, case 
714-9, absence of antecedent 719 ff., 
prepositions with antecedent and 
relative 721, phrases 721f., pleo- 
nastic antecedent 722 f., repetition 
of 8s 723f., consecutive idea 724, 
causal 724 f., direct questions 725, 
indirect questions 725f., idiom 
obdeis éotiv bs 726); Sorts, 726-31 
(varied uses 726, distinction be- 
tween és and doris 726 f., indefinite 
use 727, definite exx. 727 f., =value 
of és 728, case 728 f., number 729, 
direct questions 729f., indirect 
730 f.); otos, 731 f. (relation to és 
731, incorporation 731, indirect 
question 731, number 731, oidv re 
éotw 732); drotos, 732 (qualitative, 
double office, correlative); 
732 f{. (quantitative, antecedent, at- 
traction, incorporation, repetition, 
with ay, indirect question, compari- 
son, adverbial); Aixos, 733 f.; 4, 
734 f.; ris as, 737 f. 

Relative sentences: originally para- 
tactic, 953; most subordinate 
clauses relative in origin, 953 f.; 
usually adjectival, 955 f.; modes 
in, 955f.; definite and indefinite, 
956 f.; use of av in, 957-9; special 
uses of, 960-2; negatives in, 962; 
causal, 965 f.; purpose, 989; sub- 
final, 996; consecutive, 1001. 

Relative time: see tense. 

Repetition: of substantive, 684; of és, 
723 f.; of dc0s, 733. 


boos, 


Result: see consecutive clauses. 

Reuchlinian pronunciation: 240. 

Revelation: see Apocalypse. 

Rhetoric: figures of speech, 1194— 
1208. 

Rhetorical questions: with the ind., 
924; with the subj., 930; in Paul, 
1198. 

Rhythm: metrical passages so printed 
in W. H., 242; position as showing, 
417-23; poetry, 421 f. 

Roman Empire and the xow7: 74 f. 

Romans: passim. See Index of Quo- 
tations. 

Roots: in Sanskrit, 38; discussion of, 
144-6; verb-root, 344 f. 

Running style: 432 f. 


Ss 


Sahidic: 202, passim. 

Sanskrit: the discovery of Sanskrit, 
10, 86 f., 39 f., 47, 148, 145 f., 246— 
8; voice in, 798 f., ad libitum. 

Second Epistle of Peter: passim. See 
Index of Quotations. 

Second or o declension: 257, 259-63. 

Semitic: 37, 88-108, 198, 205, 212, 
225, 236, passim. See Aramaic and 
Hebrew. 

Sentence, the: punctuation of, 242 f.; 
discussion of, ch. X, 390-445; the 
sentence and syntax, 390; sentence 
defined, 390-7 (complex conception 
390, two essential parts 390 f., one- 
membered sentence 391, elliptical 
391, only predicate 391-3, only 
subject 393f., verb not the only 
predicate 394 f., copula not neces- 
sary 395 f., two radiating foci 396 f., 
varieties of the simple sentence 
397); expansion of the subject, 397— 
400; expansion of the predicate, 
400 f.; subordinate centres in the 
sentence, 402; concord in person, 
402 f.; concord in number, 403-9; 
concord in gender, 410-3; concord 
in case, 413-6; position of words in, 
417-25; compound: sentences, 425—- 
7; connection in sentences, 427-44 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


(single words 427, clauses 428-32, 
two kinds of style 432f., paren- 
thesis 433-5, anacoluthon 435-40, 
oratio variata 440-3, connection 
between sentences 443, between 
paragraphs 444, forecasts 444 f.); 
independent or paratactic, 914-50; 
subordinate or hypotactic, 950- 
1049. 

Septuagint: influence of Jews in Al- 
exandria, 84; in the vernacular 
cow? Of Alexandria, 91; Hebraisms 
in the LXX, 91; influence of the 
LXX on the N. T., nature of this 
influence and character of the LX X 
itself, 96-102; ‘septuagint-Gre- 
cisms”’ in Luke, 108, 118-26, 183- 
92, 198-204, 208-11, 2138-27, ad li- 
bitum. 

Sequence, rules of: see indirect dis- 
course. 


Simile: 1206. 
Sinaiticus, Codex: spelling of, 179, 
passim. 


Singular: 251. See number. 

Socrates: 75 f. 

Solecisms: in the Apocalypse, 413-6. 

Sophocles: see Index of Quota- 
tions. 

Sources for study of koi: see ch. I 
and xowv7. 

Southeast dialects: 211, passim. 

Spoken Greek: see vernacular. 

Stoic: grammarians, 143; dialectic, 
1197. 

Style: in Scripture, 87; two kinds of, 
432 f.;in the N. T., 116-39, 1194-7. 
See individual peculiarities. 

Sub-final: see final and consecutive. 

Subject: essential part of sentence, 
390 f.; ellipsis of, 391; only sub- 
ject used, 393 f.; one of the radiat- 
ing foci, 396f.; expansion of the 
subject, 397-400 (idea-words and 
form-words 397, concord and gov- 
ernment 397 f., group around 398— 
400, subordinate clause 398, with 
the article 398, the adverb 398, the 
adjective 398, the substantive in 
an oblique case 398, or in apposition 


1245 


398-400); subject and predicate as 
to concord, 403-7 (two conflicting 
principles 403, neuter plural and 
singular verb 403 f., collective sub- 
stantives 404 f., singular verb with 
first subject 405 f., literary plural 
406 f.); suspended, 436 f. 

Subjective: see genitive case, posses- 
sive pronoun and middle voice. 

Subjunctive: origin of form, 320, 323- 
5; perfect, 360-f., 907f.; use of 
aorist, 848-54; future, 876; present, 
889 f.; relation to other modes, 
924 ff. (aor. subj. and fut. ind., 
subj. and imper., subj. and opt.); 
original significance of, 926-8; 
threefold usage, 928-35 (futuristic 
928 ff., volitive 930-4, deliberative 
934 f.); as imper., 943; negative 
with, 1160 f., 1169 f. 

Subordinate sentences: see hypo- 
taxis. 

Subsequent action in participle: see 
participle. 

Substantives: root-substantives, 145; 
with suffixes, 150—7 (primitive 150f., 
derivative 151-7: from verbs 151- 
4, from substantives 154-6, from ad- 
jectives 156 f.); compound, 161-8 
(inseparable prefixes, 161 f.; agglu- 
tinative 165-8); declension of, 246— 
70; number in, 251f.; gender in 
substantives, 252-4; with genitive, 
495-503; with ablative, 514 f.; with 
locative, 524; with dative, 536 f.; 
appositional use of, 651 f.; adjec- 
tive as, 652-4; agreement of adjec- 
tive with, 654f.; substantival as- 
pects of infinitive, 1058-79; with 
inf., 1075 f.; participle as, 1108 f.; 
negatives with, 1163 f. 

Suffixes: 146; comparative without, 
663. 

Superlative: forms, 278-81; positive 
as, 660f.; displaced by compara- 
tive 667-9; syntax of, 669-71. 

Supplementary: see participle. 

Syncope: 203 f. 

Synonyms: in Greek words, 175 f.; 
phrases, 1200 f. 


1246 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Syntax: in the vernacular xown, 73 f.; 
in thes NL 82'1y of Lex 100; 
part III, 379-1208; meaning of syn- 
tax, ch. IX, 379-89 (backwardness 
in study of 379-81, N. T. limita- 
tions 381-3, advance by Delbriick 
383 f., province of 384-7, the word 
384 f., construction of words and 
clauses 385 f., historical 386, ir- 
regularities 386 f., method of this 
grammar 387-9, principles 387, 
original significance 387, form and 
function 387 f., development 388, 
context 388 f., translation 389, 
limits 389); the sentence and syn- 
tax, 390. 

Syriac versions: passim. 

Syrian text (a-text): 179f., 189, 210f., 
214 f., 219, 260, passim. 


ak 


Tarsus: new centre of culture, 67; 
Paul learning Greek in, 239. 

Temporal clauses: kin to rela- 
tive, 970f.; conjunctions meaning 
“when,” 971-4; group meaning 
“until,” 974-7; some nominal and 
prepositional phrases, 977 f.; use of 
inf., 978 f., 1091 f.; participle, 979, 
125 3 

Tenses: of —uw verbs in the N. T., 
307-20; conjugation of, 3438-68 
(term tense 348f., confusion in 
names 344, verb-root 344 f., aorist 
345-50, present 350-3, future 353- 
7, perfect 359-62, reduplication 
362-5, augment 365-8); infinitive, 
369 f., 1080-2; participle, 378 ff., 
1111-9; periphrastic tenses in N. 
T., 374-6; syntax of, ch. XVIII, 
821-910; complexity of subject, 
821-30 (Greek and Germanic 
tenses 821, influence of Latin on 
Greek grammarians 822, Hebrew 
influence 822, gradual growth of 
Greek tenses 822, ‘“‘Aktionsart”’ of 
the verb-stem 823, three kinds 
of action 824, time-element 824 f., 
faulty nomenclature 825, analytic 


tendency (periphrasis) 826, “ per- 
fective”? use of prepositions 826-8, 
Aktionsart with each tense 828f., 
interchange of tenses 829 f.); punc- 
tiliar action, 830-79 (aorist 830-64, 
present 864-70, future 870-9); du- 
rative (linear), 879-92 (indicative, 
present, imperfect, future 879-89, 
subj. and opt. 889f., imperative 
890, infinitive 890f., participle 
891f.); perfected state, 892-910 
(idea of perfect 892-4, indicative, 
present perfect, past perfect, future 
perfect 892-907, subj. and opt. 
907 f., imperative 908, infinitive 
908, participle 909 f.); tenses of im- 
perative, 950; change in ind. dis- 
course, 1029 f. 

Textual criticism: passim. 

Textus receptus: 199, 213, 217, pas- 
sim. 

Thematic vowel: see present tense. 

Thessalian: 192, 202, passim. 

Third declension: 258, 263-9. 

Thucydides: 265, passim. See Index 
of Quotations. 

Time: cases used, 460-527 f., (nom. 
460, acc. 469-71, gen. 495, locative 
522 f., mnstrumental 527 f.); 64, 
580 ff.; é, 586 f.; eis, 594; ex, 597; 
mpo, 621 f.; element in tense, 824 f., 
894; temporal clauses, 970-9; time- 
lessness of participle, 1111. 

Transitive verbs: 330f.; with accu- 
sative, 471-7; with genitive, etc., 
506 ff.; transitiveness and voice, 
797 f., 799 f., 806, 815 f. 

Translation Greek: in the LXX and 
portions of Gospels and Acts, 89 f., 
91 f., 93, 100 ff. 

Transliteration of Semitic words: 225. 


U 


Uncials: 179-81, 186, 189, 192 f., 195, 
200, 202, ad libitum. 

Uncontracted vowels: 
tion. 

Unfulfilled condition: see conditional 
sentences. 


see contrac- 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS 


Unification of Greek dialects in the 
kon: 53-4; finally complete, 67. 
Universal language: the Greek, 49 f.; 
Panhellenic, 49; origin of, 53 f.; 
march towards universalism, 54; a 
real world-speech, 54-56; limita- 

tions in, 64. 


V 


Vase-inscriptions: see inscriptions. 

Vaticanus, Codex: 179, passim. 

Verbal adjectives: in —réos and —7os, 
157 f.;relation to participles, 372 f.; 
syntax of verbals in —ros and —réos, 
1095-7. 

Verbal nouns: ch. XX, 1050-1141; 
kinship between infinitive and par- 
ticiple, 1050 f.; the infinitive, 1051- 
95; the participle, 1098-1141. 

Verbs: root-verbs, 145; with formative 
suffixes, 146-50 (primitive verbs 
146 f., secondary verbs 147-50); 
compound verbs, 161—5 (with insep- 
arable prefixes 161 f., agglutination 
or juxtaposition 163-5); conjuga- 
tion of, 303-76 (difficulty of the 
subject 303, nature of the verb, 
relation to noun 303 f., meaning of 
304, pure and hybrid 304, survival 
of —u verbs, cross division 306, 
oldest verbs 306, gradual disappear- 
ance 306, second aorists 307-11, 
presents 311-9, perfects 319f., 
modes 320-30, voices 330-43, 
tenses 343-68, infinitive 368-71, 
participle 371-6); accusative with, 
471-86; genitive with, 505-11; 
ablative with, 517-20; with lo- 
cative, 523 f.; instrumental with, 
528-32; dative with, 538-43; ad- 
verbial use, 551f.; compounded 
with prepositions, 557-65; syntax 
of voice, ch. X VII, 797-820; syntax 
of tense, 821-910; syntax of mode, 
911-1049; inf. with, 1077 f.; verbal 
aspects of inf., 1079-95; verbal as- 
pects of participle, 1110-41; list of 
important verbs in N. T., 1212-20; 
of hindering, 1061, 1089, 1094. 


1247 


Vernacular? 217i) 224%, 34 ff:, +44; 
“vulgar”? Greek, 50; vernacular 
xowwn, 60-73; vernacular Attic, 60-2; 
N. T. chiefly in the vernacular xow7, 
76-83; vernacular writers in the 
N. T., 76; dialect-coloured, 178 f.; 
indifferent to hiatus, 207; ad li- 
bitum. 

Verner’s law: 11, footnote. 

Verses: see rhythm. 

Vocabulary: 65 f.; in the vernacular 
kownh, 72, 80-3, 87, passim. 

Vocative: 247; in first declension, 256; 
in second declension, 261; in third 
decl., 264; nominative form, 264, 
461; nature of, 461; various devices 
462 f.; use of &, 463 f.; adjectives 
with, 464; apposition to, 464; in 
predicate, 464 f.; article with, 465 f. 

Voice: conjugation of, 330-43 (transi- 
tive and intransitive 330 f., names 
of voices 331, relative age of 332, 
“deponent”’ 332 f., passive sup- 
planting middle 333 f., personal 
endings 335, cross divisions 335, 
active endings 335-9, middle end- 
ings 339 f., passive endings 340f., 
contract verbs 341-3); with infini- 
tive, 369 f., 1079 f.; with participle, 
373 f., 1110 f.; syntax of, ch. XVII, 
797-820; point of view, 797-9 (dis- 
tinction between voice and transi- 
tiveness 797f., meaning of voice 
798, names of the voices 798, his- 
tory of 798, help from Sanskrit 
798 f., defective verbs 799); syntax 
of active, 799-803; middle, 803-14; 
passive, 814-20. 

Volitive: future, 874 f.; subj., 980-4; 
opt., 939 f. 

Vowels: original of vowel symbols, 
178; the original Greek vowels, 
181 f.; vowel changes, 181-203 
(changes with a 182-6, with e 186- 
91, with 7 191-5, with c 195-9, with 
o 199-201, with v 201f.; with w 
202 f.); contraction and syncope, 
203 f.; diphthongs and dizresis, 
204f.; apheresis and _ prothetic 
vowels, 205 f.; elision, 206-8; cra- 


1248 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


sis, 208 f.; shortening stem-vowels, 
230 f. 
Vulgate: passim. 


WwW 


Wales, bilingualism in: 30. 
Weltsprache: 44 f., 49-56, 64, 66, 79, 
passim. See universal or xovwv7. 
Western text (§-text): 180, 214, 216, 

218 f., 253, 260, ad libitum. 

Wish: mode and tense in impossible 
wishes, 923; ways of expressing, 
1003 f. 

Word-formation: see formation of 
words. 

Words: number in the N. T., 81, 87, 
115; relation of words in origin, 


145; with formative suffixes, 146- 
60; composita, 160-71; history of, 
173 f.; kinship of Greek, 174f.; 
contrasts in, 175 f.; punctuation of, 
243 f.; idea-words and form-words, 
397; position of, in sentence, 417- 
25; connection between, 427; word- 
relations, 449; glory of the words 
of the N. T., 1207 f. 
World-language: see xow7. 


xX 
Xenophon, forerunner of the xow7: 
55. 


Z 
Zeugma: 1200 f. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


Only words are here given which are discussed, not the words in the lists of examples, 


many thousands of which are given in the tezt. 


A 


é—(av—): prefix, 161 f., 168, 170, 273, 
516, 1155. 

a—-: collective or intensive, 161. 

a: vowel, 181 f. 

-a: voc. ending, 151, 256; vowel- 
changes with, 182-6, 191, 274, 
341 f., 326; Doric gen. abl., 254 f.; 
stems in, 258, 267; acc. ending, 
264f.; imper. ending, 337; aor. 
ending, 305, 337-9, 348 f.; 2d perf. 
in, 358, 801; adverbs in, 526; pro- 
thetic, 1209. 

—q: dat. ending, 249, 256. 

&BasSav: 95. 

"ABBA: 26, 105, 131, 236; case, 461. 

a-Bapys: 161. 

&ya0o-epyéw: 163, 204. 

éya8o-rovgw: 163. 

aya0o-moula: 165. 

dya0o-rrods: 166, 168. 

ayo8ds: meaning, 176, 276, 653, 661; 
reading, 201; forms, 273. 

ayabovpyéw: 163, 204. 

aya8wovvy: reading, 201. 

ayaddudw: constr., 509; formation, 
150; forms, 1212. 

dyavaktéw: C. drt, 965; c. part., 1122. 

ayataw: constr., 478, 482; use, 1078, 
1201. 

Gyan: in ckow7, 152; gen. use, 14, 65, 
80, 115, 499; and art., 758; mean- 
ing, 115, 768. 

ayarntds: discussed, 372, 1096. 

“Ayap: 254, 411, 759, 766. 

ayyapevw: 111. 

ayyedla: dre with, 1033. 


See Index of Quotations. 


ayyé&AAw: compounds and forms of, 
338, 349, 1212. 

a-yeveadoyntos: 161. 

aytatw: 97, 115, 125, 131, 147; constr., 
855, 1003; part., 891. 

ayraopds: 151. 

&yvos: accent, 232; use, 115, 125, 
tie 

ayidtaros: 125. 

ayotys: 65, 156. 

ayiwovvy: form, 156, 201. 

ayvitw: voice of, 816. 

ayviopds: 151, 280. 

ayvonpa: 153, 161. 

ayvorys: 65, 156. 

&yvupe: compounds and forms of, 
1212. See xar-dyvume. 

ayopatw: constr., 483, 510. 

“Ayovoros: spelling, 185. 

aypt-edavos: 161, 166, 168. 

&yw: compounds and forms, 299, 302, 
328, 330, 346 (fyayov), 348, 351, 
363 (iyayov), 368 (Hyayorv), 391, 
428, 480, 1212; -7j£a, 348; constr., 
477; voice of, 330, 799 f.; meaning, 
865; transitive and intransitive, 
799, 800; use, 871, 931; part., 891; 
use of &ye, 124, 299, 302, 327, 328, 
330, 391, 428, 799, 941, 949. 

aywyds: 326. 

dyovitw dyava: 478. 

adeApds: 80, 81, 115. 

adeAporys: 154. 

aSnrdtys: 156, 161. 

a8idkpitos: 124, 161. 

aSiddeurros: 161. 

aS.arelrrws: form, 170, 295. 

adiapGopla: 161. 


1249 


1250 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


a&Suxéw: voice of, 472, 808, 816; use, 
878, 881, 889; ¢.. two acc., 482, 
484. 

—ados: 62. 

‘A8papvvTnves: spelling, 210, 223. 

aduvaréw: 161. 

aSuvatos: 372. 

—d{w: verb ending, 147 bis and n., 151. 

del: form, 185, 295; use, 300. 

&0avacla: 130. 

aGéutros: 161; c. inf., 1084. 

&erpos: 65, 161. 

aderew: 130, 161. 

abérnots: 65, 80, 161. 

*AOnvyot: case of, 249. 

at-: c. augment, 367. 

at: =x, 238; =e, 186, 239; vowel- 
changes, 186, 204, 327, 367. 

—at: dat. ending, 249, 370, 542; inf. 
ending, 249, 370, 542, 1001, 
1051 ff., 1067; opt. ending, 327, 
335. 

aidv: form, 190. 

alS.os: form, 272. 

aipatexxvota: 166. 

—atvw: verb ending, 147, 150, 349, 352. 

aiperi{w: 149. 

aipéw: voice of, 806, 809 f.; compounds 
and forms of, 339 (—e?tAav), 1212. 

aipdpevos: use, 1097. 

aipw: class, 352; fut., 356; transitive, 
799; voice of, 799; constr., 855 f., 
1097; compounds and forms of, 
1212. 

—atpw: verbs in, 349, 352. 

-ats: dat. ending, 249. 

alcOdvopat: 131; constr., 509; in or. 
obl., 1040; form of, 1212. 

alo @yrnptov: 132, 171. 

aioxpla: 156. 

aloypdév eoriv: c. inf., 1084. 

aioyxpdotys: 130. 

aicxtvopat: intransitive, 473; use, 
1102; and part., 1122. 

airéw: constr., 480, 482, 850, 857, 
1085; voice of, 805, 814, 820. 

airvatiky: name of acc., 466. 

aitlwpa: 153. 

aly padkwretw: 148, 479. 

alxparkwtifw: 149, 


aidvios: 159, 272. 

é&xabdprns: 156. 

akatpéw: 147, 161. 

akatayvwortos: 80, 161. 

akatdAvtos: 65, 161. 

dkataracrtovus: form, 161; spelling, 185. 

*AxeASapdy: 105. 

—dkt-s: suffix, 296. 

axpyv: 160, 294, 488, 546. 

akodovbéw: constr., 472, 528; in mod. 
Gk., 138 n.; use, 880. 

Gkovw: axnxoa, 358, 363 bis, 364, 801; 
Hkovopat, 362, 364; c. cases, 449, 
454, 506 f., 511, 519; in D always 
c. acc., 475 n.; in mod. Gk., 138 n.; 
fut., 356, 813; voice of, 803; in or. 
obl., 864, 1035, 1042; ¢. dr, 1035, 
1042; c. compl. part., 864, 1042, . 
1103; c. inf., 1042; use, 881, 901, 
1103, 1116; compounds and forms 
of, 1212. 

axptBéoratos: form, 280 bis. 

a&xpiBéorepos: meaning, 665. 

akpoartnptov: 65, 154. 

axpoBveria: 102, 166. 

a&xkpoywviatos: 168 bis. 

&kpos: and art., 775. 

*Axtdas: 82. 

ddas: 145, 254, 269. 

GXeevs: pl. form of, 188. 

ddelpw: constr., 483. 

ddekTopodwvla: 471. 

édéxtwp: 63, 65 n. 

ad7qPea: 134-5, 256. 

GAnOys: 135. 

GAnOtvds: 135, 158. 

—aAnPpov: suffix, 174. 

GA79w: 149, 353. 

GAAG: elision, 207; accent, 232-4; 
form, 244, 294, 301; c. negative, 
424, 752, 1166; use, 427 ff., 443; 
and asyndeton, 440; in mod. Gk., 
1146; discussed, 1185 ff. 

édAa: form, 249, 294. 

a\Aaoow: constr., 473 n., 511; com- 
pounds and forms of, 1212. 

aAAnyopéw: 81, 163. 

adAnAovia: spelling, 95, 205, 225. 

GAAHAwY: form, 292; use, 690; dis- 
cussed, 692 f, 





INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


édAoyevns: 80, 168. 

&Aowar: compounds and forms of, 
1312) 

&AXos: use, 292 f., 692; in comparison, 
662; c. els, 671; e. art., 695, 775 f.; 
discussed, 746 ff.; and érepos, 749; 
antithetic, 750. 

&dAorpt(o)etioKotros: 65, 82, 165, 166, 
204. 

&Adtptos: and aAdos, 748. 

&édoyos: form, 273. 

&d-s: root of, 145. 

&ua: origin, 249; num. adv., 284, 295, 
301; case with, 451, 534, 638; and 
pera, 609; and otv, 627; c. inf,, 
1069; c. part., 1124, 11389; use, 
1126, 1139. 

é&papavtivos: 158. 

d&paptdve: compounds and forms of, 
348, 1212; constative aor. of, 833; 
c. duaptiav, 477; use, 850, 854. 

Gpaptia: use, 134, 780. 

Gpaptwrds: 157. 

dpelvov: form, 277; use, 662. 

—dpevos: ending, 374. 

Gperavdontos: 80, 162. 

a&pqv: and art., 759; Heb. influence, 
95, 131. 

apredov: 154 and n. 

apo: in comp., 451, 553, 555 f., 558; 
use in Homer, 524; case form, 524; 
origin, 555; original use, 569; dis- 
use, 451, 569; and zepi, 620; non- 
use with inf., 1069. 

Gudidfo: reading, 184; compounds 
and forms, 352, 1212. 

Gpdévvupt: constr., 483; forms of, 
352, 364, 1212. 

&ud-oS0v: 166. 

Gpbdtrepor: use, 80, 251 f., 282, 292; 
discussed, 744 f.; and art., 769. 

&pdw: use, 282, 292, 744. 

&v: form, 181, 190; =éd», 190f., 
1018; crasis, 208, 984; position, 
424; in LXX, 938, 958; use, 424, 
841, 855, 887, 920, 922f., 935f., 
937 ff., 956-9, 961, 967-71; c. tem- 
poral particles, 961, 970; and aos, 
733; meaning, 921; c. éws, 976; c. 
iva, 984; c. drws, 985 f.; c. 05, 969; 


1251 


c. ws, 968-9, 974; in conditions, 
961, 1007, 1010 f., 1013-8, 1021 f., 
1025 f.; ¢. indic., 957, 959, 969, 
1007, 1010; c. opt., 854 f., 936-8, 
959, 1007; c. dc7s and subj., 957, 
959; c. inf., 959, 969, 1040, 1095; 
c. part., 1129, 1141; in apodosis, 
841, 887, 920-8; not in indep. subj. 
sentences, 935; not repeated with 
second verb, 959; in or. obl., 1030, 
1040, 1044; statistics, 958. See 
ds, daos, darts, etc. 

-av: ending, 73, 155, 257; verb end- 
ing, 336, 338; for -ao., 73; verb- 
stem in, 352; acc. s. in 3d decl., 
67, 68, 82, 97. 

-év: inf. ending, 194, 343. 

ava: cases with, 451, 491, 524, 569 f.; 
in comp., 163, 166, 168, 170, 476, 
561, 571; use, 556; in mod. Gk., 
557 f.; case-form, 570; discussed, 
571 f.; with dé, 575, with eis, 673; 
in prepositional phrases, 791. 

—ava: in verbs, 349, 352. 

avaBalyw: forms, 328. 

aévaBdddw: use, 863. 

avaBredus: 151. 

avayatov: 185, 260. 

avayevvdw: 65. 

dvaytvookw: dre with, 1032. 

avaykatw: constr., 857. 

avaykaotas: 126. 

avayky: c. inf., 1084. 

avafqv: 80, 130, 147, 163. 

dva0dddw: forms of, 
constr., 476. 

évabewa: spelling, 65, 153 bzs and n., 
187. 

davabenarifw: 149. 

avaxatvow: 65, 149, 152. 

dvakalvwous: 152. 


348, 1212; 


davaKepar: 66. 

davakehadatdw: voice of, 809. 
avakAlyw: voice of, 66, 819. 

évah(oKw: compounds and forms, 1212, 
dvadvw: 82, 130. 

dvapévw: c. acc., 475. 

avapinvyoKw: constr., 482, 509. 
ava-plé: fixed case, 294, 460. 

avagtvos: constr., 504. 


1252 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


dvarravw: voice of, 807; use, 873. 

évarlarrw: forms, 66, 338; c. acc., 486. 

avacratéw: 80, 149, 163. 

avacrrpépopat: 80. 

avartpopy: 126, 166. 

avatpédw eis: 481. 

dvadalyw: constr., 486; voice of, 817. 

avahépw: 80. 

avekSunyyntos: 82, 162. 

avekAaAntos: use, 1096. 

aveul{o: 149. 

avevéykat: form, 338. 

avetepavvytos: 82, 162. 

&veots: use, 900 f. 

avera{w: 163. 

&vev: use, 301, 553, 638. 

dvéxonar: c. augment, 368; constr., 
508; voice of, 807; c. acc., 486; c. 
part., 1121. 

aveids: 162. 

avikw: use, 886. 

av0’ av: 208, 223, 556, 574, 963. 

avOpwraperkos: 65, 168 bis. 

&vOpwros: use, 120. 

aviornpe: forms, 310, 328. 

avolyw: c. augment, 368; compounds 
and forms of, 82, 349, 364, 368, 
371, 895, 1212; intransitive, 800. 

avravatrAnpow: 160, 165. 

avramodopa: 151. 

avtaw: compounds and forms, 1213. 

avrt: elision, 208, 223; cases with, 451, 
569 f.; case-form, 524, 570; in 
comp., 163, 165, 170, 542, 563, 
572; use, 556; in mod. Gk., 557; 
in condensation, 567; adyris in 
mod. Gk., 570; discussed, 572-4; 
av)’ av, 208, 223, 556, 574, 696, 
714, 722, 724, 958, 962-3; c. xpd, 
620; and iép, 630; and drtizrepa, 
639; base of compound preposi- 
tions, 639; c. dv causal, 963; c. inf., 
1060, 1069 f. 

—-avtt: ending, 336. 

avTikablornpe: 133. 

&vtikpus: use, 221, 231, 638. 

avTiapBavopat: 131, 163. 

avridéyovres: reading, 1171. 

avTikéyw: meaning, 66; c. inf., 1035. 

avTiAnprrwp: 80. 


avrirnpapes: 80. 

avtidurpov: 65, 166. 

avripio Oia: 115. 

avrimepa: use, 231, 638. 

avrituros: 115. 

dvtixpioros: 115, 166. 

d&vtrAnpa: 153. 

avropbakpéw: 81, 164. 

dvw: in adj., 160; use, 296; adv., 298, 
300. 

—dvw: verbs in, 147, 316, 352. 

divwbev: 300. 

avwtepikos: 160. 

avartepos: 160, 296-8. 

&évos: constr., 658, 996; c. gen., 504; 
c. inf., 369, 996, 1077, 1079. 

meaning, 149; class, 
constr., 511. 

aé(ws: constr., 505. 

—aos: equal to —ws, 267. 

dmrayyéAAw: in or. obl., 1032, 1036. 

amrayxopat: voice of, 807. 

&trais: form, 272. 

a@ravraw: use, 873; in mod. Gk., 
138 n. 

amrayrnows: 65, 152; ¢. eis, 91. 

atrdavwbev: use, 637. 

&trag: use, 284, 296, 300. 

Grapvéonat: fut., 818, 819; voice of, 
819; use, 873; in or. obl., 1036. 

&tras: and art., 771 ff. 

atravyaopa: 153. 

arevrapeOa: spelling, 338. 

ameAri{w: constr., 476; form, 164. 

arévavtTu: use, 170 bis, 639, 644. 

arépxopar: use, 905. 

amréxw: meaning, 828; use, 80, 577, 
827, 866. 

aAods: use, 284. 

amré: anticipatory position, 110; eli- 
sion, 208; cases with, 111, 469, 482, 
534, 554, 568, 570; in adv. phrases, 
297, 300, 548, 550; c. 6 dv, 135, 414, 
459, 574f.; ‘“‘translation-Hebra- 
ism,” 472; ¢c. verbs, 511, 517 f., 
559, 562, 566; for ‘‘partitive gen.,”’ 
515, 519; in comp., 164 f., 542, 563, 
827 f.; frequency, 556; in mod. Gk., 
138, 557; use, 561, 977 f.; in con- 
densation, 567; c. avri, 574; dis- 


351; 


aEvow: 





INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


cussed, 574-80; and é, 596; and 
mapa, 613f.; and mpds, 624; and 
br6, 634; in prepositional phrases, 
791; for agent, 820. 

atoypady: formation, 151; meaning, 
82. 

Groypadw: form, 164; voice of, 807, 
809. 

Grrode(kvupe: constr., 480, 481. 

arodiSwpur: voice of, 810. 

adroSoy7: 151. 

amdbeots: 125. 

aro8vnoKw: constr., 479; meaning, 
345, 827, 838, 845; use, 635, 869; 
voice of, 802, 815. 

arokablornut: augment of, 73, 368. 

atrokdAvipis: 152. 

atrokapadoxla: 81, 166. 

atokatakd\doow: 160, 165. 

Gtrokataoracts: 152. 

atrokatirrdve: reading, 316. 

amroKkorrw: voice of, 809, 819. 

amdkpipa: 80. 

atroxplvopar: “deponent,” 66, 334; 
aor. pass., 334, 340; aor. pass. 
part., 1126; constr., 473, 484; c. 
mpos, 626; voice, 818; c. dr, 1036; 
ce. inf., 1036. 

Groxtelyw: use, 635; pass. voice of, 
802, 815; meaning, 827; forms, 
352, 1213. 

atoktévyw: 73, 82. 

aréd\Avpt: 311; formation, 147; fut., 
335; perf., 358, 363, 800; voice of, 
800, 804; meaning of, 827 f. 

’AmoAXas: reading, 172, 189, 235, 260. 

atrokovw: voice of, 807, 809. 

G&rodUTpwots: 115, 175. 

atrovirropat: voice of, 810. 

atrom\éw: contract verb, 342. 

a&tropéopat: intransitive, 472. 

atrooklacpa: 153. 

aérooracia: 65, 152. 

atrooré\dw: forms, 336; use, 894, 896, 
905. 

droorepéw: constr., 472, 483; voice of, 
808, 816. 

atrooroAf: 115. 

a&mréorodos: meaning, 53 n., 65, 65 n., 
115. 


1253 


atootpépopar: and case, 472, 484. 

atroTtdccopat: 80. 

atrorlOny.: voice of, 810. 

atrotopia: 156. 

atrotépws: 170 bis. 

atodetvyw: constr., 476. 

&mrw: compounds and forms, 353, 
1213; arrowa: constr., 508, 853; 
c. un, 853; voice of, 806 f. 

arw0éopat: voice of, 810. 

amredea: 115, 

dpa: accent, 232; reading, 244; in in- 
terrogation, 916 f.; use, 1176. 

dpa: use, 135, 207, 425, 429, 916f., 
1146, 1157, 1176; position, 425, 
1189; in apodosis, 429, 1190; c. ris, 
916, 1176; c. obv, 1190; c. ovx, 917, 
1157; lost in mod. Gk., 1146; dis- 
cussed, 1189 f.; accent, 232; sta- 
tistics, 135, 1190. 

—apa: in verbs, 349, 352. 

apaBov: spelling, 81, 105, 211 n., 212. 

&paye: use, 425, 1190. 

aperkela: 152, 231. 

apéokw: constr., 479, 487; c. dat., 540; 
ap. évwmidy Tivos, 94. 

dpery: 80, 101, 126 n., 148 n. 

—dp.ov: diminutive, 66. 

dprorepd: 449. 

dpKerds: 80. 

apkéw: forms, 210, 324; constr., 541; 
use, 889. 

dpx(r)os: 210, 252. 

“Appayedsav: 95. 

Gpvéopat: in or. obl., 1035f.; com- 
pounds and forms, 1213. 

apotpidw: 65, 150. 

aptraypos: 130, 151. 

aptaf{w: compounds and forms, 349, 
1213; jprayny, 82. 

&pmat: use, 272. 

appaBov: 81, 95, 111, 212. 

&ppyra: breathing, 212, 225. 

apoevoxolrys: 166. 

&pru: use, 548, 1146; c. part., 1139. 

&pros: 115. 

dpxq: acc. form adv., 294, 298, 487, 
546. 

—dpxys: in comp., 231, 257 f. 

dpxi-: prefix, 161 f. 


1254. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


apxtepeds: 115, 162. 

—apxos: in comp., 257. 

&pxw: dpéauevoe. reading, 49; jptaro 
redundant, 107; use, 1102, 1121, 
1126; c. inf., 1077-8, 1102; not 
used with part. in N. T., 1102, 
1121; adpéauevos, 1126; and ellipsis, 
1203. 

&s: in mod. Gk., 430, 923, 931. 

—as: ending, 138, 254, 256, 265, 267, 
337. 

—as, —Gs: In proper names, 172, 254 
and n. 

ao0évynpa: 153. 

—aov: ending (perf.), 336. 

"Acta: c. art., 788. 

"Acaves: 155 n. 

*Acortapxys: 80, 166. 

aomafopat: constr., 80, 853, 862 f. 

&onpos: 80. 

domdos: 64, 162. 

dooov: meaning, 665. 

d&ovveros: voice, 372; use, 1097. 

_activberos: voice, 372; use, 1097. 

aoxnpovew: 147. 

—ate: per. end., 308. 

arevifw: 149, 162. 

dtep: use, 639. 

d&totros: 80. 

ards: in mod. Gk., 185. 

—atos: ending, 277, 279 f. 

—atw: per. end., 308. 

-—atwoav: per. end., 308. 

avlevréw: 80, 148, 164. 

avgavw: constr., 478; trans., 799. 

avp.ov: form, 294. 

avro—: in comp., 168. 

avrToOu: use, 296. 

avroparn: form, 273. 

avtdés: in problem of éavrod, 226, 232; 
intensive, 287, 399, 416; semi- 
demonstrative, 290, 686; gen. 
form, atrod, adverbial, 298; posi- 
tion of gen., 503; 3d per. pro., 679, 
683 f.; use of airot, 681, 683; dis- 
cussed, 685-7, 709 f.; use, 688-90; 
kal avtés, —n, 122, 680; 76 airé, 487; 
érl 70 abTd, 83, 602; airy and airn, 
232, 680; 6 airés ‘same,’ 290, 679, 
687, 770; abrés emphatic ‘‘he,”’ 


679, 416; airés “himself,” 680; 
aitos 6, 686, 709, 770; c. per. pro., 
687; c. odros, 686, 705; and éxezvos, 
VOT 1s; C. Os; (255; C Abt 4a Oseary: 
resumptive, 698; pleonastic, 722; 
in sense-figure, 1204. 

atrod: question of, 226, 688 f.; use, 
232, 287, 289; feminine, 254. 

aparpéopar: constr., 480, 483; voice of, 
819. 

adedpov: 154. 

aeddtys: 156, 162. 

&des: use, 82, 329, 430, 855 f., 931 f., 
935. 

&deots: 97. 

adéwvTat: 63, 82, 342. 

apika: 900. 

apikes: 135. 

ad(npt: forms of, 107, 315, 329, 337, 
342, 347; constr., 855 f.; use, 931; 
c. inf., 855-8; c. wa, 431; aor., 
900. 

adiAapyupos: 80, 162. 

adiw: forms of, 315, 335. 

ahopadw: 132. 

ddpov: voc. of, 463. 

ahutvdw: 149. 

—axod: suffix, 296. 

& pu: with final s, 221, 296; use, 639, 
954, 974; in prepositional phrases, 
791; c. dv, 975; c. inf., 1074. 

—dw: confused with -é, 73, 82, 341; 
verbs in, 147 ff., 184, 203, 316, 
341 ff., 351. 


B 

B: 209; =v, 238, 240; in mod. Gk., 
217; verb root in, 353. 

—B-: inserted, 210. 

Baad: 254, 411. 

BaBvAdv: 269, 494. 

Baba: 232, 

Babews: 160, 274. 

Batvw: forms and compounds, 305-8, 
800, 1213; -é8nv, 348, 350. 

Batov: 111. 

BadAw: aor. of, 307, 338, 836, 847; 
class, 352; trans. and intrans., 
799 f.; voice, 799.f., 815; meaning, 
834, 838; use, 905; compounds and 


nee: 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 1255 


forms, 1212f.; €Badrav, 338; Bard, 
356; BEBAnka, 364. 

Barrifw: Barrica accent, 943 f., and 
form, 329, 332, 944; formation, 
149; meaning, 66, 81, 115; constr., 
389, 478, 482, 485, 520, 525, 533, 
590, 592; voice of, 807 f.; use, 1078, 
1111, 1128. 

Barriopa: 65, 115, 153 bis. 

Bamrirpds: 65, 115, 152 f. 

Barrirtys: 65, 153. 

Barre: 149, 353. 

Bap-: 105. 

BapBapos: form, 272, 362. 

Bapéw: compounds and forms, 1213. 

Baptve: forms, 1213. 

Baorrela: 115, 116, 125; B. rdv oipavdr, 
119. 

Bactdets: meaning, 116; ‘‘cases”’ of 
pl., 447; voc. of, 465; and art., 760, 
769. 

Bactdedw: causative, 801; constative, 
833; use, 902. 

Bacttiooa: 55, 65, 155. 

Backalvw: and cases, 473. 

Bacrda{e: constr., 80, 853. 

Batos: 95, 253. 

—BB-: 213 f. 

BeBalwors: 80. 

BéBrAos: 362. 

BeeALeBovA: spelling, 95, 210. 

BéArep0s: form, 662. 

B&\rvov: form, 277 f., 294, 299; adv., 
488; meaning, 665. 

BrpvAdos: reading, 199. 

Brdagopar: 80, 816. 

Biaorys: 153. 

BrBagw: 362 n. 

B.Baw: meaning, 865. 

BLBAaplBcov: 155. 

BiBAos: spelling, 111, 199. 

BiBpdokw: 65 n. 

Bidw: forms, 348 bis, 354; constr., 479. 

Blwous: 152. 

BAdrrw: constr., 472, 482, 484. 

Pr\acréve: trans. and intrans., 799; 
forms, 348, 1213. 

Braocdypéw: and case, 473; constr., 
479. 

Br€ppa: 126. 


BAérw: c. subj., 82; in John, 134 n.; 
constr., 330, 996; and asyndeton, 
430; and case, 471; c. amd, 73, 91, 
577; use of Brérere, 330, 932 f., 955, 
1110; in or. obl., 1035, 1041; com- 
pounds and forms, 1213. 

BAnréov: 157, 373, 486. See —réov. 

Boavnpyés: 95. 

Bodw: in or. obl., 1036. 

BonSéw: case with, 472, 541. 

BotAopar: forms, 339; BotrAa, 82, 193, 
339; éBovddunv, 886, 919; EBovdnOnv, 
817; use, 80, 480, 876, 878, 886, 
919; c. subj., 876-8; c. wa (not in 
N. T.), 1055; im or. -obl., 1036-8; 
c. inf., 1038, 1055 f., 1060. | 

Bovvds: 111. 

Bpadetov: 154. 

Bpadive: forms, 230. 

Bpadds Tq kapdia: 487. 

Bpéxw: trans. and intrans., 799, 802. 

Bpox7: 80. 

Biooos: 95 bis, 105, 111. 


ik 

y: 209, 216, 359. 

—y-: inserted, 210. 

yata: 111 bes. 

yatopuAdkiov: 166. 

Todarixy: with art., 788. 

yopéw: constr., 111, 1204; forms, 348, 
1213. 

yaplokew: 150. 

yapor: 408. 

yap: use, 424, 433, 443, 962, 1189; in 
interrogation, 916; ¢c. «i, 886, 940, 
1003 f., 1020; c. re, 1179; discussed, 
1190 f. 

yé: use, 244, 291, 302, 424, 1144; xai 
vec. part., 1129; discussed, 1147 ff.; 
enclitic, 207, 244, 1211. 

yéevva: 97, 105. 

yeplfo: constr., 506, 510. 

yépw: c. ace., 455, 474. 

yeverla: 65. 

yévnpa: reading, 80, 211, 213. 

yevvaw: use, 866 f. 

yévos: 448, 487. 

yevopat: 105, 449; and case, 473, 507 f. 

yi: and ellipsis, 272, 652, 1202. 


Ps dad 


1256 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ynpacke: 150. 
—yv: in verbs, 351. 
yia: prep. in mod. Gk., 570, 982. 
yivopat: 55, 61, 73, 82, 210; itacism 
in, 197, 210; éyevero with xai, 95, 
102, 107, 122, 122 n., 3938, 426, 
1042 f.; éyéero c. acc. and inf., 
1085; éyevaunv, 82; aor., 816; fre- 
quency in Mt., 122; followed by 
_asyndeton, 429; in  periphrastic 
forms, 330, 902; yiveodar cases with, 
497; c. advs., 545 f.; éyévero, 658, 
829; voice of, 801, 818, 820; yé- 
yotro With yh, 325, 854, 935, 939 f., 
1003; imper. of, 855; use, 869, 871, 
896 f., 905, 951, 1085, 1202; omis- 
sion of, 396; pred. nom., 457; subj. 
forms, 890; perf., 900; yeyova, 333, 
358, 358 n., 801, 896, 900; yeyovar, 
68, 336; yéyovey br, 1034; com- 
pounds and forms, 350-1, 1212 f. 
ywookw: compounds and forms, 82, 
134, 210, 308, 324, 328, 330, 346, 
1214; perf. redupl., 364; use of 
yrworov, 656; meaning, 827 f., 834, 
904; aor. of, 843, 856; use, 871; 
plupf. =impf., 904; in or. obl., 1035f., 
1041; c. inf., 1062, 1103; c. part., 
1103. 
y\éooa: meaning, 115; and ellipsis, 
652, 1202. 
yAwoodkopov: various readings, 204; 
formation, 166; accent, 231. 
yoorys: 151, 231. 
yvwords: 157. 
yoyyitw: meaning, 80; formation, 
150; form, 358, 363; constr., 853. 
yoyyvoerths: 153. 
Todyo@d: spelling, 211; form, 105, 
236, 259. 
yovu-: in comp., 164. 
yovueréw: formation, 164; and case, 
474. 
ypappareds: meaning, 80. 
ypamtds: 157. 
ypady: and was, 772. 
ypadwo: compounds and forms, 80, 
346, 351, 406, 1214; yéypada, 358, 
364; éypawes, 82; Eypayva, 845; éypa- 
gov, 346; constr., 845f., 853; in 


mod. Gk., 851; use, 875, 895; in or. 
obl., 1035 f. 

ypaadns: 168. 

yenyopéw: 65, 148, 351; éyenyopa, 148, 
363. 

yupvirevo: 148, 191. 

yupvorns: 156. 

yevatkapiov: 155. 

yuv7n: and ellipsis, 652. 


A 

8: 210, 240, 248. 

-8§-: inserted, 210 bis. 

—8a: adv. end., 295. 

Satpdovia: constr., 66, 404. 

Sdxpv(ov): 262. 

Savel{w: voice of, 809. 

8€: elision, 207; origin, 301; c. art., 
290, 694 f.; conj., 301, 428 f., 440, 
443 f.; postpositive, 424, 1188; de 
kal, 122; c. ds, 695 f.; c-obros, 705; 
c. éxetvos, 707; antithetic, 750, 1145, 
1153; c. e uh, 1025; c. negative, 
1164; discussed, 1183-5; adversa- 
tive, 1186. 

-8e: suffix, 296, 1211. 

Set: form, 319; use, 880, 919 ff.; é5e, 
886, 919; c. inf., 1058 (as subject), 
1078, 1084 f. 

Serypat({w: 149. 

Se(kvupt: use, 55, 135; compounds and 
forms, 174 f., 306 f., 311, 327, 1214. 

Sexvdw: compounds and forms, 307, 
311; in or. obl., 1035 f. 

Seiva: use, 292, 744. 

Semvéw: meaning, 80. 

SerotSatpovla: 65, 81, 166. 

Séka: use, 282; in comp., 169, 283. 

Sexatow: 65, 149. 

Sév: in mod. Gk., 206, 928, 1011, 
1156 ff., 1168. 

Seftds: in comp., 168, 232; in com- 
parison, 662. 

Séopat: forms, 342; éde?ro, 203, 342; c. 
abl. and acc., 519; c. obj.-inf., 1059. 

Séov: use with éori, 80, 881, 1130. 

Sépw: constr., 477 bis, 485; forms of, 
1214. 

Séopy: 231. 

Séoptos: 65 n. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


Séopos: 262, 263 n. 

SerpopiAaé: 166. 

Setpo: form, 299, 302, 328; use, 430, 
931, 949, 1193. 

Sette: form, 299, 302; use, 328, 330, 
430, 931, 949; in conditions, 1023. 

Sevtepaior: use, 298. 

Sevrepov: adv., 460, 488. 

Sevtepo-mpdtos: 168. 

Sevtepos: form, 277; ordinal, 283 f.; 
and eis, 671; é devrépou, 597. 

Sé€xopar: voice of, 813; compounds 
and forms, 1214. 

Séw: dew decuds, 479, 482; pass. of, with 
acc., 486; compounds and forms, 
342, 1214. 

84: use, 302, 443; discussed, 1149. 

SnA-avyds: 170. 

SiAov: c. dri, 244, 1034. 

SyAdw: in or. obl., 1036. 

Sypdovos: loc. form, 295; use, 691. 

Syvaprov: 65, 108, 192. 

Sytrov: use, 302. 

Sia: elision, 208; c. enclitic, 244; in 
comp., 164, 168, 476, 529, 558, 561, 
563, 800, 827f.; cases with, 491, 
534, 565, 569 f.; frequency, 556; in 
mod. Gk., 557; c. verbs, 560; in 
condensation, 567; case-form, 570; 
discussed, 580-4; and xara, 606; 
and wtmrép, 629; and id, 636; c. 
péoov, 648; dua 7h...;, 244, 730, 
739, 916, 1176; in prepositional 
phrases, 791; for agent, 820; c. inf., 
584, 858, 891, 909, 966, 1060, 1069 f., 
1091; c. rotro, 965. 

StaBalvw: constr., 476, 800. 

StaBad\dAw: meaning, 80. 

Stafavvupe: voice of, 810. 

S.abqKy: 116. 

Siaxovéw: 540. 

Stdkovos: 115. 

Staxplvopat: constr., 478. 

Stade: c. part., 1121. 

Stapaptvpopat: constr., 484; in or. obl., 
1035 f. 

Stavolyw: in or. obl., 1035 f. 

StaTvrapatpiBy: 165-6. 

Stamdéw: 476. 

Statropevopar: 476. 


1257 


Statropéw: 472, 

Stacmdaw: meaning, 564, 828. 

Stacmopd: 97, 151. 

Sidornpa: 151. 

Starayq: 151. 

StareAéw: c. part., 1121. 

Starnpéw: meaning, 828. 

Staribepat: 479. 

Statp(Bw: constr., 477. 

Stadépw: case with, 455. 

Stadetyw: meaning, 828; constr., 987. 

Stabelpw: 486. 

Si8acKw: 150; form, 331; constr., 474, 
482 bis, 485, 486, 1083; voice of, 
816; in or. obl., 1035 f. 

(Sut: compounds and: forms, 190, 
306, 307 ff., 311, 324, 326f., 335, 
337, 347, 409, 876, 1044, 1214; 
didw, 311 n., 312, 335; 666, 1385, 
307, 311; diddacr, 82; éidero, 190, 
312; eéidocav, 82, 312; edwxa, 55; 
éiwoa, 309, 324, 348; dédwxes, 82; 
don, 326; 56s, 329; constr., 855, 940, 
983 f., 1032; use, 135, 905, 1062, 
1080, 1135; deécay 6., 83; =7iOevar, 
95, 102; in indirect command, 
1047; dotvar, 1052, 1058, 1132. 

Steppnvevtys: 166. 

Steppnvia: 166. 

Svépxopar: constr., 472, 476, 477, 800, 
869. 

Sinyéopat: dr. with, 1032. 

Sucxvplfopar: in or. obl., 1036. 

Sikatoxpiola: 65, 166. 

S(kavos: meaning, 80, 115, 174, 176; 
c. three endings, 273. 

Stkavortvy: with subjective gen., 499; 
use, 781. 

Sixardw: 149, 174. 

Slkyn: 174. 

Sid: use, 132, 950. 

Aidvucos: reading, 200. 

Sidmrep: use, 1154. 

Atéokopos: 199. 

Sidte: use, 80, 244, 480, 962, 964. 

SimAdtepov: form, 278, 299. 

SumAots: use, 284. 

Sis: adv., 284; spelling, 296, 298, 300. 

Sox (Avou: use, 283. 

Stxa: ady., 284. 


1258 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


SixoTropéw: meaning, 80. 

Supa: formation, 147; aor. forms, 
342; and case, 474, 508. 

Soyparitw: formation, 149; voice of, 
807. 

Soxéw: constr., 541, 853, 1085. 

Soxipatw: in or. obl., 1041; c. inf., 
1085. 

Soxiprov: 80, 126 n., 156, 158. 

Soxtpos: 80. 

Sodvdw: formation, 149; form, 336, 348. 

Sdpa: spelling, 153, 153 n., 200. 

—Sov: adv. suffix, 295 f. 

Sota: 134, 148 n. 

Sofdtw: aor. of, 837, 843, 847, 853. 

SovA-: in comp., 164. 

Sovrevw: 473 n., 540. 

SovAdw: constr., 540. 

Spdocopat: use, 474. 

Sivapar: augment e- and 7-, 368; 
compounds and forms of, 312, 340, 
350, 351, 368, 1214; divp, 312, 314; 
voice of, 820; constr., 857; use, 
‘879 f., 886, 920; c. inf., 1055f., 
1060, 1077 f.; c. rot+inf., 1077; c. 
wa, 1055-6; in John, 1078. 

Sivapts: use, 176. 

Svvapow: formation, 149. 

Suvatéw: formation, 147. 

Suvatds: c. inf., 369, 857, 1077, 1079. 

Svvopat: reading, 312. 

Svvw: intrans., 800; compounds and 
forms, 1214. 

Svo: forms, 251, 282; dt0 dbo Hebraism 
(?), 74, 91, 284, 673; dvci, 72, 82, 
251; and art., 769. 

Svpopat: spelling, 206. 

Svo—: in comp., 161 ff. 

Sd: compounds and forms, 348, 1214. 

SHSexa: use, 282. 

SwSexa-pvdrov: 166. 

Sapa: use, 65 n., 66, 80, 138; spelling, 
200. 

Swpedv: 294, 298, 488. 


E 
e: short vowel, 178, 181f.; vowel- 
changes with, 178, 183-91, 324; 
instead of o, 308; inserted by anal- 
ogy, 349; with Doric fut., 354; 


reduplication and augment, 363-7; 
voc. ending, 462 f.; prothetic, 1209. 

ta: use, 302, 391, 1193. 

édv: form, 181, 190 f.; for av, 72, 80, 
83, 97, 181, 190 f.; av for éav, 190 f.; 
crasis, 208; constr., 220, 325, 850, 
928, 967, 969, 1129; c. indic., 82, 
325, 1009; and dors, 727; and dcos, 
733; and ézov, 969; use, 948, 968, 
971, 11293 c. és; 957," 9595" ds" ar 
(éav) not=éday tis, 961; c. eel, 965; 
in conditions, 1005-27. 

éavrrep: use, 1154. 

édyre — €dvre: use, 1189. 

éavtot: form, 185, 226, 287; use, 287, 
289, 687-90; for all three persons, 
73, 97, 287-8; and ié.os, 691 f.; and 
art., 779; with mid. voice, 810. 

édw: elacev, 365; c. odk, 1156; com- 
pounds and forms, 1214. 

€BSopos: 125. 

*EBpaixds: 159. 

*EBpaiorl: form, 95, 205, 296, 298; 
use, 104, 106, 524. 

éyy({o: meaning, 81; formation, 149; 
constr., 623f.; compounds and 
forms, 1214. 

éyyts: form, 248 n., 294, 298; in com- 
parison, 298; constr., 538, 638; ad- 
jectival, 547; use, 549, 568, 639 f. 

éyelpw: voice of, 799, 816, 817; usu- 
ally trans., 799; use, 866, 896; 
gnomic, 866; c. es, 482; nyEephn 
intrans., 817; éynyepra, 896; com- 
pounds and forms, 186, 1215. 

éyxaxéw: c. part., 1121. 

éykadéw: constr., 511. 

éykopBdopat: voice of, 808. 

éykparevopat: 148, 478. 

éyxplw: 81, 232. 

éy#: crasis, 208; accent with enclitic, 
230, 234f., 286, 420; interchange 
with juets, 406; éyav old form of, 
285, 466; discussed, 677 f.; enclitic 
forms of, 682, 1211; use, 685, 689, 
693; and éxefvos, 707; and &d)os, 
746; position of pov, 779; use of 
juav, 785; c. particles, 1148, 

a(t: forms of, 1215, 

elSocay: 82, 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


ee: in contraction, 342. 

€edo-Opnokla: 166. 

€0€\w: form, 205 f.; use, 878, 886, 919. 

€0ifw: ciOicuevos, 364. 

€Ovikds: 158. 

€Ovikds: 160. 

os éoriv: 1084. 

0: forms of, 358, 364, 1215; ew6a, 
801. 

e: vowel-change, 187, 191-4, 195 f., 
198, 204, 324, 367; =t, 196, 238, 
239; proper names in, 198. 

e—: augment of, 367. 

-e: 2d pers. mid. ending, 339. 

—et—: for -te—, 72. 

el: accent, 233 f., 244, 1211; and dr, 
430, 965; and odros, 699 f.; and yap, 
886, 940, 1003 f., 1020; use, 916, 
928, 997, 1176; in interrogation, 
122,916; c: opt:, 127; c. ris, 956; 
c. ob, 962, 1011, 1160; c. wAv, 1004; 
c. wy, 1160; c. cai, 1026; in condi- 
tions, 1005-27, 1129; ei do0ncera 
onuecov, 94, 1024; in or. obl., 1030, 
1045; proclitic, 1211. 

-ela: ending, 152, 196 f., 326. 

ei8€w: compounds and forms, 1215. 

eiSov: forms, 223 f., 325, 339, 344, 360, 
366; no present, 344; eléav, 339; 
perf. subj., 325, 360, 907, 983; use, 
413 f., 487, 441, 892, 1135; in or. 
obl., 1041. 

eiSos: meaning, 80. 

el8w: icuer, tore, icacw, 87, 238-9, 319; 
perf. subj., 325, 360; ciédvta, 62; 
compounds and forms, 361, 906 f., 
1215. 

elSwActov: 154. 

eiS8wdo-Aatpela: 161, 166. 

elS8wdo-Aatpevo: 161. 

—ee: opt. end., 327, 335. 

el8e: in wish constr., 886, 940, 1003 f. 

—eika: perf. end., 310. 

eikq: 295. 

Hixévoy: spelling, 197. 

elkoot: form, 221, 283. 

elkw: perf. ocxa, 124, 364, 895. 

cixkav Beod: 97. 

eiAt-kplvera: 166, 225. 

el wh: use, 192f., 747, 1011, 1014, 


1259 


1016, 1024 f., 1160, 1169, 1187-8. 
Also see ei and uy. 

el nv: discussed, 80, 1150. 

ein: compounds and forms, 188, 194, 
220, 232 ff., 312 f., 325, 327 f., 330, 
337, 340, 350, 395, 908, 1215; 
etuar, 145, 307, 312, 340; joba, 312, 
337; 7s, 337; junrv, 68, 312, 340; 
juca, 312, 340; qv in papyri some- 
times is subj. 7, 220, 313, 325; 
éotw, éotwaoav, 328; rw, 82, 328; 
in periphrastic forms, 118, 122, 
330, 860, 877 f., 887-90, 903, 906 ff., 
950; constr., 330, 394 ff., 472, 481, 
497, 545; c. nom., 457; c. gen., 497; 
ec. dat., 457; ints ce nom-~.457; 
omission of, 395; c. eis, 95, 97, 458; 
gst C. TodTo, 234, 411, 705; mean- 
ing, 415, 865; use, 874, 945f., 
1030, 1202; xai éorae in or. obl., 
1042; 6 Sv, 1107; enclitic, 1211; ac- 
cent of éoriv, 233. 

eiyt: accent, 232 f.; compounds and 
forms, 313, 350, 396, 1215; use, 


869, 881. 
-etv: inf. ending, 342, 370. 
-ev: inf. ending, 249, 370, 388; 


pluperf. ending, 339, 361. 

—evos: ending, 197. 

—evov: ending, 197. 

—e.os: ending, 197. 

elrep: use, 1154. 

elroy: form, 231, 329, 338. 

elrov: accent, 229, 231, 329; augment, 
368; no present, 345; forms of, 327, 
329, 338, 345f., 363, 368; eta, 55, 
61, 73, 338 bis, 346; «ire, 327, 329, 
338; redupl., 363 bis; constr., 480, 
484, 626, 902; c. pred. acc., 480, 
484; c. subj. in question, 930; c. 
drt, 1035; ¢. mpds adrov, 626; and 
éyw, 838, 883; use, 930; in or. obl., 
1048. 

elpyvevdw: constr., 486. 

eipjvn: Hebraic use, 95, 105, 115; 
elpnvnv didovar, 105. 

eipnvo—: in comp., 164. 

eis: spelling, 187; meaning, 80, 389, 
449, 561; in idiom, 401; case with, 
451, 481, 484, 491, 524, 535, 569 f.; 


1260 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


in mod. Gk., 453, 535, 557; Sem- 
itic influence, 457 f.; c. verbs, 469, 
481, 540, 542, 559ff., 562, 566; 
in “‘pregnant construction,” 6525, 
1204; in adv. phrases, 550; fre- 
quency, 556; in LXX, 481; c. pred. 
acc., 481 f.; eis aravrnow, 91, 528; 
els 7l....;, 739; rather than 64, 
582; and &, 97, 123, 449, 453, 
584 ff.; discussed, 591-6; and zapa, 
613; and pds, 624, 626; in prepo- 
sitional phrases, 792; c. inf., 658, 
858 (aor.), 891 (pres.), 909 and 
1072 (perf.), 990f., 997, 1001 ff., 
1060, 1069-72, 1088, 1090; c. subst. 
and adj., 1072; reading, 862; anar- 
throus, 1070; proclitic, 1211. 

eis: root of, 145; and od, 232, 751; in- 
declinable use, 282 f.; supplanting 
ris, 83, 292; case, 460; and mparos, 
671; eis cad’ eis, 105, 450, 460; Kad’ 
els, 292, 294, 450, 460; 76 xaé’ éis, 
487; eis €& buav, 675; as indef. art., 
674, 796; equal to zs, 675, 744; 
distributive, 675; and Gddos, 747; 
antithetic, 750. 

—eis: nom. and ace. plural ending, 265. 

—els: =evr-s in aor. pass. part., 373. 

eloépxopar: constr., 855. 

elo-rropevopat: voice of, 806; use, 880. 

eira: use, 300, 429. 

elite: elre — cite, 1025, 1045, 1179, 1189. 

etrev: literary, 119; form, 160, 183. 

el Tis O€Xer: O61. 

é: in comp., 163f., 168, 170, 215, 
828; c¢. robrov, 444; c. verbs, 
510, 517f.;. for “partitive gen.,” 
515, 519; case with, 534, 570; in 
adv. phrases, 548, 550; frequency, 
556; in mod. Gk., 558; use, 561; ¢c. 
a6, 575, 577; discussed, 596-600; 
and zapa, 614; and id, 636; for 
agent, 820; c. inf., 1061, 1073; 
proclitic, 1211. 

tkaotos: use, 61, 292; discussed, 
745 f.; c. plu. verb, 746; c. ets, 746; 
and art., 745, 769; and was, 771. 

éxatepos: use, 292, 745. See page 61. 

éxatov: use, 283. 

&kBGAXw: voice of, 803; use, 880. 


éxSv: c. two acc., 483. 

éxet: and apheresis, 206; loc. form, 
249, 295; meaning, 299; constr., 
443, 548; as root, 706; use, 969. 

éxevOev: 300. 

éxetvos: Ionic xetvos, 206, 706; use in 
John, 134, 290; meaning and use, 
693; resumptive, 698, 707; éxeivns 
in Luke, 494; and syets, 707 f.; and 
ovtos, 702 f., 707; discussed, 289 n., 
706-9; and art., 770. 

éxetoe: form, 296; meaning, 
constr., 548; and dzov, 722. 

éex{qtyois: 152. 

éxxakew: 65. 

éxxAnota: meaning, 97, 115, 130; ab- 
sent in John’s Gospel, 134; origin, 
174. 

éexkpepapar: form, 340. 

éxAavOave: constr., 509. 

éxd€éyonar: constr., 480; voice of, 808, 
810 f. 

ékXextTOs: meaning, 115; accent, 231; 
forms, 273. 

éxpuxtyplfo: 65. 

éxrrimrw: voice of, 802. 

éxtrAéw: form, 342. 

éxtropvevo: c. acc., 486. 

éxrévera: 80, 166. 

éxtwdaoow: use, 65 n.; meaning, 80; 
voice of, 810. 

étds: use, 80, 296, 300, 640, 1025. 

éxpevyw: constr., 476; meaning, 828. 

éxpvo: forms, 232, 341, 350. 

éxxé: forms, 213, 342, 352. 

éxov: formation, 157 n.; three end., 
274; use, 298, 373. 

*Edardv: case of, 232, 267, 269, 458 f.; 
’"Erdarov, 154 n.; éXawy, 154. 

é\dcowv: form, 72, 218, 
constr., 484 f.; adv., 488. 

é\arrov: 72, 218. 

é\arrovéw: 148, 218. 

éX\atvew: compounds and forms, 1215. 

éLadpla: 156. 

éldxiorros: form, 278 f., 669; double 
superlative, 278, 670. 

éX\edw: forms of, 184, 342. 

é\eéw: forms of, 342; transitive, 474. 

eXenpocivy: 65, 156. - 


299; 


VAY Se 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


éXevos: 204. 

teos: 261, 262 n. 

éhevOepos: meaning, 662. 

fAtypa: accent, 230. 

€Axw: compounds and forms, 1215; 
eiAkwpevos, 364. 

&Anvitw: 150, 153. 

Anverys: 153. 

“EAAnvucrl: form, 160, 296, 298; use, 
104, 

€\\oyéw: formation, 148, 184; forms, 
342. 

é\r({w: meaning, 115, 125; aspiration 
of, 223 f.; forms, 338; constr., 476; 
use, 877, 884, 1080, 1082. 

édmls: meaning, 115; é’ édriéi, 72, 
224. 

&ot: 105, 205, 236. 

-ena: ending, 188. 

éyavtod: use, 287, 687-90. 

&uPalve: forms, 328. 

épBaredw: 65 n., 164. 

éuBprpdopar: forms, 341. 

éupéow: assimilation of, 1210. 

éuds: statistics, 69; éuod compared 
with yov, 234, 286; use, 69, 134, 
288, 496, 684; ‘‘case”’ of éuol, 447; 
éuol with é, 588; éuod, 682; with 
avrés, 687; and art., 770. 

éprropevonat: transitive, 474. 

tumpoo0ey: use, 300, 621, 640. 

tudutos: 124. 

év: c. inf., 91, 107, 122, 431, 490, 587, 
858, 891, 978 f., 1042, 1062, 1069, 
1072 f., 1092; & 7@ c. inf., 91, 95, 
107, 107 n., 122, 587; & 7@ c. inf. 
in Luke, 91, 95, 107, 107 n., 122, 
431, 587, 1042, 1062, 1092; in LXX, 
452; assimilation, 216f.; accent, 
229, 1211; meaning, 80, 449; and 
ease, 451, 484 f., 520, 522-5, 527, 
531, 533 ff., 554, 569f.,.721; fre- 
quent use, 452 f., 556; in mod. Gk., 
557; c. pwéow, 505, 521, 1210; c. 
verbs, 510, 540, 559 f., 562; case- 
form, 524, 570; in ‘‘pregnant con- 
struction,” 525, 548, 559, 585, 592; 
in comp., 164, 542; as adverb, 
554 f., 585; in adv. phrases, 550; 
origin, 555; discussed, 584-90; in- 


1261 


strumental, 73, 91, 95, 102, 452, 
525-34, 589; locative, 520, 522-5, 
527, 531; agent, 534; place, 586; 
time, 586; accompanying circum- 
stance, 588; sphere, 589; repeti- 
tion, 566-7; & rots, 83; & kuple, 
587; é& Xpio7g, 587; and eis, 453, 
484, 520, 525, 559, 569, 585, 591-3; 
and éx, 599; and éi, 600; and id, 
636; in prepositional phrases, 792, 
978; c. @, 963; proclitic, 1211; sta- 
tistics, 556, 572, 586-7, 801, 858, 
1069. 

tv: accent, 232. 

éva: in mod. Gk., 282. 

—évat: inf. ending, 370. 

évavtu: 80; form, 170; use, 639 f. 

évayvtiov: form, 170; use, 573, 639 f. 

évatos: 213. 

évdelkvupe: reading, 946. 

évdexa: use, 282. 

évdeous: 57. 

éviSvo0Kw: use, 80; formation, 150; 
acc. c. pass. of, 485; voice of, 810. 

év8dpunors: 152. 

év8upa: 151. 

év8dw: c. two acc., 483; acc. c. pass. of, 
485; voice of, 809. 

évSmpnows: spelling, 152, 201. 

éveSpevw: meaning, 80; and case, 474. 

éveSpov: 166. 

tvexa: origin, 249; position, 301, 425, 
641; use, 641; c. inf., 1060. . 

évexev: spelling, 183, 187; aspiration, 
225; position, 425; use, 55, 641; c. 
rov+inf., 1073, 1091. 

évepyéw: transitive, 455; c. acc., 476; 
meaning, 564. 

év0aSe: meaning, 299; use, 548. 

%yu: accent, 232; in mod. Gk., 313. 

évkaxéw: formation, 164; use, 1102. 

évvéa: use, 282. 

évopx({w: constr., 484, 1085. 

%voyos: meaning, 80; constr., 504, 535, 
537; c. gen., 504; c. dat., 504, 537; 
c. eis, 535. 

—evt-: part. ending, 373. 

évrad0a: use, 299. 

évradvatw: 147. 

évradivacpds: 152. 


1262 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


évré\Aopau: c. dat., 1084; c. inf., 1068. 

évred0ev: 300. 

-evto: in LXX, 340. 

évtos: use, 296, 300, 641. 

éytpémw: c. acc., 65 n., 455, 473, 484. 

évtpomy: 82. 

éytuyx ave: 80. 

évémuov: in papyri, 90; in Luke, 122; 
constr., 80, 160, 170 bis, 540, 641. 

éé: form, 215; in mod. Gk., 557; in 
comp., 170; c. verbs, 558; cases 
with, 568; in prepositional phrases, 
792; proclitic, 1211. 

éayopdtw: voice of, 810. 

éEaxodovdéw: 148. 

ébavaoracts: 166. 

étautas: 170 bis. 

eget: forms, 314, 339. 

eépapa: 153. 

eépxopat: 473 n. 

err: constr., 491, 1084 f. 

éyyéopor: meaning, 829. 

éejerav: 87, 339. 

éfjs: adv., 296; constr., 547. 

éurrdve: voice of, 806. 

eEodeBpevw: 148. 

éEopodoyéw: forms, 188; c. drt, 965. 

éfov: use, 1130. 

éfopk({w: constr., 475. 

éEopkiorys: 153. 

eovdevew: 149. 

éeEovdevdw: 149. 

éEovSevéw: spelling, 219; forms, 
constr., 853. 

éovola: 115, 134 n., 148 n. 

éEurv(qw: 149. 

ééw: adj. stem, 160; form, 296, 301; 
use, 300, 642. 

eEw8ev: use, 296, 300, 548, 642. 

éarepos: formation, 160, 278, 298; 
meaning, 662. 

gouxa: intransitive, 801. 

éoptH: c. &v, 523. 

—eos: in contraction, 274. 

érayyedla: 125, 479. 

érayyédAw: constr., 479, 1036. 

éravoxvvopar: and case, 472, 
trans., 473. 

étrattéw: 65 n. 

érakovw: constr., 507. 


485; 


érrav: use, 971. 

érravatravopar: voice of, 819. 

émravw: use, 642, 666. 

éerravwlev: use, 637. 

éme(: use, 132, 954, 963, 965, 971, 
1025 f.; not relative, 954. 

erred: use, 965, 971. 

éredqtrep: use, 965, 1154. 

érretk@s: 204. 

ére(arep: use, 1154. 

érevta: use, 300, 549. 

érréxerva: accent, 232, 244; use, 642. 

érrextetvw: voice of, S07. 

érépxopat: transitive, 455. 

éréxw: meaning, 477, 828; dre with, 
1032: 

ernpedtw: and case, 473. 

eri: in comp., 164 f.; elision, 223; é¢’, 
223-4; ép’ édAmidt, 224; cases with, 
451, 491, 524, 565, 568 ff.; case- 
form, 524, 570; in “pregnant con- 
struction,’”’ 525; c. verbs, 540, 542, 
559 ff., 562, 566; in adv. phrases, 
550; frequency, 556; meaning, 561; 
and eis, 596; discussed, 600-5; and 
kata, 607; and pds, 625; c. dcor, 
733, 963; éb’ é7e not in N. T., 963, 
1000, 1055, 1088, 1088 n.; é&’ 4, 
963; in prepositional phrases, 792, 
963, 978; éxt 7G+inf. in papyri, 
909; c. inf., 1069, 1071. 

émuace: in mod. Gk., 230. 

érBadov: 80. 

émiytvooKkw: meaning of, 827; use, 125, 
909; in or. obl., 1035, 1042. 

értypadw: use, 1135. 

émdel(kvupe: voice of, 810. 

émiSeuxvow: in or. obl., 1036. 

ér(Qeua: spelling, 188. 

érvOupéw: and cases, 472, 473 n., 474, 
508. 

émukadéw: voice of, 809. 

éruxatapatos: 80. 

érAavOdvopar: constr., 472, 473 n., 
509; c. inf., 1060. 

érudnopovy: 151. 

értAvors: abl. use, 514. 

éripaptvpopat: in or. obl., 1035, 1036. 

éripedéonat: constr., 509; voice of, 
820. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


érusevm: use, 850; c. part., 1121. 

émovotos: meaning, 80; origin, 159. 

érimo8eva: 152. 

émrumdOnois: 152, 168. 

érioe(w: 65 n. 

ériokotos: 80, 115. 

ériorapat: forms, 224, 314, 328, 340; 
in or. obl., 1035, 1041. 

émirtara: 122. 

émuorarys: 151. 

émurté\Xw: meaning, 66; epistolary 
aor. of, 845; ¢. inf., 1068. 

émiotpépw: meaning, 115; constr., 856; 
use, 948. 

eruruvayw: 160, 486. 

erirvvaywyy: 80, 166. 

émiracow: constr., 542, 1084. 

émirlOnut: col, 477; eri, 560. 

ériTipdw: accent, 232; constr., 542. 

éritpérw: constr., 1084. 

émitvyxavo: constr., 473 n., 509. 

éripalvw: form, 341, 349, 371 (—davar). 

éripavera: 81. 

éripavys: 81. 

émixopnyéw: 81, 164, 166. 

émTa: use, 282; cardinal, 673. 

emrdts: use, 281, 298, 300. 

exw: constr., 473; elpnxa, 364, 899, 902; 
eiopnxer, 905; compounds and forms, 
342, 349, 1215. 

épavvaw: compounds and forms, 184, 
329. 

épyd{opat: augment, 367; constr., 474, 
484; meaning, 564; compounds 
and forms, 1215; eipyacpévos, 364. 

épyaclav Sotvar: 109. 

tpyov: éoya, 115; breathing, 223. 

epywos: form, 231, 272 f. 

épidela: 152, 231. 

pts: form, 265 bis, 267. 

Eppyvevw: use of part., 1135. 

tpxonar: constr., 313, 478f., 538; 
compounds and forms of, 327 f., 
800 f., 1215; 70a, 82, 97; Hdocar, 
68, 97; EMOarw, 328; ede, 327; ar- 
Ava, 363, 801, 905; constative aor. 
of, 833; use, 869, 904, 905, 948; 
periphrastic use, 118; futuristic 
sense, 869; é\odca, 1105; use of 
part., 1118. 


1263 


€épatdw: meaning, 66, 80, 90; com- 
pounds and forms, 184, 341, 1215; 
npwrovy, 63, 184, 341; constr., 482; 
in papyri, 90; in indirect command, 
1046. 

—es: ending in mod. Gk., 138; ace. pl., 
62, 63, 82, 1389, 184, 266; perf. and 
aor:, 82; 337. 

éoOiw: compounds and forms, 204, 
340, 1215; dayoua, 324, 354, 813; 
payera, 340; meaning, 564; stems 
of, 823. 

ér8: compounds and forms of, 204, 
353 f., 1215. 

éood: for cod, 68, 1388. 

éotrepivos: 158. 

txxatos: form, 279 f., 669; and art., 
769, 775. 

éoxatws: use, 299, 546, 799. 

érw: use, 187, 231 n., 300, 642. 

towbev: use, 300, 505, 548, 643. 

éxdtepos: 160, 278. ; 

érdtw: 143. 

ératpos: use, 186, 725. 

éreds: 143. 

érepo—: in comp., 164, 168. 

érepodidackarhéw: 115, 164. 

érepofuvyéw: form, 330. 

érepos: form, 277; use, 292; and dos, 
746 f.; discussed, 748-50; and art., 
775 f. 

—erys: suffix, 231. 

éroupos: accent, 231; form, 272; c. inf., 
1068, 1077. 

érottos: in mod. Gk., 290. 

éros: form, 268; xa’ éros, 223-4; c. &, 
Gy Ry. 

érupodoyla: 143. 

grupos: 143. 

ev: vowel-changes, 198, 201 f. 

ev—: verbs begin. with, 367 bis. 

ed: in comp., 164, 367; adv., 299; c. 
mpacow, 1121. 

evayyed({w: meaning, 115, 125, 134; 
augment, 367; reduplication, 365; 
constr., 474, 483; trans. and in- 
trans., 799; in or. obl., 1035 f.; 
compounds and forms of, 1215. 

evayyéAvov: 115, 133, 134. 

evayyetorys: 115, 153. 


1264 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


evapeoros: 80, 168. 

edye: use, 299. 

evyevys: form, 272. 

edSatpovia: 156. 

Hvsla: case of, 460. 

evSoxéw: meaning, 81; trans., 473 n., 
474; compounds and forms of, 164, 
837, 842, 1215. 

ed0éws: use, 549. 

ev0u-: in comp., 164, 296. 

«000(s): form, 294, 296; use, 549; c. 
part., 1124, 1139. 

evkatpéw: 81. 

eidoyéw: and case, 473. 

evroyla: 53 n. 

evvoéw: forms, 330. 

evoS6w: form, 325 n., 343. 

etrep(otatos: 133. 

eirpocwréw: 80, 148, 164. 

edpaxtdwv: 108, 166. 

evp(oxw: 150; compounds and forms, 
327, 338, 360, 1215; ebpé, 327; as- 
piration, 225; voice of, 809; use, 
873, 883, 898, 1103, 1122, 1135; in 
or. obl., 1035, 1041. 

-evs: ending, 272. 

edoeBys: form, 272. 

evox jpov: 80. 

evopalve: 150. 

evyaptoréw: meaning, 66, 80; voice of, 
474; c. dr, 965. 

edyaptotia: 81. 

edxopar: use, 886, 919. 

—evw: verbs in, 147 ff., 152. 

éppaba: 105, 215. 

"Eqeoos: form, 295. 

éplorynpt: form, 328. 

é(at)pvlSvos: form, 272. 

éx 8és: 206. 

%xw: compounds and forms, 200f., 
206, 319, 338, 346, 367, 870, 897, 
900 f., 1215; edxocav, 63, 73, 82, 
336, 887, 921; écya, 73; efxav, 68, 
73, 339; oxés, 329; écxov, 823; 
éxxnxa, 364, 900; intrans., 799; 
intrans. in its compounds, 800, 
802, 815, 828; aspiration, 223; 
periphrastic forms, 330, 360; in 
Rev., 414, 441; in anacolutha, 489; 
éxe. impersonal, 457; constr., 477, 


480, 487, 508, 789, 838, 848, 850; 
c. pred. acc., 480-1; c. adv., 299, 
546, 799; voice of, 799 f., 809, 815; 
c. xaxkés, 802, 815; stems of, 823; 
meaning, 828; use, 879, 902, 906, 
930, 946, 1122; éxwv, 135, 881, 1106, 
1122, 1126 f., 1134 f., 1202; “Lat- 
inism,’’ 108, 1034. 

—éw: verbs in, 147 ff., 184, 203, 341 ff., 
351; confused with —aw, 73, 82, 184, 
341 f. 

éws: use, 80, 297, 550, 648, 674, 953, 
975 f.; in phrases; 650," 792=" c. 
xatw, 297, 550, 643; c. drov, 291, 
729, 975-6; c. wore, 643; c. av, 976; 
preposition, 643, 674, 792, 975; 
adv., 648, 1075; conjunction, 953, 
975 f.; c. inf. (ws rod édOetv), 975, 
979, 1060, 1070, 1074, 1092. 

éwutod: Ionic, 203. 


F 
F: 365. 
Fi8v0s: 289. 

Z 
{: 218, 240. 


taw: formation, 147; constr., 479; 
compounds and forms, 194, 341 f., 
1215; future, 356, 813, 889; voice 
of, 807; meaning, 833 f.; ¢#v, 341; 
¢av, 1105. 

teords: use, 1097. 

{evyvupt: compounds and forms, 314. 

feuxtnpla: 157. 

{nrevw: 148. 

{iHAos: 261, 262 n. 

{nrdw: forms, 148, 203, 342; &mdobre, 
203, 325, 342. 

{nprdw: acc. c. pass., 485. 

Znvas: 172 bis. 

tyréw: c. inf., 
1078. 

{ifdviov: 95, 111. 

{vyds: 262, 263 n. 

-tw: verbs in, 348, 352; -ca-forms, 
348 f. 

toh: meaning, 115, 134-5; spelling, 
200 f. 

{wo-: in comp., 164. 


1038, 1078; c¢. wa, 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


{évvupr: 311; compounds and forms, 


314, 1215. 
{ovviw: compounds and forms, 314, 


1215. 
{wotrovéw: 82, 164. 
{wotrornfels: use, 1114. 


H 


H: breathing, 222. 

m: origin, 178; long vowel, 178, 182, 
191, 240; vowel-changes with, 184, 
187, 191-6, 324, 341, 361; n=, 
191, 192 n., 238-9; » and e, 192, 
240, 324; y and v, 195; nom. end., 
267; after «, 1, p, 274; augment, 
286, 368; in fut. pass., 356; in 2d 
aor., 340. 

#: use, 406, 412, 427, 432, 661, 663, 

666, 789, 1158; ‘‘or,’’ 406, 427, 

666, 789, 1158; ‘“‘than,’’ 616, 661, 

663 (uadXAov 4), 666, 789 (uadrrov 4); 

after comparative, 666; and zap4a, 

616; in interrogation, 917; 4 Tis, 

917; in mod. Gk., 1146; in comp., 

1150; in double questions, 1177; 

discussed, 1188 f. 

: use, 1150. 

-y: ending, 194, 232, 249, 256, 274. 

y: vowel-changes, 194f., 198, 324; 
n=t, 2389; n=o., 326; in aor. subj. 
and fut. ind., 193; iota subscript, 
194. 

Hyéopat: meaning, 80; constr., 480, 
481; in or. obl., 1036, 1041. 

#8y: position, 423; constr., 546; use, 
1146. 

4Stoera: form, 294; meaning, 670; adv., 
488. 

78v-oopos: 166. 

ne: vowel-changes, 193 f. 

-yka: in mod. Gk., 898. 

ko: compounds and forms, 337, 358, 
907, 1215; perf. sense but pres. 
form, 337, 358, 865, 869, 893; #éa, 
82. 

Harel: 95, 105. 

HAtkla: 80. 

HAdlkos: use, 291 f., 710, 741; dis- 
cussed, 733 f. 

HAvos: gender of, 252. 


= 


1265 

fjpar: compounds and forms, 314, 329, 
340, 350. ; 

Hepa: Hebraic use, 95; gen. use, 295, 
497; loc. use, 522; gen.-abl. of, 
256; and ellipsis, 652, 1202. 

Hpépas kal vuKrds: 495. 

Hpétepos: form, 277; use, 286, 288, 
684. 

% phv: form, 192, 1024; use, 1150. 

jpt-: prefix, 161, 163. 

Hprovs: form, 199, 274 f.; ¢. art., 775. 

Hulwpov: 204. 

—nv: noun end., 256; ace. sing. of adj. 
in —js, 62, 72, 97; verb end., 347, 
349; in 2d aor. pass., 340, 347, 349. 

—qv: inf. end., 343. 

—nva: adverbs, 349. 

—hvy: suffix, 151. 

jvika: 301; use, 300, 971. 

47ep: disputed reading, 633; use, 1154. 

Hpepos: 159. 

“Hp#ns: gen.-abl. of, 255; and art., 
760. 

“Hpw8tavol: 110, 155. 

—ys: adj. in, 272; suffix, 296. 

—js: proper names, 172, 214, 255; 
gen.-abl. end., 255, 256, 295. 

H oy: accent, 230. 

Hoodopar: constr., 479; forms, 1216. 

hooov: form, 218, 277. 

Aovxla: 80. 

ijovxos: form, 272. 

Tou: use, 1154. 

qtTdon01: form, 341, 1216; meaning, 
865. 

qtrynpa: 153, 218. 

nv: vowel-changes, 205. 


.) 


8: consonant, 222. 

—6-: verb-stem, 353. 

64:in mod. Gk., 353, 870, 889, 907, 926. 
—Oa: ending, 337. 

—@Oat: inf. end., 370. 

@arXacoa: constr., 794. 

Oardootos: 159. 

@aA7rw: 65 n. 

Oavaros: meaning, 115; use, 784, 794. 
Bavatrwbels: use, 1114. 

8ar7w: compounds and forms, 1216. 


1266 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Sappéw: in anacolutha, 440, 1135; 
constr., 474. 

Oapoos: spelling, 217. 

Oavpatw: various readings, 188; constr., 
474, 532, 965; use, 879; 6. Batya, 
478; 6. ei, 965; aorists, 818; com- 
pounds and forms, 1216. 

Ocdopat: aorists, 818; meaning, 829, 
893 f. 

Bearp({w: 149. 

Betos: 116. 

Geadrys: 65. 

OAnpa: 151. 

GAnors: 151. 


6é\w: form, 205 f.; augment, 368; in 


mod. Gk., 353; constr., 353, 391, 
430, 431) 7551778073. 00,01 Oleauhe, 
67; use, 919, 923 f., 933; as aux- 
iliary verb, 1056; dé\w wa, 4931, 
933, 1046, 1055-6; od dew, 1093; 
in or. obl., 1036; in indirect com- 
mand, 1046; c. inf., 551, 1038, 
1055 f., 1060, 1078, 1093; c. aor. inf., 
878; inf. of, 1058 f.; in John, 1078. 

@éua: spelling, 153, 200. 

Bepédcov: 80, 262, 263 n. 

Oepedtdw: formation, 149; form, 1212. 

—8ev: suffix, 250 n., 296, 300. 

—Oevr—: In aor. pass. part., 373. 

Qeo—: in comp., 168. 

Bedrrvevo-tos: 65, 168. 

@eds: gender of, 252, 253; double 
decl., 257; vocative of, 261, 261 n., 
463, 465; Occ, 463; reading, 477; 
use of gen., 499f., 516; abl. of, 
514; meaning, 116 bis, 768; and art., 
758, 761, 780, 786, 795; omitted, 
1202. 

Oeddiv: form, 269. 

Oérw: in mod. Gk., 149. 

Oewpéw: durative meaning, 80, 838; in 
John, 134 n.; impf. of, 843; in or. 
obl., 1032, 1035, 1041. 

—Qy-: aor. suffix, 332, 357. 

—O8yxa: in mod. Gk., 898. 

—§mv: aor. pass. end., 334, 340, 347. 

Oypto—: in comp., 164. 

—6ns: aor. end., 332, 340, 356f.; fut., 
357. 

Oyoavp({w: constr., 853. 


—Ojcopat: verb end., 340, 357, 818. 

—00-: 215. 

—@.: imper. suffix, 328. 

Oyyaw: constr., 508. 

O@A(Bw: class, 351; use of part., 1135. 

PACs: accent, 230. 

Ovqokw: compounds and forms of, 
319, 1216; meaning, 345, 827, 845, 
893; use of inf., 1030. 

@vytds: use, 1097. 

®opuBéw: aor. of, 851. 

OpnoKela: 124, 231. 

Opyokds: 124, 231. 

OptapBedwo: meaning, 81, 108; forma- 
tion, 148; constr., 474; voice of, 800. 

Ouyarprov: 118. 

Buprdw: 150. 

Oupds: 151. 

Bvotacrypiov: 138. 

—06: subj. end., 310. 

—Ow: verbs in, 149, 353. 


I 


t: vowel-changes with, 187 f., 191f., 
195-9, 204 f., 207, 230, 237; ¢, 205; 
loc. end., 249, 452, 520, 1067; class 
of verbs, 351, 363; in reduplica- 
tion, 363; in augment, 366 f.; dat. 
end., 520; prothetic, 1209. 

t-: verbs begin. with, 367. 

—(: adv. suffix, 296, 452. 

—(a: suffix, 156, 196 f., 273; for —ea, 
197. 

—vaves: suffix, 155. 

idopat: fut., 819; voice of, 819; com- 
pounds and forms, 232, 1216; 
aorists, 818. 

—las: gen. end., 259. 

—td@: verbs in, 150, 351. 

we: accent, 231; adv., 302; interj., 
328, 391; idé, 327, 328. 

t8tos: compared with, airés, 62, 80, 
83, 134, 287, 289; idtay with xara, 
223-4, 609; discussed, 691 f.; and 
art., 770. 

i800: adv. and interj., 302; kai idod, 
120, 122, 396; in elliptical sen- 
tences, 391, 396; case with, 413, 
441, 460; c. nom., 460; use, 1193. 

i8w: forms, 1216. 


ree 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


“Iepa IIddet: declension, 257. 

tepatela: 152. 

tepateupa: 153. 

teparevw: 80, 148. 

tepevs: 115. 

tepds: spelling, 223, 225. 

*IepoodAvpa: spelling of, 225; gender 
of, 253, 257; and art., 760; use, 120, 
253, 253 n., 257, 263. 

tepoupyew: form, 204; constr., 474. 

*Iepoveadyp: use, 120, 253. 

tepwodvy: spelling, 156, 201. 

—véw: fut. end., 355. 

—({w: verbs in, 147, 149 ff., 351 f., 355; 
Tut wof,35o: 

ty: in opt., 326. 

type: compounds and forms, 306, 309, 
314, 1216. 

*Incots: form, 263; and art., 760. 

ixavds: 76 ixavov NauBdavev, 108; 76 i. 
mwocety, 108; in Luke, 122; c. inf,, 
658, 1077. 

ixavow: constr., 480. 

ikvéopat: compounds and forms, 1216. 

*Ikdviov: spelling, 197. 

—uds: words in, 158 f.; three termina- 
tions, 273; constr. of words in, 504. 

tAaoKopat: constr., 474. 

ihaornptov: 80, 154, 157. 

‘ews: spelling, 62; meaning, 80; read- 
ing, 260; form, 272. 

iparitw: 80, 149. 

tuarvov: meaning, 408; and ellipsis, 
1202. 

ipatiopds: 152. 

—w: in mod. Gk., 261. 

fva: in John, 24, 64, 69, 74, 82, 134, 
138, 1055, 1077; rather than inf., 
111, 371, 996, 1054 f., 1071, 1077; 
use, 120, 244, 393f., 400, 430f., 
584, 907 f., 928f., 933, 935, 940, 
943, 950, 960f., 980, 1054f., 
1087 f.; ta awdnpw6f, 120; c. pres. 
indic., 325; twa uy ec. indic., 127, 
194, 984, 1169; c. fut. indic., 127, 
194; =an auxiliary, 933; constr., 
201, 203, 292, 325, 330, 850; origin, 
249, 301; c. obros, 699; c. wn, 134, 
983-4, 987, 995, 1169; ta clause as 
subject, 393, 430, 992; in apposi- 


1267 


tion clauses, 1078; in final clauses, 
981-5, 991-4; non-final, 1072; wa 
ti, 244, 739, 916; and dS2ws, 987, 
1056; in consecutive clauses, 997-9, 
1002; and dr, 1032, 1049, 1055, 
1056; in indirect commaad, 1046 f.; 
and 44, 1187; and el'ipsis, 1202; 
statistics in N. T., 9854 

—wos: suffix, 158, 197. 

—vov: ending, 154-6, 197, 273; dimin. 
end., 66. 

"Idan: spelling, 214. 

—tos: ending, 159, 197, 273, 276. 

tov8atta: 150. 

*Tov8aixas: 160, 205. 

*Tovdatos: 95. 

—votor: fut. end., 355. 

—ts: ending, 261, 296. 

—tcaor: 87, 319. 

—ioréw: fut. end., 355. 

to Oe: 328, 330. 

—toxw: verb suffix, 869. 

topev: 87, 238-9, 319. 

ico—: in comp., 168. 

toos: accent, 231. 

"Iocpanad: and art., 760. 

—ioa: suffix, 155. 

icrava: 316. 

iota: compounds and forms, 316. 

tote: 87, 238-9, 319, 329, 360, 941. 

Yornpu: compounds and forms, 225, 
231, 305, 306, 310, 315f., 319f., 
346, 359, 366, 1212, 1216; icra, 
307; torn, 327; éornv, 346-8, 800, 
817; éoradnv, 817; éoraxa, 320, 359; 
gatnxa, 320, 358-9, 364, 895; (e)i- 
aoTnkev, 3066; éotws, éotnkws, 320, 
734 f.; voice of, 800, 817. 

ioropéw: 80. 

—.ortos: ending, 276 ff. 

ioxds: 148 n., 231. 

ioxvw: 351; constr., 478. 

—(ow: fut. end., 355. 

*Irovpaia: c. art., 788. 

ix@v8.ov: 155. 

—16: fut. in, 355. 

*Iwavns: forms, 194, 214, 255, 258. 

—(wy: ending, 276 f. 

*Iwofs: form, 263, 268. 

*Iwohd: and art., 761. 


1268 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


K 


x: 216, 223, 346f., 358f., 1210; in 
perf., 358. 

—Ka: suffix, 296, 308 ff., 319, 346, 358 f., 
801; -xa aor., 308, 310, 346, 347, 
359. 

xa’: in phrases, 62, 195, 209, 223 f., 
282, 963, 967, 1210. 

xaalpw: compounds and forms, 1216. 

KaOdep: use, 967, 1154. 

kaSapl{w: meaning, 30; formation, 
150; augment of, 1209; compounds 
and forms, 183, 183 n., 1216 

KaSapds: 80. 

Kadéfopat: forms and other com- 
pounds, 1216. 

kae(s: in mod. Gk., 292. 

KaQets: 68. 

Kadeffs: 171. 

Ka8nynrjs: 138. 

Ka0hkow: use, 886. 

KdOnpat: compounds and forms, 232, 
314, 329, 340, 350, 1216; xa6y, 314. 

KaOnpepivos: 158. 

Ka0(tw: use, 866; compounds and 
forms, 1216. 

Ka0lornp.: constr., 480, 481, 486. 

Kad: use, 967; c. éav, 967. 

KaQorTt: use, 722, 963, 967; c. av, 967. 

Ka8ov: 157, 314, 329, 340. 

Ka0es: use, 433, 963, 968; in or. obl., 
1045. 

KaQootep: use, 968, 1154. 

kal: crasis, 208, 984; use, 94, 133, 134, 
135, 393, 426-9, 432, 443 f., 680, 
947 f., 951, 1041, 1136, 1188; 6¢ xai, 
122; xai idov, 120, 122; kai abrés, —7, 
122; xai=drr, 393, 426; xai=‘and 
yet,’ 426; xai radra, 1129, 1140; c. 
avrod, 441; c. rodro, 460, 487, 1140; 
c. kal, 427, 566; c. numerals, 672; 
c. art., 694 f., 724; and otros, 705; 
with several attributives, 785-9; 
and ws, 968; correlative, 969; in 
concessive clauses, 1026; in or. obl., 
1047; c. ye, 1129, 1140; in mod. 
Gk., 1146; c. negatives, 1164, 1173; 
discussed, 1179-83. 

Katyés: meaning, 80, 176, 


Kaltrep: use, 431, 1129; c. part., 1124, 
1129, 1140. 

Katpds: form and meaning, 522 f. 

Ka(rou: use, 1129, 1140, 1154. 

kalrovye: use, 1129, 1154. 

kalw: meaning, 828; compounds and 
forms, 185, 350, 352, 1216. 

kak—: in comp., 164. 

Kaket: 208, 

Kaketvos: crasis, 208. 

kakoAoyéw: and case, 473. 

kakoTrdGera: 80, 156. 

Kakdw: 6 kaxwowv, 1273; c. inf., 1068. 

kakas xe: 546, 799. 

kahéw: meaning, 115; constr., 478, 
480; as copula, 394, 457; c. pred. 
acc., 480, 485; use, 485, 885; im- 
perf. tense, 885; xkadéow, 349, 355; 
compounds and forms, 349, 355, 
907 f., 1216. 

KdAdov: form, 277 f.; meaning, 665. 

kado-: In compounds, 164, 166. 

Kadds: meaning, 661; c. infinitive, 
1084; kaddv c. eivi, 276, 886, 1084. 

Kadvmrw: class, 353. 

Kadas: form, 248, 295; use, 299; cards 
éxew, 299, 457, 546, 799. 

Kadpndros: 95, 192. 

kappow: 204, 

Kdpve: c. part., 1121; forms of, 1216. 

Kdv: 208, 984, 1025. 

kave(s: in mod. Gk., 292. 

Kkapadokéw: 164. 

kapdla: instr., 487; loc., 523. 

kaptepéw: forms of, 833; c. part., 1121. 

kat: 204, 

kat : 207. 

kata: form, 80, 204, 223; in comp., 
163-5, 166, 169, 476, 511, 558, 561, 
827 f.; cases with, 491, 531, 569 f.; 
in adv. phrases, 550; kar’ dvap, 83; 
TO kad’ juépay, 487; frequency, 556; 
in mod. Gk., 557, 570; with verbs, 
560; case-form, 570; contrasted 
with ava, 571; contrasted with dyzi, 
523; discussed, 605-9; and zapéd, 
616; and tzép, 6380; with «is, 673; 
with dcov, 733, 963, 967; with és, 
967; in prepositional phrases, 792; 
with inf., 1069, 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


kataBalyw: forms, 328, 330; constr., 
856; use, 895. 

kataPapéw: trans., 455, 476. 

KkataBpaBevw: c. acc., 477. 

Katayyedevs: 80, 166. 

katayeAdw: meaning, 330, 838. 

KaTayvup.: xareaie, Kareay@ouv, 365, 
1212. 

Kkatayovitw: 477. 

KkatadSovddw: voice of, 802. 

karat: case-form, 296, 605. 

Katakaiw: meaning, 828. 

KkatakAlyw: constr., 482. 

KkataKpipa: 80, 156, 166. 

Kkatakpivw: constr., 784; meaning, 828; 
in or. obl., 1035 f. 

Katakptots: 156. 

katradaAdéw: trans., 455. 

katadapBave: voice of, 812; in or. obl., 
1036. 

katahéyw: form, 341. 

KkatahAayy: 115. 

Kata\Adoow: 115. 

katédupa: 151, 166. 

katad\vw: meaning, 828; constr., 857. 

katavevw: c. inf., 1068. 

KatavtTaw: use, 80, 863. 

Kkatavvutis: 151. 

Katatave: trans. and intrans., 800. 

Katatéracpa: 80, 167. 

Katatrovéw: 455. 

katapdopat: and case, 473. 

Katapatos: use, 1096. 

katapyéw: aor. of, 851. 

KatacKknvow: form, 343. 

Kkatacod({w: c. acc., 477. 

KatacTéAAw: 65 n. 

katadevyw: meaning of, 827 f. 

katadpovéw: c. gen., 573. 

kataxéw: form, 342. 

kaTaxpdopnat: 476-7. 

Kkatévavtt: formation, 160, 171, 297; 
use, 639, 643 f. 

KkatevoTov: formation, 160, 171, 297; 
use, 644. 

kaTepyafopat: meaning, 564. 

Kater Olw: meaning, 564. 

Katéxw: 139. 

Kkatnyopew: constr., 136, 473 n., 475 n., 
611. 


1269 


Kkatnywp: 80, 166. 

KaTHxeots: 65. 

katnxéw: 65, 485, 486. 

katioxvewv: trans., 455. 

katomoGev: use, 647. 

katomtTpi{w: voice of, 810. 

Katop@wpa: 153. 

kdtw: adj. stem, 160; case, 296; use, 
298, 300. 

katatepos: 160, 278, 297, 298. 

katSa: spelling, 211. 

kavpatifw: acc. c. pass., 485. 

Kavodw: 149, 

kavxdopnar: forms of, 341, 876; constr., 
475. 

kahapvaovp: 180, 184, 219. 

ké: use, 354. 

ket: In mod. Gk., 206. 

keipar: compounds and forms of, 316, 
350, 357, 375; voice of, 813; special 
use of éxeiunv, 906. 

Keivos: Ionic, 206. 

kepta: form, 197. 

kelpw: voice of, 809. 

keXevw: constr., 514, 1084; in or. obl., 
1036 f.; c. acc. and inf., 111, 857, 
1078, 1084; c. obj. inf., 1036 f. 

Ké\Aw: spelling, 206. 

kév: in rel. clauses, 958. 

kev—: in verbs, 164. 

kevds: in comp., 169; c. abl., 372. 

kevtuplwv: 109. 

Kevas: 160. 

kepdvvupt: compounds and forms, 317, 
1216. 

kepavviw: compounds and forms, 1216. 


kepdalvw: forms of, 232, 349, 1216. 


kepdSaw: forms of, 1217. 

—«es: 2d pers. sing. end., 309, 337. 

Kehadatdw: 149. 

Kepady: use, 781. 

Kehadr({w: 149. 

kepadidw: 149, 

kfvoos: 109. 

Kfpv—: accent, 230. 

Knpvoow: meaning, 115; use of part., 
1106. 

Knydas: 105. 

—Ki-: 742. 

KivSuvevw: use, 884. 


1270 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Kivvapopov: 111. 

k(s (kl): Thessalian Gk., 291. 

—Kk-: 214. 

kdalw: constr., 475, 853; meaning, 
834; forms, 185, 352, 355, 1217. 

kAatda: form, 211. 

KAdw: compounds and forms, 185, 
1217. 

KAels: accent, 231; forms, 265. 

k\e(w: compounds and forms, 340, 
1217. 

KAnpovopéw: constr., 475. 

KAntés: 115, 125. 

KA(Bavos: 63. 

kA(pa: spelling, 230. 

KAtvaptov: 155. 

kdtvy: 80, 119. 

KAtyiStov: 155. 

kA(vw: trans. and intrans., 800; com- 
pounds and forms, 1217. 

kvj9e: 149, 353. 

KodpavrTns: 109. 

Kounaw: 65 n.; voice of, 817, 819; aor. 
of, 817, 848. 

Kowds: readings, 202; use, 691. 

kotvwvia: 115. 

koweves: constr., 504. 

xokkivos: 80, 158. 

KoAaTtopat: SO. 

Kodad(tw: 80, 149. 

Ko\Adw: meaning, 80; voice of, 817, 
819. 

KodkAvBprorys: 120, 154. 

Ko\Aovptov: readings, 202. 

KodoBdw: 149. 

Kodoooal: form, 184 f. 

Kodwvia: 109. 

kop({w: use, 878; 
forms, 813, 1217. 

Kotros: 65 n., 80. 

Koto: constr., 475; voice of, 809; 
compounds and forms, 1217. 

koTidw: meaning, 150; forms, 341. 

kopactov: 64, 80, 118, 155. 

kopBav: 95, 236, 270. 

kopévvupt: forms, 1217. 

koopiKds: use, 777. 

kdopos: meaning, 115, 134; and art., 
796. 


Kovetwodla: 109, 


compounds and 


kpaBaros: spelling, 65, 119, 213. 


Kpd{w: intrans., 801; use, 895 f.; com- 


pounds.and forms, 325, 348, 361, 
907, 1217; xeéxpaya, 896, 898. 

Kpatadw: 149. 

Kpatéw: constr., 455, 473 n., 475, 
475 n., 508, 511; kind of action, 
865. 

Kpatictos: 278. 

Kpatos: 148 n. 

kpeloowv: form, 218, 277 f., 299, 669; 
superlative of, 670; xpetcoov with 


nv, 886. 
Kpelttwv: 72, 218. 
Kpépapar: compounds and _ forms, 


316 f., 350, 1217. 

Kpepavvie, kpenatw and kpepdw: com- 
pounds and forms, 317, 1217. 

Kpt: root, 175. 

Kpipa: 153. 

Kpiwa: accent, 186; form, 230. 

Kpivw: constr., 478, 511; meaning, 828; 
use, 905; compounds and forms, 
233, 1217. | 

xptots: in John, 134; é7e with, 1033. 

kpvBw: new pres., 147; imperf. of com- 
pound, 351. 

KpuTTds: and art., 764. 

KkpiTTw: constr., 483; voice of, 807, 
817; compounds and forms, 1217. 

KpvotadrAl{w: 150. 

Kpvpa: Doric, 249, 295. 

KTdopat: meaning, 80; constr., 472; 
voice of, 810; forms of, 871. 

Ktifw: use, 896. 

ktiows: and was, 772. 

ktlopa: 151. 

ktlorys: 151, 231. 

kuk\d0ev: use, 644. 

KvKAw: case-form, 295 f.; constr., 521, 
644. 

KkvAfw: compounds and forms, 1217. 

Kvpivov: 95, 105, 111. 

kuvaptov: 118, 155. 

kupla: 81, 173. 

Kuptakés: 80, 116, 158. 

Kuptevw: 473 n. 

Kvptos: voc. of, 466; gen. or abl., 503; 
and art., 761, 785 f., 795; meaning, 
80, 81, 97, 116; & xupiw, 115. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


kuptotys: 154. 

kwAtw: use, 838, 863; constr., 1089, 
tS Wg he 

kw@poroAts: 167. 


A 


A211, 216, 352, 356; 

Aa—: in comp., 164, 169. 

Aayxavew: c. inf., 1060. 

AdOpa(a): 295. 

Aakéw or AdoKw: form, 1217. 

Aadéw: use of fut., 873; c. dr, 1034; in 
or. obl., 1048; a Hellenism, 1077. 

Aapa: 105. 

AapBave: compounds and forms of, 
210, 231, 327 f., 939, 1217; aaa, 
82; €\aBav, 339; AdBe, 231, 327-8; 
etAnda, 359, 364, 899, 901; c. pred. 
acc., 480; c. eis, 482; use of aor. 
part., 859, 1127, 1135; perf. use, 
897, 899 ff.; meaning, 829. 

AavOdvw: constr., 551, 1102, 1120; 
compounds and forms, 1217. 

Aads: 63, 65 n., 407. 

Aatopéw: 164. 

Aarpevw: constr., 540. 

Aeytdv: 108, 188. 

Aéyo: compounds and forms, 329, 339, 
1217; Aeywv, 1386; reyas, 82; 
constr., 97, 473, 479, 480, 484, 626, 
1084; Aéywr and déyorres, indecl. in 
LXX, 415; and efzov, 838, 883; 
use, 866; c. pred. acc., 480, 484; c. 
ace. and inf., 1084; in or. obl., 
1035 ff., 1039, 1048. 

—her—: root, 197, 351. 

Xelrw: compounds and forms, 348, 
BOlmoDO el Lisa CONStT:, 041; 
ér\erpva, 82. 

Aetrovpyla: 81, 193. 

Aetroupytkds: 80, 158, 169. 

Aévriov: 109. 

Acveis: 263. 

Anvos: 253, 410. 

Ayers: forms, 409. 

hiBavos: 95, 96, 105. 

ABeptivos: use, 109; constr., 788. 

AvBo-: in comp., 164. 

A(80s: gender of, 253; reading, 718. 


1271 


Arkpdw: 80. 

Aupds: gender of, 63, 63 n., 253, 253 n., 
410. 

Aiptrave: 65 n., 147. 

—dur—: root, 197. 

Altpa: 109. 

Adp: 80. 

—-dA-: 214. 

Aoyela: 80, 152, 197. 

Aoyla: 65. 

Aoylfopar: voice of, 816, 819; c. éis, 
481; c. two acc., 489; 87 with, 
1035; compounds and forms, 1217. 

Aoyo-: in comp., 164, 167. 

Adyos: meaning, 97, 134-5; formation, 
151; forms, 327; é7e with, 1033. 

AovSopéw: and case, 473. 

Aoutrdy: 7d Aoirdv, 294, 487, 488; rod 
Aourrod, 295. 

Aovw: compounds and forms, 80, 340, 
1217; constr., 486. 

Avpalvopar: and case, 473. 

Avtréw: use, 871; c. acc., 473 n.; c. 
part., 1122. 

Avan: gen., 515. 

Avotrehéw: c. dat., 472. 

Advtpov: 115, 175. 

Autpdw: 97, 115. 

Autpetys: 154. 

Auxvla: 65. 

Atw: accent, 230; reading, 202; form, 
328, 333, 347; constr., 856; in mod. ° 
Gk., 870; meaning, 828. 


M 


p: 210, 216, 362. 

—p-: inserted, 210. 

—pa: suffix, 151, 153, 230. 

padyrevw: formation, 148; 
475; trans., 65, 800. 

Ma6@atos: spelling, 215. 

—pat: per. end., 340. 

pakap: adj., 272. 

pakeddov: 109. 

pakpav: adv., 294; adjectival, 547. 

paxpo—: in comp., 164, 169. 

pakpobev: ad paxpder, 297, 300, 548. 

partora: use, 279, 298, 488, 663, 670. 

paddov: constr., 276, 278 f., 295, 663; 


constr., 


1272 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


positive, 278, 663; waddov c. com- 
parative, 278, 488; adv., 298, 663. 

papovas: 95, 105, 111, 214, 254. 

Mavaco js: form, 268. 

pavOavw: in or. obl., 1040; c. inf., 
1038, 1040, 1103, 1122; c. part., 
1040, 1122; compounds and forms, 
1217. 

pavva: 95, 270. 

papava, 04: 105. 

Mapiap: 96, 214, 259. 

paptupéw: uaptupoduar, 80; aor. of, 850; 
use, 134, 135, 894; constr., 479, 
1085; in or. obl., 1036. 

paptupla: use, 135; dre with, 1033. 

paptus: c. art., 136, 414; 67. with, 1033. 

pararotys: 156. 

paxarpa: 82, 256. 

pé: prep. in mod. Gk., 535, 570. 

peyadtoryns: 148 n., 156. 

peyadwovrvn: spelling, 156, 201. 

péyas: forms, 294; use, 661; superla- 
tive of, 278-9, 670. 

peytoray: 155. 

peBodela: 152. 

peOdptov: 156. 

peOvoKkw: formation, 150; constr., 854. 

pe(Cov: forms, 272, 274, 277; wefdre- 
pos, 80, 277; in comparison, 80, 
663. 

pe(popat: spelling, 206. 

‘peAXavrwtepov: use, 277. 

pertoovos: 159. 

péAXw: augment, 82, 368; forms of, 
368 f., 1217; and tense, 824; constr., 
857, 870, 877 ff.; in periphrastic 
forms, 889, 891; imperf., 884; use, 
882, 884, 921, 1082, 1126; as adj., 
157 n.; péAAwy=‘future,’ 373; c. 
inf., 1056, 1078; c. pres. inf., 870, 
882, 889, 891, 1081; c. fut. inf., 
369, 877, 882, 1080, 1082; c. aor. 
inf., 857, 878, 882, 1056, 1078, 
1081; c. part., 877-8, 1118, 1126; 
use of part., 373, 1118. 

pédtw: were ¢. S71, 965; compounds 
and forms, 1217. 

pepBpava: 109. 

péepvypat: in or. obl., 1040. 

péwdopar: constr., 473, 475. 


pév: particle, 302; postpositive, 424; 
c. 6é, 127, 1382, 135, 428, 482, 747, 
749, 1145, 1186; without 6é, 440; 
and asyndeton, 440; and art., 694; 
c. és, 695 f.; c. odros, 705; Cc. adXos, 
747; c. érepos, 749; antithetic, 750, 
1145; discussed, 1150-3; c. kai, 
1183; c. ov, 695, 1151, 1191. 

—pev: per. end., 370; Homeric inf. end., 
249. 

—pevat: Homeric inf. end., 370. 

—pevo-: part. suffix, 373. 

pevotvye: use, 80, 425. 

pévrou: use, 424, 1154, 1188. 

pévw: constr., 475; compounds and 
forms, 233, 475, 1218; fut.,. 356; 
aor. of, 850, 856. 

péptpva: 62. 

Pepipvao: c. uy and imperative, 853. 

peptorns: 154. 

€pos: use, 487. 

peorttevw: 148. 

pécov: adverb, 488; use, 294, 644, 648. 

pecovixtioy: 471. 

Mecororapta: c. art., 788. 

péoos: in comp., 167; use,'550; c. &:4, 
581; and art., 775; wéow c. év, 1210. 

Mecoias: spelling, 105, 214f.; use, 
105, 416, 483. 

pera: in comp., 164, 561; elision, 223; 
in phrases, 226; origin, 249; cases 
with, 491, 524, 531, 533, 569 f.; 
and oty, 526, 626f.; frequency, 
556; in mod. Gk., 557; c. verbs, 
560, 562; case-form, 570; and &, ° 
588; and xara, 607; discussed, 609- 
12; and xpés, 625; c. radra, 704; c. 
inf., 626, 858, 909, 979, 1039, 1060, 
1069, 1074, 1092; c. perf. inf., 909; 
statistics c. inf., 858, 979, 1069, 
1074, 1092. 

peraBalvw: forms, 328. 

perad(Swpt: constr., 510. 

perohapBdave: constr., 510, 519. 

perapéXopar: voice of, 819. 

perapopddw: constr., 486. 

PeTavoew: meaning, 115, 134; reading, 
1010. 

peratd: c. verbs, 562; origin, 626; use, 
645; c. art., 789. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


perarlOnpr: use, 879. 

peréxw: constr., 509. 

péroxos: constr., 505. 

Petpto—: in comp., 164. 

péxpt: and final s, 221, 296; and axpu, 
639; use, 645, 954, 975; not rela- 
tive, 954; in prepositional phrases, 
792; c. av, 975; c. inf., 979, 1074. 

pq: form, 244; in mod. Gk., 1167; en- 
croaches on ov, 74, 82, 1167; use, 
330, 401, 423, 430, 486f., 751, 
850-4, 890, 916, 925, 931, 933 f., 
937, 941 f., 962 f., 981; in interro- 
gation, 436, 850, 917 f., 1157, 1168, 
1175; meaning, 930; in prohibi- 
tions, 630, 851 f., 854-6, 947; in 
relative clauses, 962, 1169; ¢c. ind., 
963, 1168-9; c. pres. imp., 480, 
851-4, 890, 1170; c. aor. imp., 330, 
851 ff., 856, 925, 933, 1170; c. subj. 
in prohibitions, 330, 850 ff., 854, 
925, 930-8, 934, 941, 9438, 981, 
1169-70; c. subj., 487; c. nouns, 
1172; c. dpa, 480, 854, 932; c. 
Bderere, 430, 932; c. yevouro, 325, 
401, 854, 939 f., 1008; c. was, 292, 
437, 752 f.; c. ob (see od), 874f., 
917, 929, 934, 962, 1004, 1156-66; 
eo LOO elisa. L173" C. 
tis, 951; c. iva (See iva); Cc. ws, 985, 
987 ff., 995f.; c. Saws, 985f.; c. 
mote, 987 ff., 995f.; c. e, 1011, 
1024 f., 1169; dre wh, 1169; in final 
clauses, 987 ff., 995f.; in condi- 
tions, 1011 f., 1016 ff.; in indirect 
command, 1046; c. inf., 423, 1061, 
1066, 1093 ff:,. 1170-1; c. part., 
74, 127, 1136 ff., 1172; discussed, 
1166-77; in or. obl., 1045. 

—py: suffix, 151. 

pndé: use, 428, 1173, 1185. 

. pmSels: form, 219; use, 282, 292, 750f., 
1094, 1156 ff. 

pndév: use, 1156 ff. 

pnQels: form, 72, 181, 219, 282; use, 
282, 750 f., 1094, 1156 ff. 

piv: form, 929, 1151; c. ei, 1004, 1024; 
c. ob, 1161. 

phrore: use, 135, 203, 244, 1173; c. 
fut., 203, 988, 1147; c. subj., 988. 


1273 


ytws: use, 185, 244, 1173; discussed, 
988, 995. 

pate: use, 427, 1179; discussed, 1189. 

pATnp: constr., 501. — 

Pitt: use, 292, 917, 1172. 

Pts: form, 292; use, 743, 751, 933. 

—pt-verbs: use, 147, 335 f.; discussed, 
306-20; forms of, 345ff., 350 ff., 
358. 

—pt: suffix, 306; in opt., 335. 

pratvw: forms, 1218. 

plypa: spelling, 230. 

plyvupt: compounds and forms, 317, 
1218. 

pukpds: 80. 

poAvov: 109. 

pupvnoKew: constr., 448, 487, 509; c. 
gen., 482; c. dr, 1035; c. aapra, 
479, 487; compounds and forms, 
893, 1218. 

ployw: compounds and forms, 1218. 

piobarodsoala: 65, 167. 

plo @.os: 159. 

pic 8dw: voice of, 809. 

MirvaAnvaios: use, 199. 

MirvAjvn: readings, 199. 

—pp-: 214. 

pva: 111. 

Pynpovedw: c. gen. and acc., 509; c. 
drt, 1035, 1041; c. part., 1041; in 
or. obl., 1035, 1041. 

pvynorevo: forms, 364, 1218. 

poytAddos: 80, 169, 210, 231. 

6810s: 109. 

ports: use, 296. 

pov7: 80. 

—povy: suffix, 151. 

povo-: in comp., 164. 


povoyevys: 97. 


pdvos: use, 423, 549, 657, 659; pdvor 
adv., 657, 659; and art., 776; udvoy 
c. ov, 947, 1161 f.; uovov c. uy, 947, 
1162. 

povepbadrpos: 62, 65, 120. 

—pos: suffix, 151 f. 

pooxo-: in comp., 164. 

puxtnpltw: 150. 

purov: 154, 231. 

pupas: 283. 

pvptou: use, 233, 283. 


1274. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


puoriptov: 81, 133, 146. 
pope: 95. 
Moo-fs: spelling, 203, 205; forms, 268. 


N 


y: medial, 214 f., 340, 352, 356, 362, 
1210; final, 216, 219-21, 258f., 
264 f., 274, 296. 

-y: ace. sing. end. in 3d decl., 258, 
264, 274; adv. suffix, 296; becomes 
—p, 362. 

-y-: class. in pres., 352; in root of 
verb, 352. 

va: in mod. Gk., 138, 923, 933, 940, 
982, 994. 

—ya-: in verbs, 351. 

vat: discussed, 1150. 

—yau: inf. end., 370 f. 

vados: 55, 63, 97. 

vapdos: 96. 

vats: 80, 145. 

—ye—: in verbs, 352. 

veavias: type, 256. 

vexpot: 80. 

vexpow: 149, 

yéos: meaning, 176; comparative of, 
664. 

veddutos: 80, 169. 

yewtepikos: 159. 

vy: discussed, 80, 487, 1150. 

vy-: prefix, 161, 163. 

ynew: 149, 353. 

yynmiato: 147. 

vynorea: 53 n. 

yyorevo: constr., 478. 

yijotis: form, 266, 275. 

yikaw: use, 135; wxdv with art., 136, 
243, 414; forms, 203; constr., 475; 
meaning, 865. 

yirrw: new pres., 147; voice of, 806. 

vitpov: 96. 

—yy—: 213 ff. 

-yvw: in verbs, 352. 

voéw: in or. obl., 1036. 

volte: constr., 480; in or. obl., 1036 f. 

vopos: in Paul, 129 n.; in comp., 167; 
use, 780; and art., 796. 

vooods: 2()4. 

vor ditw: voice of, 810. 


vouvleoia: 65. 

vouvpnvia: 204. 

vouvexas: use, 297, 298; form, 170, 
Lia: 

vots: 261. 

-vs: acc. end., 265. 

—yr-: part. end., 373. 

-vv-: in verbs, 147, 306, 351. 

vixta Kal ypépav: 470, 495. 

—vvupu: verbs in, 311. 

viv: constr., 546 f.; form, 296; use, 
424, 548, 1117, 1147; azo rod vir, 
83; 76, Ta vov, 487; c. de, 1013. 

vuvi: use, 290, 1147; loc. form, 296, 
SPah 

vié: dat. form, 249; gen. merging into 
adverb, 295; acc. vixrav, 97; Cc. &, 
523: 

yuoow: compounds and forms, 1218. 

-vw: verbs in, 147, 352. 


=I 
£: 209, 216, 230. 
—ta: aor. in, 349. 
tevifowat: constr., 475. 
EevoSoxetov: 138. 
tevodoxéw: 138, 163 n. 
téorys: 109. 
fypatvw: compounds and forms, 836, 
847, 1218. 
tvv: form, 626 f. 
tupaw: forms of, 184, 342, 1218; voice 
of, 809. 
O 


o: vowel, 178, 181 f.; vowel-changes, 
189 f., 196, 198-201, 367; o-verbs, 
308, 324, 367; o/e suffix, 147, 305, 
323, 327; prothetic, 1209. 

0, H, TO: c. 5é, 290; c. wuxGv, 136, 248, 
414; crasis of rod, 208; as demon- 
strative, 290; constr., 502; c. éoriv, 
411; rod and inf. as subject, 1059; 
rod and inf., 97, 122, 512, 858, 990, 
996, 1067, 1077, 1086-88 f.; as ab- 
lative, 1061; after nouns, 1061, 
1063, 1066; and inf., 765, 858, 
1053-4, 1059, 1065; 7é and inf. 
(see c. inf.); c. inf., 122, 512, 584, 
587, 659, 858, 990, 996, 1001 ff., 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


1039 f., 1042, 1054-69, 1078, 1080; 
reading, 599; discussed, 693-5, 
754-96; 6 7v, 1385; 76, 7a c. prep., 
486, 487; c. otros, 700; c. exetvos 
and 6dos, 708; in Homer, 711; as 
relative, 734 f.; c. ris, 789; c. &dXos, 
747; and aor. part., 859 f.; in rela- 
tive clauses, 956; in or. obl., 1045; 
c. &v, 1107; proclitic forms of, 1211. 

dy5oo0s: uncontracted, 275. 

é8e: use, 289 f., 693 f., 709; discussed, 
290, 696 f.; and otros, 696, 702 f.; 
and art., 770. 

o$nyéw: reading, 1010. 

o8ds: meaning, 115; 666 true dative, 
248; gender, 260; 666s Oe0d, 105; 
and ellipsis, 652, 1202. 

é5uvdae: forms, 341. 

oe: contraction of, 325, 342. 

o/e: thematic vowel, 145, 147, 323, 
356. 

oy: contraction of, 325, 342. 

oy: contraction of, 308. 

60ev: constr., 132, 300, 548, 962, 963, 
969. 

ov: vowel-change, 195, 198, 204, 326; 
ov=t, 238; oc=v, 239; oc=y, 326; 
o+c=o., 326; and augment, 367; 
old dat. end., 520. 

ot-verbs, 357. 

olyvupt: compounds and forms, 317, 
1212. 

otda: forms, 239, 319, 329, 337, 357-8, 
360, 363, 406; ofdas, 337; oldes, 82; 
tore, 87, 319, 3829, 360, 908, 941; 
#de.=imperf., 904; pres. perf., 898; 
non-redupl. perf., 357, 363; in- 
trans., 801; use, 135, 838, 1122, 
1128; meaning, 881, 895, 904; in 
or. obl., 1085 f., 1045; c. dr, 1035, 
Oo Cel o2 cn we lLO45,.. L062, 
1103, 1122; oi6. ri, 1044, 1045. 

oixade: form, 296. 

oixia: 80. 

olkodeomdtys: 65, 164, 167. 

oikoSopéw: compounds and forms of, 
365, 1218; constative aor., 833; 
fut., 889; oix. oixiay, 479. 

oikodopn.y: 65, 167. 

otkxou: adv., 249, 295. 


1275 


oikovopos: 161. 

oixte(pw: 474. 

oikThptov: 65 n. 

oipat: use, 406, 1082; c. ob, 1162. 

—oiv: inf. end., 194, 3438, 371. 

—oto: archaic gen. end., 494. 

oios: use, 291, 429, 1139; and rowobros, 
710; discussed, 731f.; and zz, 
1034; in or. obl., 1045. 

—ows: dat. end., 249, 266; loc. end., 452. 

ot tiv wapadlav: disputed reading, 
469. 

olxopat: use, 1120. 

ox: for otk, 199, 

6kTo: use, 282. 

odcOpedw: compounds and forms, 189 f. 

odLyov: adv., 488. 

odlyos: in comp., 167, 168, 169; use, 
660. 

oXtyws: 160. 

ddAAvpt: use, 893; compounds and 
forms, 317, 1218. 

6\Avw: compounds and forms, 1218. 

odoSpedw: 148, 189, 189 n. 

8dAos: in comp., 167, 169; c. xara, 607; 
c. otros, 705; c. art., 708, 768, 
771 ff.; c. wodbs, 774. 

dpelpopat: form, 164, 198, 206, 225. 

—opev: per. end., 200. 

dpvupt: compounds and forms, 317, 
3871; constr., 475, 479, 484, 1032; 
c. év, 120, 588; c. eis, 120; use of 
aor. part., 859. 

épvvdm: constr., 479, 484. 

opobvpaddv: form, 295, 296. 

$potos: constr., 530, 1206; accent, 135, 
231; fem., 272: 

dpordw: constr., 530; compounds and 
forms, 1218. 

dporoyéw: meaning, 80; forms from, 
295, 298; constr., 475, 478, 480, 
541, 1108, 1122; dpyor. dpuoroyiar, 
478; c. &, 108, 524, 588; in or. obl., 
1035, 1041. 

Spodoyoupévws: 160, 298. 

Spod: in comp., 164; adv. of place, 
295, 299. 

Spws: accent, 233; adv., 295; use, 423, 
1140, 1154, 1188; in mod. Gk., 
1146. 


1276 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


—ov: per. end., 335, 348. 

dvap: kar’ dvap, 120. 

évaptov: 155. 

éveadi~w: constr., 473, 475, 480, 482. 

dévadiopos: 66, 152. 

évikds: 158. 

dvivnpt: forms, 310, 348, 350. 

bvopa: in “pregnant construction,” 
525; ‘‘cases”’ of, 447; dvouaros, 452; 
évouatt, 487; c. eis, &, éi, 120; in 
circumlocution, 649; of God, 135; 
meaning ‘person,’ 80, 91; dre in ap- 
position with, 1033. 

évopatw: constr., 480. 

Svmep: reading, 291, 710, 1154. 

-ovto: per. end., 340. 

évrws: form, 160, 295, 298, 302. 

oo: use, 202. 

daep: use in LXX, 710. 

dic Gev: use, 300, 645. 

étriow: c. verbs, 562; use, 301, 645. 

étrotos: use, 291, 1176 f.; and roobros, 
710; and zotos, 740; discussed, 732; 
in or. obl., 1045. 

ométav: use, 971. 

ométe: use, 300, 971; origin, 954. 

Sov: adv., 295, 298 f., 548; use, 712, 
722, 969; Sov ay c. ind., 972 f.; in 
or. obl., 1045. 

émtTdvw: new pres., 73, 147; voice of, 
820. 

értacta: 66. 

étws: in John, 134; use, 480, 731, 933, 
9538, 980, 982; discussed, 985-73 c. 
pn, 980, 987; c. dy in N. T. and 
LXX, 986; and wa, 992f., 994; 
drws tAnpwOf, 120; in final clauses, 
994 f.; in or. obl., 1045; in indirect 
command, 1046; c. inf., 1056; dis- 
appearance of, 980 n., 981, 1056. 

Spa: use, 330, 430, 874, 932, 935, 949. 

opards: 157. 

opdo: in John, 134 n.; compounds 
and forms, 188, 324, 339, 344, 348, 
364, 368, 876, 1211, 1218; fut., 
813; no aorist, 344; dye, 198, 339; 
éwpaxes, 68, 359; édpaxa, 364; éw- 
paxa, 97, 134 n., 359, 365, 368; 
éwpwv, 368; voice, 819f.; roots, 
823: in or. obl., 864, 1035, 1038, 


1041; use, 871, 893, 901; use of 
dpa and dépare, 932 f., 949; use of 
parts., 1118; perf. of, 1211. 

épyltopar: meaning, 834. 

épéyopat: constr., 508. 

6p80-: in comp., 164. 

6p8ds: use, 549, 659. 

opOpitw: 65, 150. 

opOpivds: 158. 

6p84s: use, 549, 659. 

opl{w: constr., 863. 

opkl({w: constr., 475, 483. 

Spveov: 269. 

8pvié: spelling, 219, 267. 

8pos: contraction, 203, 268; and art., 
760. | 

—opos: ending, 199. 

éptcow: compounds and forms, 349, 
1218. 

és: demonstrative, 290; relative, 291; 
followed by pronoun, 97; c. é&v and 
éav, 72, 191; c. ye, 244, 291; c. re, 
290; 6v not expressed, 425; read- 
ing, 4388; dv with verbs, 511; @ 
with é, 587; =xai ovros, 111; & ois, 
696, 714, 722, 953; use, 693, 706, 
928, 953 f., 956, 959; discussed, 
695 f., 711-26; and odros, 698, 703; 
and rowdros, 710; in Homer, 711; 
6 with éoriv, 411, 7138; and dezts, 
726; value of, 728; and oios, 731; 
and pév antithetic, 750; and attrac- 
tion, 820; c. éav, 959; and ay, 961; 
c. xara, 967; in consec. clauses, 
1001; in or. obl., 1044 f. 

—os: ending, 157, 260 f., 263, 268, 274. 

dodkts: use, 973. 

—ooav: per. end., 63 bis, 73, 335, 343; 
in mod. Gk., 138. 

Ss dv 0€\y: use, 961. 

ooSntrep: reading, 710. 

oodhTore: use, 291. 

opr) evodlas: 97. 

bcos: form, 291; and odros, 698; and 
roodros, 710; discussed, 732 f., 
966 f.; kad’ dcov and é’ bcor, 963; 
in rel. clauses, 956 ff.; in or. obl., 
1045; use, 1177. 

Sorep: use, 291. 

doréa: 62, 203. 





INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


éortéwv: 203, 225, 260. 

Sore: sorm 4290.17, 511 1K, 421, 
729; use, 693, 928; for és, 67; and 
toodros, 710; discussed, 726-31; 
and ris, 737; 6 for drt, 960; éws drov, 
291, 729; in rel. clauses, 956f., 
959-61; in or. obl., 1044 f., 1176. 

dotpdxkwvos: form, 158. 

—oT—: in perf. part., 373. 

drav: use, 300, 325; in LXX, 325, 
927 f.; and ovros, 700; c. ind., 82, 
118, 972; in temp. clauses, 958, 
970 ff. 

ére: adv., 296, 300f.; origin, 953; 
use, 953, 970 ff.; c. subj., 972. 

& re: in Attic, 290. 

—dtepos: compar. end., 278. 

étu: in John, 134; origin, 953; wider 
use, 74, 82, 97, 111, 184; consecu- 
tive, 1001; recitative, 97, 120, 433, 
442, 951, 1027; epexegetic use, 
1034; repetition of, 1034; driven 
out by was, 1032 f.; drives out as, 
1032; position of verbs with, 965, 
134 ean int 11159120, 371, 
437, 442, 489 f., 584, 1047, 1054 ff.; 
in place of inf., 111, 371, 489-90, 
584, 1055 f.; ousts inf., 1054 f.; dre 
and iva blending, 1055-6; causal, 
962, 964, 997, 1192; and hiatus, 
206; c. éoriv, 233; and 6 7, 248, 
291; ws drt, 964, 1033; ri dri, 916, 
1034; 67. clauses, 120, 393, 400, 
426, 4380, 951, 952, 954, 1001; dr 
clause as subject, 393, 430, 1034; 
in apposition, 400, 699, 1034, 1079; 
as object, 480, 951, 1034; with 
verbs of saying, 120; ‘prolepsis’ of 
subst. before, 1034; and otros, 699; 
and éxeivos, 708; use, 724, 951-3, 
962-5, 997, 1054f., 1085f., 1122, 
1192; in interrogation, 730, 916; 
in or. obl., 1027-49; c. negatives, 
963, 965, 1034, 1173; c. Kat, 1182; 
c. tAnv, 1187. 

& Ti: see Satis. 

ov: vowel-changes, 199, 202 ff. 

~ov: in gen., 62, 255, 295; in acc., 265; 
adv. end., 295. 

ov, odk, ox: use, 401, 


418, 423 f., 


1277 


928 f., 987, 962f., 965, 995; ovx, 

224s CUT i Ol; C. ets acl Ia. pT; 

850, 854, 873 ff., 889, 929, 933, 

942, 962, 980, 987, 1004; od pH c. 

fut., 874-5, 889, 929, 942, 1157, 

1168, 1174; od un c. subj., 854, 929, 

934, 962, 1004, 1161, 1174; ovd’ od 

un, 854, 1165, 1175; od c. fut., 889, 

1157, 1162; yu) od, 987, 1161, 1169; 

94; in interrogation, 
917f.; meaning, 930; c. pdvov — 
ada kai, 947; in conditions, 1011 f., 
1016 ff.; c. inf., 947, 1093 ff., 1162; 
c. part., 1136 ff.; discussed, 1154- 
405.6. xal; 113835 prochitic, 12115 

ov: accent, 229; personal pronoun 
(not in N. T.), 286, 679; relative, 
229, 298 f., 301 bis; adverb, 717, 
722, 969; use, 286, 298 f., 301, 717, 
722, 969. 

ova: accent, 231; use, 302, 1193. 

oval: gender, 270, 410; interjection, 
302; in ellipsis, 391; case with, 135, 
487; use, 11938. 

ovdé: elision, 207, 1210; and eis, 741; 
use, 1156, 1165, 1185. 

ovde(s: form, 219; use, 282, 292, 1094; 
c. éorw bs, 726; discussed, 750. 

ovdév: adverb, 487; use, 1156 ff. 

ovGels: form, 72, 97, 181, 219; use, 
282, 750, 1094. 

ovxodv: accent, 233, 1165, 1175; use, 
O17, 116521175: 

—otpevos: part. end., 374. 

otv: in Mark, 119; in John, 133-4, 
134 n., 841; position, 424, 1192; 
use, 133, 424, 484, 443 f., 841; 7 
ov .. .;, 916; in interrogation, 916; 
discussed, 1181 f. 

-ovv: verb end., 341, 348. 

otra: form, 296. 

ovpavdbev: 296, 300. 

ovpavds: use, 408. 

—ovpos: ending, 199. 

ots: 145, 156. 

—ovs: adj. end., 274. 

-oveav: in mod. Gk., 138. 

otre: use, 428, 1156ff., 1179; dis- 
cussed, 1189. 

otris: form, 292; use, 748, 751- 


OUNae AHOS; 


| 
1278 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


otros: c. éort, 207, 233, 244, 289 n., 
399, 411 f., 416; use, 290, 401, 
411, 419, 437, 693, 720, 843; with 
proper names, 701; resumptive, 
437, 693, 698; deictic, 693, 697; 
relative, 693, 710; anaphoric, 697; 
contemptuous use, 697; preceded 
by articular part., 698; preceded 
by és, 698; followed by é7, 699; 
followed by iva, 699; followed by 
ei, éav, 700; followed by 76-clause, 
700; c¢. abtés, 686; adbrot obror, 700, 
705; abré rotro, 705; and éde, 696, 
702; discussed, 697-706; and ée?- 
vos, 270, 708; pleonastic, 722 f.; 
and éc0s, 732; todro with ri, 736; 
totr’ éorw, 207, 233-4, 244, 399, 
411, 412, 416, 705; and art., 419, 
770; c. articular noun, 419, 701, 
770; c. axas, 771; radra wavra and 
qavra tavra, 705; and és, 723; c. 
mwodts, 774; ére with prep. and, 
1033 f.; c. inf., 700, 1059; in idioms, 
1111; c. cai, 460, 487, 1181; rodro 
with clause in apposition, 401, 698. 

otrw(s): form, 221, 248 n., 295 f.; adv., 
286, 298, 710; and odros, 705; use, 
965, 968, 1140, 1146. 

odx(: form, 290; use, 296, 391, 917. 

sherry: 80, 153. 

ope(Anpa: 153. 

ddeldw: use, 841, 886; constr., 1003. 

Sedov: use, 82, 841, 886, 923, 940, 
1003 f. 

dd0adrpds: 95, 102. 

8ppa: not in N. T., 981-2. 

éxAo-: in comp., 165. 

8xAos: breathing, 225; use, 404, 407; 
c. modts, 774. 

dpaptov: 65, 66, 155. 

ove: constr., 517, 645 f.; meaning, 517. 

opia: 119. 

opaviov: 65, 66, 80, 155. 

—dw: verbs in, 147, 149, 342 f., 351. 


II 


a: 210, 223, 353, 1210. 
—mr—: inserted, 210. 
tmayaivw: meaning, 865. 


maydevw: 148. 

mayo: meaning, 865. 

ma0yrtds: use, 157, 372, 1097. 

tmadsap.ov: 66. 

madsevw: 66, 138. 

mravdudbev: 119, 

mravdiov: 155. 

Tmasioky: 1361. 

mada: form, 249, 296. 

wad.v: in comp., 167; form, 296; use, 
300, 551. 

mapmAndet: form, 170, 171; spelling, 
197. 

mavdoxevs: 66, 219. 

mavnyupis: 132. 

tavo.kel: form, 170, 171; spelling, 197. 

tmavraxq: form, 295, 300, 526. 

tmavTaxod: form, 296, 300; use, 299. 

mavTy(y): 295. 

mavTobev: 300. 

mavrote: form, 170, 171; use, 300. 

mavTws: 423. 

mapa: in comp., 80, 165, 169, 565; 
elision, 208; origin, 80, 249, 301; 
case-form, 301, 482, 570; cases 
with, 451, 491, 524, 534, 554, 565, 
567, 569 f.; instrumental case, 301, 
613; c. abl.; 482, 517-8, 554, 614; 
c. acc., 477, 491, 614, 792; ec. loc., 
524-5, 542, 614; c. three cases, 451, 
567, 569-70, 613; constr. in comp., 
132, 477, 542; c. verbs, 517 f., 560, 
562; agent, 534, 636, 820; zapa — 
mapa, 560; mwapa— amd, 561; trep— 
mapa, 562; ék— mapa, 561; zapa-, 
in mod. Gk., 558, 570, 613, 615, 
616, 625; in ‘‘pregnant construc- 
tion,” 525; adv. phrases, 550; in 
comparison, 83, 132, 615-6, 667; 
frequency, 556; use, 561; ‘beside,’ 
613; and dé, 578 f.; and eis, 596; 
and é, 596; discussed, 612-6; and 
apos, 625; and tod, 636; in preposi- 
tional phrases, 792; c. inf., 1069. 

tmapaBalyw: 477. 

TapaPodevopar: 80, 148, 165. 


a wapaBoAy: 134. 


mapayyé\Aw: constr., 1047, 1084; e. 
ért, 1035; c. a, 1046. 
mapadeoos: 80, 111. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


tapad(Swp.: forms, 309, 347. 

Tapaladkacot(a: form, 273. 

tapadyky: 80, 166. 

tmapat: form, 260, 296, 301, 537. 

tTapatvéw: constr., 475. 

Tapattéopat: voice of, 810. 

Tapakadkéw: meaning, 66; form, 943; 
constr., 475, 1035, 1085; ¢c. rod and 
inf., 1068. 

tmapaKAntos: 115, 161, 167. 

TapakuTTw: SO. 

TapadapBdavew: readings, 336. 

tmapdaAtos: form, 273. 

Tapathéw: 472. 

TapatAyotov: use, 646. 

tmapautika: 297. 

tapadpovia: 66, 156. 

TapadvAaKky: 57. 

Tapaxptpa: use, 297, 550. 

tapeodSvw: forms, 341. 

tmapeirdépw: 80, 126 n. 

mapextos: form, 171, 244; use, 646. 

tmapeuBorn: 64. 

tmapeT(Snos: 80. 

Tapépxopat: c. acc., 477, 800. 

Tapers: 80). 

mapéxw: voice of, 810; constr., 480, 
853. 

TapioTave: meaning, 950. 

taptornpe: constr., 473 n., 542, 855. 

mapotkos: 65, 80, 102. 

tapdv: 1130. 

Tmapofivopat: 80, 150. 

mapds: gen. form, 301. 

mapovola: 81. 

Tmappyoia: meaning, 66; 
1033; spelling, 212, 1210. 

mas: in Luke, 122; & mavri, év raat by 
Paul, 116, 117; indeclinable zap, 
274; c. wy, 292, 752 1.; use, 419, 
436, 744; mavra adv., 487; c. nega- 
tives, 4387, 751-3, 1163; c. odzos, 
Op sera art at Uoe ¢¢1 tis, LLO73* ¢: 
darts, 727; Cc. da0s, 732; C. aodbs, 
774; c: 6s, 957. 

macxa: 95, 105, 270. 

macxo: compounds and forms of,” 
327, 1218; c. xaxés, 802; constr., 
858. 

Tlarepa: use, 183. 


dre with, 


1279 


matnp: voc., 461 f., 464; art. with 
voc. Of, 465; 6 mar. 6 obpavos, 120; 
6 mat. 6 év Tots ovpavots, 120. 

Tatpotapadotos: 80, 169. 

IIatdos: and art., 788; use, 1038. 

tmavw: ¢. part., 1102, 1121; compounds 
and forms, 1218. 

meda: case of, 249; for pera, 609. 

meq: form, 295. 

TmeOapxetv: 163 n. 

mevOos: 157. 

mew: constr., 454, 478, 540, 1084; 
acc. c. pass., 485; voice of, 801, 
810; compounds and forms of, 351, 
871, 895, 1218; zézovOa intrans., 
801; weroa, 895. 

tewvaw: aor. form, 342, 371; and case, 
474, 508. 

meipatw: voice of, 802. 

metpacpds: 152. 

tweopovy: 151. 

meNekitw: 150. 

méptrw: 359; epistolary aor. of, 845 f. 

mévys: use, 272. 

mevOéw: constr., 475. 

metrolOnots: 151. 

mwép: intensive, 302, 617, 1144; dis- 
cussed, 1153 f.; enclitic, 1211. 

twépay and avtitepa: c. acc., 294; use, 
646. 

mep(: in comp., 165, 167, 477, 487, 
542, 562, 564; form, 301 f.,; 524, 
570; c. cases, 471, 491, 509, 524, 
569 f.; c. verbs, 511, 560, 566; fre- 
quency, 556; in condensation, 567; 
and xara, 608; discussed, 616-20; 
and mpés, 626; and trep, 629, 632; 
in prepositional phrases, 792; c. 
inf., 1069; use, 616. 

mepiayw: c. two acc., 480; trans. and 
intrans., 477; followed by é, 562; 
literal sense, 617. 

meptBaddopau: constr., 475, 483, 485 f., 
855; voice of, 807, 809, 819. 

meptBAérw: voice of, 809, 813; mean- 
ing, 838. 

meprepxop.at: constr., 477; use, 1103. 

tepréxw: 800, 802. 

mept{ovvupe: form, 330. 

mepilorype: c. acc., 477. 


1280 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mepikepar: 65 n.; constr., 485; voice 
of, 815-6. 

meptkapBave: constr., 483. 

meptpevw: C. acc., 475. 

ameptovotos: etymology of, 159. 

mepitratéw: constr., 855. 

mepttrovew: voice of, 810. 

mepippatvw: reading, 211. 

teproTraopat: 66, 80. 

tepiooeta: 80, 156. 

tmepiooevoat: form, 940. 

meptoods: use, 279; constr., 516; in 
comparison, 664; weprocdrepos, 279, 
298, 488. 

tepiTtepvo: 80. 

mepitiOnpt: constr., 477, 483, 485; 
voice of, 815. 

mepitopy: 167. 

mepiTpéexw: C. acc., 477. 

tmepTrepevopat: 148, 

mépvow: form, 221, 295. 

métpa: use, 1201. 

ahyvupe: and compounds, 317. 

amnyAlkos: use, 292; discussed, 741; in 
or. obl., 1045. 

ayxvs: forms, 80, 268. 

matw: 63, 184; constr., 508; forms, 
1218. 

avétw: forms, 184, 1218. 

mOds: use, 1206. 

twipmdnpe: c. gen., 510; compounds 
and forms, 317, 350, 1218. 

aipirpnpt: compounds and forms, 233, 
318. 

a(vw: compounds and forms, 204, 340, 
343, 371, 1218; wetv, 72, 204, 343, 
371; wiouat, 354-5; riecar, 340; use, 
838, 883. 

mumpaokw: forms, 900, 1218; werpakxa, 
900. 

wintw: compounds and forms, 338, 
351, 848, 1218; éreoca, récare, 338; 
mertwxav, 135; parts., 864, 1116. 

morevw: in John, 134; constr., 115, 
120, 453, 475, 485, 487, 540, 601; 
c. év, 540, 601; c. éri, 453, 601; 
pass. of, 816; aorevere, mood of, 
329; aor. of, 850, 856; ‘entrust,’ 
485, 540, 816; in or. obl., 1036. 

murtikos: origin, 159 f. 


aloris: meaning, 115, 134; gen. use, 
499, 515, 704; wiore in Heb., 11, 
533. . 

motos: 115, 125. 

tmAavytys: 125. 

—trraclwv: proportional, 284, 673. 

twAaoTds: 126. 

mAative: constr., 486. 

meiov: constr., 516, 666; stereotyped 
form, 667. 

tmAelwv: spelling, 187; use, 665; super- 
lative of, 278, 670, 775; 76 wetarTor, 
487; wdelw indecl., 276, 277 n.; in 
idiom, 775. 

mXékw: compounds and forms, 1218. 

amcovektéw: 80, 455. 

awéw: compounds and forms, 1218. 

t™A90s: 80, 407. 

tmAnOvvw: use, 125, 127, 871. 

TAnppPVpa: 155, 214, 232, 250. 

mAnV: use, 646; in mod. Gk., 1146; 
discussed, 1187. 

wAHpys: indecl., 72, 97, 188, 274 ff., 
413, 4638, 464; voc., 264, 463 f.; 
constr., 1204. 

twAnpo-: in comp., 72, 165. 

tAnpodopéw: 72, 80, 147, 165. 

twAnpsw: forms of, 119, 133, 325, 343; 
constr., 473 n., 483, 485, 510, 857; 
érws, wa mAnpw0f, 120; meaning, 
834; aor. of, 851; use, 948. 

TAnpwpa: 105. | 

tno lov: form, 294; use, 547, 646. 

tmAHoow: compounds and forms, 1218. 

tmovdptov: constr., 82, 521. 

mods: 261. 

—thots: adj. end., 284. 

trottos: 63, 262, 262 n. 

tmvedpa: meaning, 97, 115, 125; use, 
436, 590, 709; and art., 761, 795. 

tmvevpatikds: 115, 158 f. 

TVEVLATLKHS: use, 299. 

awvéew: form, 342. 

mviyw: class, 351; compounds and 
forms, 1218. 

w60ev: 300; constr., 548; in or. obl., 
1045; in questions, 1176. 

mot: form, 295. 

movéw: forms, 325, 327; act. and mid., 
802, 812; c. eb and xax&s, 473; c. 





INDEX. OF GREEK WORDS 


Kad@s, 473; ¢. xapmov, 105; c. oup- 
BotX\vov, 105; pH c. pres. inf. and 
aor. subj., 852, 854, 856; constr., 
480, 850, 852, 854, 856; c. ri and 
subj., 850, 923, 934; c. pred. acc., 
480; c. two acc., 484; voice, 802, 
812; use, 884, 923, 934; in narra- 
tive, 884; c. inf., 1068. 

Toiatye to(uynyv: 478. 

motos: interrogative, 291f., 916; 
motas in Luke, 494; and dzotos, 732; 
equal to ris, 735; c. art., 735; dis- 
cussed, 740; in or. obl., 1045; in 
indirect question, 1176. 


mots: dat. form, 204; odews, 447; c. 


Ovareipa, 498; c. éx, 578. 

modaxts: form, 296. 

modvs: in comp., 169, 171; acc. form, 
294; wodt adv., 488; 7a modda, 487; 
mo\Ad adv., 120, 488; constr., 532, 
660; in comparison, 664; c. art., 
774 f. 

mopa: spelling, 230. 

IIdvros: and art., 788. 

Topevopat: voice of, 816-7, 820; 
constr., 473 n., 479, 856; use, 122, 
869, 874. 

moaos: use, 292; discussed, 740 f.; in 
direct question, 292, 916; in or. 
obl., 1045. 

motamdés: origin, 160; use, 292, 917; 
discussed, 741; c. ris, 736; in or. 
obl., 1045. 

moré: adv., 296, 298, 300; c. uh, 987 ff., 
995 {., 1173; c.- part., 1124, 1139; 
meaning, 1147; enclitic, 1211. 

méte: adv., 300; interrogative, 915, 
917, 1176; in or. obl., 1045. 

adétepov: in double questions, 1177. 

adétepos: use, 292; and ris, 736; dis- 
cussed, 741; wérepov an adv., 292, 
7A1, 1177. 

motitw: consir., 484, 485. 

mov: accent, 234; adv. (gen.), 295; 
use, 291, 298 f.; in mod. Gk., 723; 
in or. obl., 1045. 

mov: use, 298 f., 1146; enclitic, 1211. 

—tovAos: suffix, 146. 

movs: use, 95; root, 145; accent, 231. 

mpaypa: 80, 


/ 


1281 


tmpattop.ov: 108, 131. 

TmpakTwp: 81. 

mpaos: readings, 200; form, 274. 

tmpaca’: in Mark, 119; case, 487; dis- 
tributive, 673. 

Tpaccw: c. two acc., 484; use of inf. 
of, 1058; c. ed, 1121; compounds 
and forms, 359, 1218. 

tmpérw: constr., 541, 1086. 

tmpeoBitepos: meaning, 81 bis, 90, 115; 
in comparison, 277, 664. 

twpeo Burns: spelling, 201. 

mplv: use, 431, 954, 976 f., 1049, 1053; 
origin, 954; as prep., 977; c. subj., 
977; c. opt., 970, 977, 1049; c. 4, 
970, 1049; use in Homer, 977, 
1075, 1091 n.; common in Homer 
Goins 97 Cf LODO 1010» Callas 
977, 1074 f., 1091; statistics, 977, 
1091. 

mpd: position, 110; elision, 206; cases 
with, 451, 569 f.; constr. in comp., 
165, 167, 169, 477; separation im- 
plied, 517; frequency, 556; c. verbs, 
560; discussed, 620-2; and zpos, 
622 f.; and tréep, 6380; mpd rod c. 
subj., 1056; c. abl., 1061; in prepo- 
sitional phrases, 792; c. inf., 621, 
858, 891, 977, 978, 1061, 1074 f., 
1091; c. pres. inf., 891; statistics 
of c. inf., 858, 977-8. 

tmpoayw: constr., 477, 857, 871. 

mpoartidopat: in or. obl., 1036. 

mpoypadw: old word, 81, 125; epis- 
tolary aor. of, 845. 

tmpddnAov: c. Str, 1034. 

tmpddopa: spelling, 200. 

mpoettrov: spelling, 338. 

ampoépxopar: constr., 477. 

tmpderis: 80. 

mpokatayyéAdw: in or. obl., 1036. 

tmpoop({w: constr., 480. 

mpds: in comp., 165, 167; accent, 234; 
final letter of, 248; frequency of 
use, 122, 451, 491, 556; cases with, 
491, 524, 569f.; c. acc., 122, 451; 
separation implied, 517; case-form, 
524, 570; c. verbs, 542, 560 ff., 566; 
c. verbs of speaking instead of 
air@, etc., 625-6; in mod. Gk., 570; 


1282 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and amé, 575; and eis, 596; and 
mapa, 613; discussed, 622-6; c. ue, 
234, 286, 682; apes ri, 736, 739; in 
prepositional phrases, 234, 792; in 
papyri, 990-1, 1069; c. inf., 858, 
990 f., 1003, 1060, 1069, 1075, 
1088; c. purpose inf., 1088; statis- 
tics c. inf., 858, 1003, 1069, 1075. 

mpocavaBalvw: form, 328. 

moorSoxdw: in or. obl., 1036. 

mpocépxopat: use, 120. 

tmpooevxy: 80, 91, 151. 

tmpooevxopat: form, 328; use, 874. 

tpocéxw: 81, 477. 

tmpoonAvtos: 157. 

tpdo0ena: spelling, 188. 

tmpdoKkatpos: 65, 169. 

tporkadéw: voice of, 809. 

tTpockapTtepew: 81. 

tmpockaptéepynots: 80, 167. 

apooKkoppa: 115, 151. 

mpooKvAtw: constr., 543. 

tmpookuvew: constr., 448, 455, 476 f., 
540, 990. 

TporKkuvyTys: 80, 154. 

tmpocAapBdavw: constr., 510, 519; voice 
of, 809. 

Tpogpeva: 623, 

mpoctacaw: constr., 1084. 

tmpootlOnpe: c. inf., 87 n., 94, 96 n., 
1078. 

tmpoodaytov: 156, 167. 

mpcamatws: 171. 

tpoodépw: form, 338. 

tpocdwvéw: use, 65 n.; trans., 455; 
constr., 477. 

tmpocwro—: in comp., 165, 167. 

TpocwtoAnpmaréew: 94, 165. 

tmpocwToAnpwla: 165, 167. 

tmpdowtrov: use, 94, 95, 97, 102, 285 n., 
649; c. AauBavev, 94, 97. 

mpdtepos: form, 280, 283; adv., 487; 
meaning, 662; use, 669. 

tmpot(Onpr: constr., 480; voice of, 810; 
in periphrastic forms, 822. 

mpovTapxw: c. part., 1103, 1121. 

tpopytys: 81, 116. 

tmpopytikds: 169. 

tpopGavw: use, 1120. 

mpoxepioacba: constr., 700. 


mpwi: spelling, 205; use, 295,471; and 
dua, 638. 

tmpwivds: new word, 158; readings, 
201, 205. 

mpwto—: in comp., 167, 169. 

mpOtos: comparison, 73, 280; ordinal, 
283 {.; mpdrov adv., 294, 297, 298, 
300, 460, 487, 488, 657, 659, 1152; 
mpwrws numeral, 160, 298; mean- 
ing, 516; use, 73, 97, 280, 306, 
549, 657, 659, 662, 669 f.; and «is, 
Oils 

mpwtotdkia: 132. 


tmpewtdotoKos: 80, 169, 233. 


-—mr-: in verbs, 351, 353. 


wrepvytov: 156. 

Tropa: 66. 

TTwXevw: meaning, 834. 

Tukvétepos: meaning, 665; c. part., 
1139. 

tmuvOdavopnar: forms, 1218. 

muvptvos: 158. 

muppatw: 147, 213. 

muppos: spelling, 212 f. 


. ww: enclitic, 1211. 


—rw: origin, 296. 

tmatote: form, 245; use, 896. 

mas: use, 298; c. un, 987 ff., 995 f.; en- 
clitic, 1211. 

ms: use, 302, 741, 985, 10382 f.; ex- 
clamation, 302, 741; for drc, 1032 f.; 
To 7&s, 985, 1028; in mod. Gk., 
1028, 1032; in or. obl., 1045; inter- 
rogative, 1176. 


le 


p: 211-4, 216 f., 225 f., 352, 356, 364. 

p-verbs: redupl., 364. 

—pa: words in, 256. 

paBBel: 95, 416, 433. 

paBouvel: 105. 

pada: 105, 219. 

pavr({w: 66, 149; forms of, 211 f., 225, 
1218; pepar—, 211, 225, 364; voice, 
807; constr., 486. 

pavTiopds: 152. 

pamopa: 153. 

pédy: 111. 

péw: compounds and forms, 212, 342, 

355, 1219. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


pipa: =‘thing,’ 94; breathing, 225. 

—pys: ending, 72, 82, 256, 275. 

pyocow: compounds and forms, 212, 
318, 1219. 

pytas: 160. 

pitrw: forms, 211, 364; épcupévor, 364; 
pep— in D, 211. 

popdala: 65. 

—pp-: 217. 

pypy: 64. 

pvopat: aor. of, 818. 

“Popaikds: 159. 

“Pawpaios: 159. 

‘Popaieri: 160, 205, 296. 

‘Pépny: initial 6, 212. 

povvunt: forms, (éppwobe), 212, 318, 
330, 364, 908. 


x 


o, s: 210, 214f., 218, 220 f., 228, 248, 
267, 296, 346, 354-6, 362, 1210. 
—o—: in fut., 354; in pres., 362; in perf. 

pass., 340, 362. 

—s: 221, 296 (adv.). 

—oa: per. end., 305, 339, 346; Ist aor. 
end., 346. 

caBaxBavel: 105, 219, 236. 

capawd: 95. 

caBBatiopds: 152. 

cd BBarov: 95, 105, 262; c. é&, 5238. 

caynvy: 151. 

—cat: verb end., 329, 340f., 369 f.; 
imper. end., 329; 2d pers. sing. 
pass. end., 340f.; inf. end., 370, 
388. 

cadkti{w: constr., 853. 

Zapoov: form, 210. 

oav: in mod. Gk., 974. 

—cav: 3d pl. end., 82. 

caydddvov: 111. 

Daovr: 96. 

campepos: 95, 96. 

caps: 80). 

capkikds: etymology, 158 f. 

wdpkivos: etymology, 158. 

oapt: meaning, 115; use, 784. 

caps: 149. 

coravas: 95, 105. 

catov: in papyri, 105, 287. 

oPévvupt: forms, 318, 1219. 


1283 


oBevviw: forms, 1219, 

—oe: suffix, 296. | 

ceavtod: form, 226, 287; use, 288, 
687-90. 

—oet: itacism in, 240, 928. 

—oelw: verbs in, 150, 351. 

oe(w: compounds and forms, 1219. 

oveAqvy: gender of, 252. 

oeo/e: fut. suffix, 354 f. 

—oy: itacism in, 240, 928. 

onpacve: in or. obl., 1036. 

onpetov: use, 176. 

onpeELow: 149, 

onpepov: form, 219, 294. 

ont: class, 351; voice of, 801. 

—o au: inf. end., 186, 240, 370. 

—o%e: per. end., 186, 240. 

wbevow: 149, 

—7@w: per. end., 328. 

—cPwoav: per. end., 61, 73, 82, 328. 

—ot: dat. end., 249; pronominal suf- 
fix, 306. 

—o.aw: verbs in, 150. 

ovyaw: meaning, 834; constr., 857. 

o.kdptos: 108. 

olkepa: 105. 

cArdp: 95. 

opektvO.ov: 108, 189, 192. 

ofvamt: forms, 111 bis, 268. 

owdsev: 111. 

civratew: 147. 

—o.-s: denoting action, 151 ff. 

oitiotos: 158. 

o.roperptov: 80, 167. 

oiwtdaw: use, 883, 908; reading, 1010. 

—ox-verbs: 150, 352. 

okavdadov: history of, 174. 

oKaTTw: compounds and forms, 1219. 

—oxe: verb suffix, 352. 

okértropar: root, 145-6; compounds 
and forms, 1219. 

oKyvo-: in comp., 167. 

oxnvow: meaning, 829. 

oKAnpo-: in comp., 167, 169. 

oxArnpive: 150. 

—oxo: verb suffix, 150, 352. 

oxodoy: 81. 

oKotrds: 146. 

oKopri{w: 150. 

oKotos: 134, 262. 


1284 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


oxv\do: meaning, 65n., 81; voice of, 
807. 

-—oxw: verbs in, 150, 352. 

opapaydivos: 81. 

—co: per. end., 340. 

—oo/e: fut. suffix, 340, 355. 

Zodopov: spelling, 268. 

—cov: imp. end., 329. 

ods: form, 288; use, 288, 684. 

covdaptov: 81, 108. 

codta: 134. 

omdw: meaning, 564, 828; redupl. in 
perf., 364; voice of, 805, 810; com- 
pounds and forms, 364, 1219. 

oteipyns: 62, 82, 232, 256. 

ome(pw: constr., 478; compounds and 
forms, 1219. 

omekovAatwp: 81, 108. 

omAayxvifopat: 150. 

omddxva: form, 410. 

orovdaiws: comp. adv., 488; use, 299. 

orovdy: form, 296. 

—co—: 55, 61, 62, 72, 97, 218. 

oraciacrys: 154. 

oraovs: Sl. 

otavpds: 115. 

oréyn: 65 n. 

oteBw: form, 198. 

ote(ow: form, 275. 

oté\\o: compounds and forms, 346, 
1219; use of part., 1134. 

orepéopa: 153. 

orykw: reading, 65, 66, 150, 1010; 
forms, 188, 224, 315, 320, 351, 1219. 

ornpltw: c. inf., 1068; compounds and 
forms, 230, 1219. 

oto: in mod. Gk., 453. 

ot(o)tBas: 198. 

oro.xéw: use, 329. 

ordpa: use, 95, 102, 649. 

otpatevopat: 81; orp. orparelav, 478. 

orpato—: in comp., 165, 167. 

otpépw: trans. and intrans., 800 bis; 
compounds and forms, 1219. 

oTpovvupt: compounds and forms, 318, 
1219. 

otpwvviw: compounds and _ forms, 
1219. 

otvyvatw: 147. 

otidos: accent, 186, 231. 


ov: position of, 418; voc., 461; dis- 
cussed, 678 f.; use, 693; c. adrés, 
éavrod, 687, 689; and éxetvos, 707; 
aod, position of, 779; enclitic forms 
of, 234, 286, 682, 689, 1211. 

ovyyevtjs: 81, 272. 

cvyKplva: 66. | 

ovfedyvupe: 314. 

ovKdaptvos: 95, 96, 105. 

cupBalvw: svveBy in or. obl., 392, 1043. 

ocvpBovretw: voice of, 811; in or. obl., 
1036 f. 

ocupBovrALov: c. morety and diddvar, 105; 
C. AauBave, 108, 119. 

ouppopol({w: 150. 

cbppopdos: constr., 528. 

cupréova: form, 460; case, 487; dis- 
tributive, 119, 284, 673. 

cupdépw: impersonal, 1058, 1084; c. 
dat., 539, 1084; c. iva clause, 992; 
c. ace. and inf., 1084; inf. subject 
of, 1058, 1084. 

ovpopvros: constr., 28. 

cupdve: form, 341. 

cuppovéw: reading, 1010; constr., 
1084. 

ovv: in comp., 165, 167, 169, 216 f., 
527 f., 528 ff., 558, 562; LXX use, 
451; case with, 451, 534, 569f.; 
ovv— c. dat., 528; cby=xal, 111; ec. 
acc., 451, 628; c. gen., 1388 n., 628; 
our—... mera, els, érl, mpds, 562; 
use in Attic, 553; frequency, 122, 
556; c. verbs, 560; and &, 588; and 
kata, 606; and werd, 526, 610; and 
mpos, 625; and dua, 627; of oly. .., 
628; discussed, 626-8. 

cuvvaye: use, 120, 871. 

cuvaywyn: 65, 124. 

ovvaytdw: 65 n.; use of part., 1135. 

cuvayTiAapBavopat: 72, 80, 160, 163, 
Laz 

ovvel8yors: 81, 115. 

ovvepyéw: trans., 455, 477. 

cuvepyds: Substantival, 504. 

ovvetos: use, 1097. 

ouvevdokéw: 81. 

wvvevoxéopat: 81. 

aovvéxw: voice of, 808; meaning, 81, 
828. 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


—civy: ending, 156. 

cuvinpe: accent, 233; forms, 315; in 
or. obl., 1040. 

ovvicrdave: constr., 480. 

cuviornpr: meaning, 81; use, 896. 

cuvtrapadhap.Bdavw: constr., 857, 862. 

cuvetavpdw: 115. 

ovvrédeta Tod aldvos: 120. 

cvvTnpéw: meaning, 627, 828. 

ovvTGewar: c. inf., 1068. 

odayov: 157. 

odda{o: compounds and forms, 1219. 

odpayltw: 81. 

ov(5)pdv: 210. 

odupls: 81, 219. 

oxeSdv: form, 295. 

cXoAH: 66, 82. 

oétw: Aramaic, 105; meaning, 115; 
constr., 598; part., 891; compounds 
and forms, 1219. 

oGpa: meaning, 81; use, 1206. 

Twopatikas: 160. 

cwthp: meaning, 81 bis, 115, 116; and 
art., 786. 

cwrtynpla: old word, 81, 97, 115, 116, 
125, 157. 

owtnptos: form, 157, 272. 

cwdppovicpds: 152. 


db 


tT: 218, 223, 248, 352, 1210. 

=T=3 VOrps:-bOa: 

TtaPépvar: 109. 

7Ta5e: use, 289 f., 696. 

—rau: per. end., 340. 

tadev0a: spelling of, 105; voc. of, 465. 

Tapetov: 66, 72, 204. 

—rapos: early end., 279. 

tatrevos: 115. 

Ttatevoppoovyy: 115, 156, 167. 

Taptapow: 126. 

Taco0: constr., 1084; compounds 
and forms, 349, 359, 1219. 

—ratos: form, 277, 279 f., 670; in mod. 
Gk., 668. 

TavTa: crasis, 208. 

Taos: 120. 

Taxa: 295, 

Taxevov: adv., 488; use, 197, 278, 664. 

Ttaxéws: 298, 


1285 


taxivds: 158. 

Taxvov: form, 278 f., 297. 

Taxtoros: form, 294, 297, 669; adv., 
488. 

tax¥: form, 294, 298, 488. 

té: origin, 301; ¢c. rel., 290; conj., 301, 
1178 f.; position, 424; c. ré, 427; c. 
kal, 122, 427 f., 432, 566, 789; use, 
135 n., 207, 484; in Luke, 122, 
135 n., 428 (Acts); in Heb., 132; 
in Homer, 711; enclitic, 1211. 

—re: adv. end., 296. 

texvlov: 66, 232. 

Texyo—: in comp., 163 n., 165, 167. 

téxvov: c. gen., 497, 651. 

tTexTo—: In comp., 165. 

TeXerdw: reading, 987. 

tedecwTys: 154. 

Tehéw: meaning, 834; use, 901; c. part., 
1121; fut. red\éow, 349, 355; pres. 
ter(é)ow, 362; compounds and 
forms, 349, 1219. 

Tté&\Xw: compounds and forms, 1219. 

teAMviov: 65, 154. 

Tépvw: compounds and forms, 1219. 

—réos: verbal form, 157, 304, 320, 
372 f., 486; discussed, 1095 ff. 

tépas: use, 176. 

—tepos: compar. end., 277 f., 298, 660. 

téxoapes: reading, 63, 266, 282. 

Tecoaperkardéxatos: form, 244, 284. 

técoepa, Texoepdxovta: form, 62, 63, 
97, 183, 282-3. 

téraptos: form, 284. 

Terpa—: in comp., 165, 167, 204. 

Tetpddiov: 154. 

tetpakts: form, 296. 

tHhkw: 351. 

TyHAuKkoo Se: use, 709. 

TAtkodros: form, 290; use, 709, 731; 
and art., 771. 

typéw: constr., 598, 850; meaning, 
828; rernpnxa, 895. 

THpyots: Sl. 

—rhprov: suffix, 154, 157, 157 n. 

—rns: suffix, 151, 153 f., 156, 256, 272. 

—ri: adv. suffix, 296. 

vt av Oédor: in or. obl., 1044. 

r(Onpu: constr., 480; use, 900; ridéw, 
318; rlOw, 318; 7104, 82; Oés, 329; 


1286 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


t#eka, 364; c. eis, 482; compounds 
and forms, 306, 310, 318, 347, 350, 
1219. 

+{xrw: class, 351; forms, 1219. 

ti.aw: formation, 147; forms, 305, 
334, 351. ss 

Tiny: 151. 

tls: ris for wérepos, 61, 736; ri and hia- 
tus, 206; c. opt. in LXX and N. T., 
940; interrogative, 291 f., 916, 940; 
Ti...; ‘why,’ 298, 487, 738-9; 
TLS op what, 2659; LO arte 
“how, 7139, e116) 7ieozese cs Ue 
739, 965, 1034; ri rodro .. .;, 736; 
TUVGD 5 op Loe, (30, TOURS LOLs 
739; ta ri, 739; xara ri, 7393 dca ri, 
584, 739; eis ri, 739; indeclinable 
ti, 736; ri euol (jutyv) kat coi, 395, 
059; (Osu T Sa. nebse ye teisy BL Lt tas 
relative ‘who,’ 737f.; in object 
clauses, 739; for doris, 67, 72; ri in 
idioms, 395, 539, 730; c. gen., 515; 
discussed, 735-40, 1176; c. zotos, 
740; and 7s, 238, 739, 741, 1040; 
in subj., 934 f.; 7i c. 571, 1034; ac- 
cent of riva, 233, 740, 1040; in or. 
obl., 1044. 

tis: 7. and hiatus, 206; enclitic, 233, 
234 f., 1211; position in sentence, 
235, 425; ra constr., 490; c. gea., 
515; ve adv., 547; and otros, 698; in 
Homer, 711; and ris, 233, 292, 739; 
TiC. dua, 584; c. eis, 292; discussed, 
741-4; antithetic, 750; c. negative, 
751, 987 f., 1164; and art., 778, 796. 

titXos: 109. 

7d: substantivized neut. adj., 156 f.; 
7o before clauses, 118, 122; not the 
art., 185; denoting quotation, 243; 
c. “Ayap, 254, 411; forming adv. 
phrase, 249 f., 487; c. Aorév, 470, 
487; c. inf., 118, 966. 

rol: use, 302; discussed, 1154 f. 

Tovyapotv: use, 425, 1154. 

tolvuv: use, 425, 1154. 

tovdaSe: form, 290; use, 709; and art., 
it ia We 

rovottos: use, 290, 710, 731; and 
érotos, 732; and art., 771. 

ToApaw: roots of, 823. 


- 


Totos: Sl. 

—tros: verbal form, 157 f., 276, 304, 
320, 372 f.; adv. form, 296; com- 
parison of verbals in, 276; superla- 
tive end., 283; constr., 504; dis- 
cussed, 1095 ff. 

tooooSe: use, 709. 

tocottos: use, 290, 710; and art., 
OTL: 

TéTe: pronominal, 298; use, 300; 
constr., 429; in Mt., 119, 443, 549. 

—rov: gen., 262. 

tovvavtiov: 208. 

Tovvopa: 208. 

TOUT eotiv: See odTcs. 

Tpaxwviris: c. art., 788. 

tpeis: forms, 282. 

tpémw: compounds and forms, 359, 
1219. 

Tpépw: use, 203; 
forms, 359, 1220. 

tTpéxw: compounds and forms, 870, 
1220. 

tplaKkovra: form, 283. 

TpLaKkooTds: 284, 

tplBw: compounds and forms, 1220. 

tp(s: form, 284, 296; rpia, 282; rpia 
tpia, 91, 284. 

tTpiox(Arot: use, 283. 

tpitos: in mod. Gk., 284; adv., 488. 

—tpov: nominal suffix, 174. 

TpoTo—: in comp., 165, 219. 

TpoTov: dv Tpd7ov, 486, 487. 

tpotw: 487, 

tTpodo-: in comp., 165, 219. 

Teeye: 351. 

tTvyxave: constr., 509, 1120; rérvya 
trans., 801; compounds and forms, 
1220. 

TuTikas: 160. 

time: class, 353. 

Tvxuxds: 159, 

tuxov: adv. acc., 160, 488, 490, 1121, 
1130. 

Tw: accent, 233. 

—rw: per. end., 328, 338. 

—tw-verbs: 352. 

—twp: suffix, 151. 

—twoav: per. end., 55, 61, 63 n., 73, 
82, 328, 336, 338. 


compounds and 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


Y 


v: vowel-changes, 185, 195, 198-202, 
205, 230, 265; v=c, 238; dropped, 
185; stems in, 247, 249. 

tadros: 184, 253. 

tBpl{w: and case, 473. 

tyeta: 204. 

byejs: 275. 

t8wp: gen. use, 495; loc. use, 521, 533, 
590. 

tetos: 65 n. 

—v{w: verbs in, 150. 

Me: =72, 238. 

—via: participles in, 256, 274 f. 

—vins: forms in, 275. 

vids: meaning, 81 bis, 91, 95, 115, 116; 
voc. of, 463; c. gen., 102, 497 f., 
501, 651, 781; vids dwrés, 138. 

vioer{a: 65, 81, 115, 167. 

try: 124. 

ipets: form, see at, 195 f.; discussed, 
289 n., 678. 

tpétepos: form, 277; use, 288, 684. 

—vpu: verbs in, 311. 

—vvw: in comps., 147, 150, 213. 

traye: constr., 855; use of iraye with 
another imperative, 428, 949. 

tmakovw: constr., 507; meaning, 634. 

travrdo: constr., 473 n.; meaning, 634. 

trdvryois: 152; eis bravrnow, 528. 

trapxe: c. part., 1102, 1121. 

irelkwo: meaning, 634. 

wmép: In comp:,' 165, 167, 171,.°477; 
adv., 298, 450; constr., 784; cases 
with, 491, 569 f.; trep eyu, 244, 
450; separation implied, 517; fre- 
quency, 556; c. verbs, 560; in con- 
densation, 567; c. avri, 573 f.; and 
éxi, 600; and xara, 607; and epi, 
616, 618; and zpés, 623; discussed, 
628-33; c. comparatives, 83, 667; 
ce. inf., 1069. 

trepdvw: form, 161, 170, 171, 297; 
use, 550, 646. 

trepavaev: use, 647. 

trepBaddAdvras: origin, 160, 297 f. 

trepBlav: use, 550. 

trepéxetva: form, 171 bis, 244, 297; 
use, 647. 


1287 


trepexteptoood: form, 170, 171, 297; 
—oés adv., 171, 297; use, 647. 

trepextetvw: 477. 

bTepevTvyXave: 82, 165. 

bmepéxw: Cc. acc., 477. 

trepkatwbey: use, 647. 

tmepwov: 157. 

tanpetéw: constr., 540. 

id: elision, 208; form, 223, 226; 
constr. in comp., 165, 167, 477, 
542; cases with, 491, 517, 524, 532, 
034, 536, 569f.; case-form, 524, 
570; frequency, 556; c. verbs, 560, 
562; in condensation, 567; c. aré, 
575, 579; and 6:4, 582; and éré, 600; 
and rapa, 615; and brép, 630; dis- 
cussed, 633-6; in prepositional 
phrases, 792; for agent, 820; c. inf., 
1069. 

troBa\Aw: meaning, 634. 

brode(kvupe: aor. of, 848. 

trodéxopat: meaning, 633. 

tro{vyiov: 81. 

tro{emvvupr: meaning, 633. 

trokatw: use, 637. 

titokatwlev: use, 637. 

trokplvopat: in or. obl., 1036. 

tmdékpiots: meaning, 633. 

brokpitys: meaning, 633. 

trokapBavw: constr., 480; meaning, 
633; c. dre, 1034. 

trokelw: C. acc., 
634. 

troAjvov: 157, 167. 

itropévw: c. acc., 477. 

tropipyjoKw: constr., 483, 509; mean- 
ing, 634. 

trovoéw: in or. obl., 1036. 

tiromAéw: Meaning, 634. 

tromvéw: constr., 475; meaning, 634. 

tromdbé.ov: 65, 81, 167. 


brdotacts: Sl. 


477; meaning, 


« 


trooroAn: gen., 515. 


2 


trotayy: compounds, 167; use, 819. 

trotdaaaw: voice of, 807, 809, 817; use, 
946. 

brorlOnue: trans., 455; meaning, 633. 

brotpéxw: constr., 477; meaning, 634. 

—tpvov: ending, 202. 

toowtos: 95. 


” 


1288 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


torepéw: constr., 476, 478, 519, 541; | 
voice of, 814. 

worepos: form, 294; meaning, 662; 
adv., 488. 

tynrodpovéw: 163 n. 

tiporos: form, 279, 669. 

tow: constr., 480. 

—iw: verbs in, 62. 


® 


d: 215, 222, 353, 359. 

—pa: perf. in, 359. 

ayos: 157. 

day: form., 340; Payouan, 324, 354; 
use, 883, 1063. 

dative: class, 352; futs., 356; com- 
pounds and forms, 328, 341, 349, 
871, 1220; éévn, 340, 347, 350; 
avy, 349; use, 868; in or. obl., 1040; 
ce. part., 1040; 1102, 1120. 

davepds: and art., 764. 

dapioatot: 105. 

dacs: dre with, 81, 1033. 

de(Sopar: origin, 295, 298; compounds 
and forms, 295, 298, 1220. 

eSopévas: 160, 295, 298. 

delSwdos: 157. 

deddvys: 109. 

épw: compounds and forms, 338, 363, 
430, 1220; jqveyxa, 55, 338; —eveyxat, 
338; jveyxov, 338, 363; roots, 823; 
constr., 855; use, 81, 882, 1097; 
use of dépe, 949. 

gevyo: compounds and forms, 346, 
351, 355, 828, 1220; constr., 476. 

gdypi: compounds and forms, 144-5, 
305, 310, 319, 337, 346, 434, 902; 
épnv, 337, 346; punctuation, dai, 
434; ‘aoristic’ pres., 865; in or. obl., 
1036, 1039; c. dre, 10386, 1039; 
constr., 1083; c. inf., 1036, 1039, 
1083; c. ov, 1156, 1162; enclitic 
forms of, 1211. 

dave: meaning, 66, 81, 138; constr., 
551; use, 842, 1102, 1120; com- 
pounds and forms, 1220. 

0e(pw: compounds and forms, 1220. 

—r: suffix, 249. 

piady: 184. 

drdaSedpla: 65, 81. 


pidéo: use, 1063, 1201; and éyardw, 


1201. 

Pirtrmpjcror: 110. 

¢tAo-: in comp., 81, 165, 169. 

diroTrpwretw: 80, 165. 

iros: 81. 

pirtooropyla: 81. 

prrotipéopat: 81. 

dipdw: reading, 330; use, 908. 

doBéw: accent, 232; and case, 472 f., 
485; constr., 479; ¢o8. ¢dBor, 478; 
éfoB70n, 817-8; c. ard, 577; aor. of, 
852 f.; use, 472, 871, 995, 997; in 
indirect command, 1046. 

oBos: and art., 758. 

dowiklooa: 155. 

doivé: accent, 230. 

dopa: in mod. Gk., 284. 

dopéw: spelling, 201; forms, 349. 

ddpov: 109. 

doptitw: constr., 484. 

dpayérAArov: 109. 

dpayeddAdw: 109. 

dpate: 352. 

dpacow: forms, 1220. 

opev—: in comp., 165, 167, 169. 

Ppvyla: c. art., 788. 

gvyds: use, 272. 

ovdaky: c. &, 523. 

dvdak({w: 150. 

ovvaktyptov: 154, 157. 

gvAdcow: constr., 476, 477, 483; form, 
352; c. amd, 111; gud. dudakas, 477, 
479; voice of, 807. 

gvotkas: 160. 

gvoidw: spelling, 203, 342. 

gv: intrans., 800; compounds and 
forms, 350, 1220. 

—ho—: 215. 

geovy: in or. obl., 1033, 1042. 

4s: in John, 134; gen. use, 496 f. 


x 
ee PAL RPS yt 
—xa: adv. suffix, 296. 
xalpw: inf. with imp. sense, 329; x. 
xapav, 477; constr., 509, 855; voice 
of, 817; aor. pass., 817; aor. mid., 
818; use, 871; use of xalpev, 944, 
1093; c. éri, 965; c: part., 1122: 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 


compounds and forms, 1220; fut., 
356. 

Xapat: case-form, 249, 296, 521, 537. 

Xapa: gen., 515. 

Xdpaypa: 81, 116. 

xaptfopar: forms, 341, 1220. 

Xap: adv., 294, 298; position, 425; 
prep., 488; use, 72, 647; c. inf., 
1069. 

Xapts: 81, 115, 265 bis. 

Xapitow: 149. 

Xaptys: 109. 

xerAdwv: 62, 203, 268. 

xelpappos: forms, 275. 

xe(p: in comp., 167, 168, 169; use, 95, 
102, 649; and ellipsis, 652, 1202. 

Xerpdypadov: 72, 167. 

Xelpwv: form, 278, 669. 

XepouBip: 95. 

xéo: accent, 354; compounds and 
forms, 342, 352, 354, 1220. 

xs: form, 206. 

XtArds: 283. 

xAcou: use, 281 f., 283. 

Xts’: 283. 

xttov: 105, 111. 

xés': 283. 

XotvE: accent, 230. 

XoAdGw: C. S71, 965. 

Xopatiy: spelling, 205. 

xopnyew: trans., 455. 

Xopta{w: meaning, 66, 82, 138. 

Xpéopar: compounds and forms, 319, 
341, 1220; constr., 454, 473 n., 
476, 530, 532, 920. 

xpeta: 81. 

Xpeoherrdérys: 168, 201. 

xeq: 124, 319. 

Xprito: c. gen., 518. 

xpnpati{e: in or. obl., 66, 1036. 

Xpyorevopar: 149. 

Xptopa: accent, 230. 

Xptotravol: 110, 155. 

Xpirrds: meaning, 97, 101, 115; 
spelling, 192, 230; c. é, 115, 587, 
784; c. els, 592; and art., 760f., 
795; and "Ingots, 795 f. 

xp: constr., 483; compounds and 
forms, 1220. 

Xpovos: c. év, 523; case, 527 f., 543, 


1289 


Xpovo-: in comp., 165. 

Xpvoéov: 62, 203. 

Xpvods: in comp., 168, 169; form, 202; 
reading, 274. 

Xvvvw: new pres., 147, 213, 352. 

x%pa: form, 248; and ellipsis, 272, 
1202. 

x“péw: form, 369; use of inf., 1030; 
reading, 1082. 

Xpls: form, 296; position of, 425; 
use, 647 f. 


' x@pos: 109, 


wW: 209, 230. 

Wadrdrw: use, 874. 

thevdaSeXdos: 115, 168. 

ev8arrdorodos: 115, 168. 

Wev8(0)—: in comp., 165. 

Wevdopnar: constr., 854. 

nAadpdw: opt. form, 327; constr., 508. 

Wbupiopds: 152. 

Wexlov: 156. 

Yuxq: meaning, 81, 115,°126; instr., 
487; use, 689. 

Wuxikds: meaning, 115, 125; origin, 
158. 

vx: compounds and forms, 1220. 

Wopt{o: constr., 484. 

Woptov: 81, 


2 


o: 178, 182, 196, 199-208, 324, 367; 
w and o, 200 f. 

w—: augment of, in verbs, 367. 

—w: compar. end., 276; verb end., 306, 
315 f., 335, 350 f. 

®: use with voc., 111, 264, 302, 463, 
1198. 

Se: pronominal, 298; use, 299, 548; 
reading, 696. 

w/y: thematic vowel, 323. 

—wdos: adj. end., 157. 

—wpev: per. end., 200. 

—wv: nom. end., 154, 272; gen. end., 
257; part. end., 374. 

a@véopat: forms, 1220. 

apa: dpav acc. of time, 470; ce. &, 523. 

és: origin, 295, 301; constr., 302, 401, 
431, 481, 661, 674; c. pred. acc., 


1290 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


481; and rowdros, 710; temporal 
(in Lu. esp.), 122, 974; use, 953 f., 
963, 967f., 974, 980, 982, 1032, 
1130, 1140, 1193; causal, 963; as 
‘about’ c. numeral, 674, 968); c. 
- rt, 964, 1033, 1049; c. part., 966, 
1124, 1127; in indirect questions, 
1032; discussed, 987, 1032; dis- 
appearance of, 980 n.; c. inf., 990, 
1091, 1093; in consec. clauses, 
1000 f.; in conditions, 1021, 1025; 


in 1 Peter, 127; in Homer, 954; in ° 


Lu., 122, 974, 1080; c. a, 974, 
1040 f.; ovx ws, 1140; proclitic, 
1211. 

—&s: names, 172; adv., 248. 

—ws: adv. end., 160, 295, 297 f.; neut. 
substantives, 267; part. end., 274, 
295, 374. 

—woav: 62. 

acavva: 95. 


acautws: adv., 298. 

ooet: use, 674, 968, 1140. 

oormep: use, 431, 969, 1130, 1140, 1154. 

ootepel: use, 1154. 

ore: connecting particle, 431; c. inf., 
431, 909, 990, 1000, 1088, 1090; c. 
perf sini. .909; cx indicts. G9ote 
1088; c. subj., 931, 990, 999; pure 
purpose, 990, 1072, 1089, 1090; 
and iva, 999; intro. inferential 
particle, 999; in consec. clauses, 
999 f., 1088; use and statistics, 135, 
999. 

—wootvy: 201. 

otaprov: 82, 156. 

—atepos: compar. end., 278. 

attov: 65, 82, 156. 

wv: 203, 205. 

abedéw: accent, 233; constr., 472, 
483 f., 485, 541. 

—ws: in perf. part., 373. 


ee a et 


Nr ree 


Nw hw bd bw 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Complete for Scripture references and reasonably so for the other sources quoted. 
(Figures at end of lines refer to pages.) 


(a) NEW TESTAMENT 


Matthew QI eee ke He 8 561, 747, 800, 816 
i ta era woUmroge(9o0%) 2018 ae, , 313) 476) 51 oeSesnsos: 
5) See ee are Be Cee 263 882, 990, 1060, 1088 
Bad OM oe ree 5 dns POORT SS EL See 25148 Te) Cee Wer ere 
Pe ee nN Ge ye Ss POO en ALD ariel cae ey ee ie: © San oG 
6 Doon 2S UIs eDOL Eliot —2°15,23))) iney e200 
co LE 5 Sapa eget me dace Os Bonuses O21Gin.. oe 231, 297, 298, 834, 
AT Cae ae cg tre A 269, 603 1112, 1126 
the Beg eee BOLE. MOET 7S 9 se, oy eee sk ee 255 
12 ee ae AOA SI NL USds “Ds1S> ees, yee ae 475, 1159 
UD a Pe nae eis ees 215) 222088. 2, 339274065892 bis til 
TGA oes ee ay ties APRA TLO7me Ore 1 ee tan . 559 
17 MPO OtOto Tee. 29008 “510, 574, 996, 1029 
18 514, 545, 977, 1041 bis, 1091, D003 Caden.” . 593 
1121, U1 22ahisos 1 ISte1188. 8:1 587, 697, 708, 868, 1185 
Le feet. eo 817, 966, 1060, 1128 3:2 408, 609, 652, 762, 895 
0M) 6 261). 384-950, 418, 463) B53 . . . 255, 697 
464,514, 541;°817,-820,°852, 3:4 231, “B77, 620, 686 bis, 
932, 1060 709, 883 
a2 bein foe 281,409, 575, 679, 3:5 . . 7255, 491, 624, 652, 773, 883 
779, 872, 874, 889, 942, 1191 3:6 271, 525 bis, 586, 636, 651, 
2 ee ee O49 PDL pod, 561, ps2, 760, 791, 883 
636, 705, 774, 820, 982,998 3:7 . 213, 602, 735, 848, 883, 
SOD EU enter in A 505, 611, 713, 881 916, 1176 
CARR tags eet crates Teese .cs BA 33:94 sles tee ee 40555, 0UL Oo 
PLD Ten te oak ie 4502075 3:0 Fe 598, 834, 853, 1035 
SA) pe aay, 263, 408 bis, BTA S010 pee eee 418, 423, 771, 881 
760, 762, 791 See S428 ep LG a2 e5s0: 
BOE detent 234, 366, 370, 419, 540, 590, 645, 658, 679, 889, 1076, 
542, 840, 915, 990, 1062, 1088 1148, 1153, 1186 
Pe Se 200RTG0 nT iets 3212 “8212605355; 638/562, 575, 
a EOS Dea 517 bis, 627, 773, 795, 581, 606, 683, 722 
Shee O4ee 1040. 65313 aah saree nord 
Hig cy Ae eee 695 1186.9 3514 9. 235: 677, 682, 885, 1076, 
6 , 255, 559, 587, 652, 669, 1148, 1183 
oO mIt OG Oo mLI6D. - 32159. apart eel O00) SL: 393, 772 
i . 530, 762, 1106 881, 1058, 1086, 1110, 1119, 1126 
Bae 66, 860, 971,986 ~ 3716 538, 561, 575, 578, 968, 
9 . . 408, 642, 714, 840, 969, 975 1025, 1213 
10 One Lig eal ooy = Sey, oO. es 372, 460, 597, 697, 837, 
11 


PS et rao, Pe 593 842, 1097 
1291 


1292 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Matt. 
Asie oi. Ae Usd sD ay OOUne OU 
deers oT Witney Oto SOU, sb bLe 
Arcs HET Gey tore ls cane 329, 993 
4:3,6 . Pitinne Sh$! 
Adit 604, 649, 889 
A a. id's de a ae iat MOO 
a YG Cina age 291, 548, 625 
Avy B11, 319, 874, 883, 895 
LOS eee Ok oes 311, 419 
Ait 9 ais VS By PR ee eee 
4:10 nies, SOO L 
A=11 re? 540, 838, 847, 883 
4°13 219, 273, 593, 613, 759 
4:15 469, 500, 646 
4:16 437 
Aah ? tenor 
4:18 ipe - 269, 615, 656, 1190 
4:19 419, ee 517, 645, 949 
7d Nia eee 
7 ih 263, 501, 586, 620, 747, 770, 
780 
4:23 477, 499, 562, 617, 655 
4:23-25 . 428 
4:24 412, 799 
4:25 : . 28, 788 
bi _ 307, tk 593, 597, 756, 1132 
ea aa SCAR fatal: 
Doi ee “417, 523, 762 
5:3-10 Ld 
5:3-11 945 
5:3-12 ... 448 
5:4 764, 872 
HiGa . 474, 508 
5:8 895, 523, 871 
HOKE nit RS eae Leena 
aed it 234, 392, 473, 505, 551 
ad B's eee 2 eral 
Dele 269, 534, 590, 739, 751, 
768, 1019, 1024 
5:14 ee 505, 642 
Bel 221, 263, 428, 491, 633, 
635, 757, 766, 1183 
52107 aa pee O40, 710, 782 
eth iyo ~ 231, 427, 428, 789, 833, 834, 

apo, 85 07, S58, 932, 990, 1062, 

1080, 1088, 1187, 1188 
5:18 186, 405, 406, 561, 677, 
751, 933 
Belo . 660, 669, 698, 712, 959 bis 
520 516, 666, 667, 677, 854, 933 
apa | 212, 349, 349, 504 bis, 
538, 541, 658, 844, 850, 889, 
957, 1035, 1042, 1157, 1162 
5:22 nat 219, 502, 535, 537, 541, 
677, 744, 772, 1107, 1148 
5:22, 28 866 


Or 


On 


Or Or Or Or 


Or OV en 


Or Or Ot Ot Or Ot Ot Or Ot Or Or Or 


O> Or Or Or GA Ot Or Or Ot Ot Or Or Or Or 


PP Per ta RG Paes Le ; , LLa6 
722, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44 . 1153 
23 ... 849 
: 24 428, 470, 529, 621, 640, 
657, 690, 882, 949 

220 330, 375, 488, 573, 729, 
890, 975, 976 

26 255, 976 
yal 2 2 eso" 
28 _ ATA, 508, 773, 842, 10038, 
1060, 1075 bis 

29 : 502, 539, 575, 681, 779, 
834, 992, 1009, 1018 

20 ie 687 
30 779 
5. ae : Oe 
ey es 348, 517, 646, 764. bis, 773 
33 . . . 224, 333, 889 
34 cep 588, 1060, 1094 
B4sf: ‘ ; > 2 “694 
34-36 . 1189 
34, 39 . 1084 
35 PM, ast) 
36 1. . $08, 1214 
ar 279, 516, 618, 660, 947, 
1150 bis 

38 se has 
39 727, 746, T47 
39-43 ; seer 1181 
40 437, 529, 538, 683, 802 
41 . 183, 562 
42 an B11, 809, 855, 943 
43 330, 547, 646, 889, 943 
44. , 630, 889, 941, 948, 947 
AD aS 3992, 757, 764, 799, 801, 1200 
46 . 135, 1019 
46 f. pe et Ls k 
47 687, 850, 1019 bis 
ame ce ee . . 429, 678, 889 
cal Bay ae ene 244, 394, 542, 626, 818, 
820, 858, 991, 1003, 1075 bis, 

1080, 1088, 1148, 1148-9, 1173 
ee. . . 849, 429, 577, 633, 687, 
853, 866 bis, 969, 972, 986, 1154 

SO: ns none OoeeO0e | 856, 943, 1131, 
1170, 1202 

4 Tare” ATL GEO 7045986 
5 hee . 552, 828, 874 bis, 942, 
i 963, 968, 986, 1157 

6 .204, 777, 835, 855, 947, 950, 1186 
ed 2G ee S4) 589.591 SGGe iss 
8 482, 720, 726, 857, 881, 
895, 978, 1061, 1075, 1091 

79° oli os eee 459, 464, 779 
9-11 Soe 
9-13 422, 852 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Matt. 
6:10 . 334, 350, 396, 600, 818, 1181 
GSE iey r. : : wre 159, 779 
6:12 538, 677, 842, 963, 967 
6:13 518, B75, 593, 652, 653, 
853, 932 
6:14 f. et SG 
Galo LL OD 
6:16 _ 395, 427, 854, 1040, 1102 
6:16, 18 oe od AT 
6:17 683, 779, 811, 1102, 
1126 
6:18 089, 891, 1102, 1115 
6:19 231, 405, 853, 875 
6219:f, . 286, 687, 1186 
6:20 792 
G:21 Bee StS) 
6222 | 284, 768, 1018 
6:22, 23 . 849 
6:23 Pens "740, 917, 1027, 1186 
6:24 251, 578, 675, 748, 749, 751; 
890, 1052, 1188, 1191 
6:25 539, 564, 738, 853, 917, 
935, 1028, 1044, 1176 
Geo ho Len, , Minas eS | 
6226: 561, 581, 1035, 11838, 1185 
6:27 BIS, b6t: 733, 891, 1115, 1128 
6:28 : 341, 606, 619, 799, 1185 
6:29 . 002, 515, 807, 1164, 


NO NNNMNNNNNNNIN NNNNINN DQADO 


aes 


1185 

oe Ras 

_ 738, 934, 935, 1028, 1044 
404, 419, 705 TAL 

; 642 

411, 509, BAT, 594, 165, 
853, 1202 

853, 890, 947, 983 

. . 084, 590, 718, 721 

. 471, 685 bis, 738, 782 


_ 582, 659, 1088 

203, 538, 763, 853, 875, 
988, 1185, 1200 

_ 357, 1023 

21218 

_ 773, 866 

~ 439, 482, 917, 1177 
231, 1023, 1188 


1 

2 

Bastiat * 

herent cas 286, 329, 430, 596, 931 
5 : dos 

6 


a1 cS 740, 1053, 1062, 11038, 1129 


12. . 427, 704, 732, 738, 959, 1180 
13 ee eee aS) 
13 f. eer) 
14 ; NeloUe tao 
15 ; 272, 477, 548, 589, 727, 

729, 800, 966 
16 . 392, 566, 576, 1172 
17 221 


-J 


eo) 


CO WMOMHOMOONNNN NW VW VY AY 


OMWWOODMDMHMADMDDOHMAHDMNMHMH MO CO 


ODOM M MO 


CO © © 


oN Re 
mS <O 


bo 
bo 


bo 
iow) 


724 


1293 


ve: . 402 
_ 425, 1148 bis, 1190 

. . . 752 ter, 1107- 

367, 524, 525, 708, 917, 

1157, 1175, 1213 

559, 575, 1028, 1035, 

~~ 1107, 1165 

468, 479, 602, 727, 772, 

905, 957, 1105 bis, 1107 
361, 366, 606, 905, 1100, 1157 
727, 752, 772, 957, 

1105, 1107 

. 1100 


_ 350, 532, 835, 883, 970, 1043 


. 966, 1207 

, fr HOU 

an Wes 3 597, 683, 1132 
391, 1018, 1019, 1214 


183, 391, 684, 770, 1028, 1216 


330, 338, 430, 595, 683, 
849, 854, 932, 949 


. 258 

: _ . 829) 635, 653, 657, 
658 bis, 681, 819, 992, 1076 
_ 391, 817, 1180 bis, 1182 
_. 710, 844 

334, 357, 408, 819 

278, 298, 803 

818, 968 

Po eay 

302, 533, 653, 773 

491, 646 


282, 292, 674, 675, 796, 969 
4 eed IB, TBT bis, 800 
_ 748, 1152 


Be 6702 883 

. 828, 879, 941 

. 738, 813 

292, 507, 543, 741, 917, 
1001, 1176 

_ 597, 634, 708, 1171 

. 348, 621, 729, 1136 

_ . 499 

948, 1009 
839, 570, 607 
528, 609, 628, 771, 
995, 1046 

691, 692, 770 

meee 15-608 

"244, 395, 739 bis, 916, 1176 
186, 617, 737, 916, 917, 
1176, 1177, 1190 

119, 319, 434, 443, 562, 
907, 1203 


1294 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


. . 409, 710 
314, 602, 800 
Ol 

' 316 bis, 529, 1043 
_ 244, 916, 1176 


“961, 844, 1163, 1164, 1166 


eave 
300, 497, 559, 722, 733, 978 
‘um 214°078,.604 

251, 292, 342, 352, 745, 


880, 1025, 1148, 1220 
433, 842, 1109, 1132 
212, 1115 
e019 

264, 433, 462, 517, 575 
Sao 12 


_ 368, 430, 932, 949, 996, 
1213 

. 708 

‘477, 658, 773 


- 211, 212, 364 bis, 619, 968 


ah AL Le 
995 


2 500, 809, 990, 1089, 1090 


3) 6577767 
_ 760, 859, 1114 
 495,'500 
358, 800, 881 


| 1185 
_ 874, 948, 1019 
849 


437, 517, 642, 720, 813, 959 


214, 257, 587, 663, 666 
eee sey Gis 
Dek gy AE Obs 
738 bis, 739, 972, 1045 
401 

Mee hoc lik 

357, 437, 584, 698, 792, 
871, 889, 891, 1110 

_ 748 bis, 776, 976 

. . 632 

_. 893, 537, 740, 992 
334, 472, 473, 485, 575, 
577, 726, 816, 853, 960, 
1001, 1158, 1164, 1200 
ee eee 

603, 705 


10:28 352, 472 bis, 473, 577 bis, 
1046, 1213 

10228folMe. i SLO 
10:29 355, 356, 510, 515, 603, 
637, 638, 751 

10751 e* 473, 519, 853 
10°62 108, 436, 475, 524, 541, 
588, 957, 959, 961 

LOvon it “ee oe RODE 
10:33 727, 9 1, 957, 959, 968 
10733.06 956. 
10:34 Jens 
LO%S5 284, 581, 607 
10:37 . 633, 1108 
10¢37; 39, “40, 41 . 1108 
1G (its eG 
10°33. 72 onc, 962, 1158 
10239. 859, 1108, 1109, eb a 
10:40 SOU: 1108, 1115 
10:41 DOO, 389, 525, 595 
10/415 . 593, 649 
10:42 “484, 653, 1108, 1202 
LL D eos LIZ bre L 
113 748, 934, 1107, 1116 
Li t4 194, 258, 726 
Lie5 3S ee One o 
ininye ay. . 765, 820, 1088 
11:7-9. ie L6G 
11:8 : _ 364, 589, 653, 1088 
ey ee eeu 
PESO - 698, 703, 960, 1193 
142i) 516, 587, 668 
Tete 548, 816 
Lit 367 
Lie ae LO2G 
LEG 186, 477, 748 
11:19 2204 
Pe20 75 _ 279, 670, 1078 
PL 269, 302, 923, 1014, 1015, 
1193 

1 EL : . 646 
Liss : 505, 6.43, 653, 792 bis, 975 
de} 337, 419, 523, 682, 696, 
709, 965, 1097 

bie26 < +, “461,465,769 
es 27 682, 742, 752, 842, 878, 
1024, 1164 

E238 235, 328, 625, 682, 
924, 1023, 1193 

TTe28 ts a 873 bis 
1-29 200, 523,537, 08%, 
1182 

Livcd 262 
1231) 48 696 
Io vie : oo 262 
[ee ; 392, 523, 587, 1159 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Ome ge 20, 544 

491, shy 714, 776, 1016, 
1025, 1032, 1084-5, P19; 
1130, 1188 

oe, L050 

_ 261, 904, 923, 1015 

683 


! 511, 512, 916, 1024, 1176 


292, 740, 999 

401, 656, 746 

119, 994 

541, 993 

474, 842 

5 ee BP 

365) LPM ee 

. . 889 

292, 697, 917 

fe DOU, 1036 

319, 406, 413, 817, 1105, 
1106, 1116 

; eee 842, 876, 1008 
aes 452, 817 

Se O47 

[Cremeans yer. LOS 
. . 425, 429, 842, 1008, 
1190 bis 

i742. 401; 1018 

seb tel Bab ye. 

956 


_ 494, 500, 655, 779, 873 bis 


594, 607, 1165, 1179 
. 880, 924 

_ . 408, 757, 776 

436, 439, 459, 718 

515, 579, 742, 923 

255, 411 

PO 3499 

453, 525, 561, 593, 828 

_ 268 

_ 418, 560, 582 

_ 300, 548, 1041 

516, 611, 749 

ee 679, 057 

314, 367, 615, 813 

-. _ . . 602, 979, 1126 
_ 512, 652, 757, 764, 1088 
_ 107, 490, 564, 606, 695, 
765, 1073 ter 

eA 7 

ee 1508tl 1 

891, 1071, 1091 

746, 749 

eee 704 

838, 883 

956 

707 


1295 


12s an eee: meted, dors Lb 
Toe ee DEES WEE 
714 04, 531 bis, 039, 1004 bis, 
1110, 1127 

"15 201, 204, 367, 533, 844, 
988, 1173 

17 eh a 
18 501 
19 Sais 744, 773, 1105 
al oe pe 
23 695 bis 1149 
24 By 5) 
25 244, 550, Dilan 
1070, 1073 

26 oa OAS; 762, 799 
27 fee oe Bhs Ren lee 1157, 1176 
28 418, 430, 878, 915, 924, 935, 
1175 

29 319, 534, 637, 638, 1157, 
1164, 1174 

30 479, 482, 626, 639, 645, 
673, 974, 1075 

‘OL . 656,715, 836, 1126 
relat. See aks 
[On 194, 343, 371 bis, 1000, 
1205 

33 508, 1110, 1126 
34 + 617,648 
ate mer TO1eE106 
38 233, 394, 698 
39 233, 768 
40 969 
4] » 35.098 
44 562, 580, 837, 868 
44, 48 715 
45 f. kets 
46 837, 844, 897, 900, 
TTTO3h126 

748 cel. 561, 837 
ADWS? gaema 550, 578, 648, 775 
‘ble. Polat tO: 1175 
Lay 399, 475, 521, 539, 559, 656, 
(PHE 1206 

54 pee Logl 
55 _ 7B, 917, 1157 
56 625 
le tr eee OL) 
ao 694, 840, 842 
3 Wie ae “DOS 25800540 
25 . 481, 485, 817, 1129 
16 . . 648 
a7 Case 877, 963, 1028, 
1031, 1039, 1047 

oS ok ae OSs OO, 434, 604, 866 
i! eS Ce Aue ae 1129 
[faa } hes eee 520, 550, 609 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ih ihc! BEOOS 

546, 618, 842 

, AO 
; 350, 367, 561, 1136 
fe over 1 UU 

fee 419, 648, 674 

' 477, 857, 891, 975, 
976 bis, 1048, 1081 
224, 656, 657 

469, 644, 775 

523 


RRS: 
732, 956, 958, 993 
564, 811, 972 

739 

477 

mA enol 
485, 789, 874, 875 
845 

. . 482 

_ 559, 1166, 1172, 1187 
488, 849 

. 488, 546 

- 773, 1035 


261, 463, 464 

. 341, 484, 645, 1135 
res 0 

es 

_ 519, 577, 1116 

. 463, 464, 1193 

Sa Ol 

_, 212, 615, 749, 1127 
266, 275, 460, 602, 623, 
726, 737 

. 710, 990, 1089 

_ . 740, 1176 

491, 561, 602 


1062 bis 
: ye tes le 
472 949, 1047, 1183 
1028 bis 


Up Mme rer Cp Aire ds. 1028 
19. <5 SE e006 2 04a ore 
LL opis 5 ee LOA a CO ea Get 
TID Se. os ee LUa ei loo ty eae 
1060, 1160 

pl <a, Bier es 781 bis, 1103 
1G: ae ae 695, 747, 749 bis, 1153 
14 fee oe it) ee eeOUD 
S11 Gy Tees eee 235, 678, 768, 781 
As oes . . 200, 419, 842 
SIS raee 174, 255, 408, 457,510, 
562, 604, 682, 780, 791, 875, 

889, 1028, 1029, 1185, 1201 

219) f°: ee eo le COD ou ous 
20 679, 983, 993 bis, 1046, 
1049 

Fil . 9811, 579, 587, 1035, 1082 
22 260, 272, 396, 541, 809, 875, 
942, 1157, 1175 

23 . . 174, 498, 562 
24 690, 742, 878, 890 
25 at ete 
26 “485, 501, 935, 1023, 1129 
27 576, 745, 882 
28 489, 743, 794, 955, 957, 
962, 1116, 1123 

LS Ae) Oe eat 224, 787, 788 
ae Cdl vee 4055562 
x 425, 490, 538, 661, 750, 
1009 bis, 1039 

ae 367, 396, 697, 776, 837 
Lib er : a ee ee 
ober TorOOd 
9 596, 597 
10 . 487 
Lee an 2 870 
7 ee ee 484, 588 bis, ‘815, 842 
LA Lak on Ge eae 513, 1132 
ARG yeaa ofits ear & see Make 
BL Ok <n Warne ie 334, 350, 368, 817 
ifs 300, 548, 648, 917, 
1101, 1176 

AS es Laas re ys 487, 739 
20 268, 300, 308, 328, 548, 
849, 889 

22 : 594, 870, 1132 
maf 681 
:24 east) 
25 ae 748, 860, 1102, 1120 
526 518, 1132, 1148 
26 f. se 1190 bis 
27 425, 573, 593, 657, 
687, 792 

ed GR Bal Tam sah Sd, 668, 916, 1176 
C2 had iNet eee 
oh igsdigs een tee eens dol 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Matt. 
Uh a ero A 244, 281 
Tee SAT! te Wied ey All 
LS es vetes) bh a 317, 594, 620, 992 
BPS eek» chute ee W007 01 t, 080 
18:8 nme, 40051. 095, 058; 
661 bis, 687, 1084, 1188 
18:9 276, 496 
18:10 . . 995, 996 
1ISe12 BAL bis, 870, 1019 
EER rn ole 
18313 - 1019, 1043, 1058 
18:14 pie ad he eet: 
T8315 ¢ 339, 348, 428, 505; D62; 
645, 687, 842, 846, 949, 
1019 bis, 1020 
jb svca lay OR ee ee . . 604, 649, 846 
LSOL7 . 2ol, 539, 757, 846, 
1019, 1027 
18:18 361, 375, 733, 907 
ee Oi re Pere Aired LOn LOLO 
18:20 » ; » 593; 656, 685, ‘776 
18:21 281, 333, 356, 548, 674, 
889, 917, 934, 1176 
18322 ©°6%3: bis 
JF a SL Sey hae ne 611, 837 
13°23 fe 109 
18:24 eet 29 gc 233, 283, 674 
16325 OLA Ons 1048, 1068, 
1132, 1172 
Tene cme. Beats 3 538, 568, 570, 949 
15-20 i: 605 
LO pee Rh er eee O09 
Reeth APE Sistene cs : _ 538, 883, 1025 
18:30 309, 834, 885, 976 
18:31 689, 690 
LL Gy See aera ee) 464,708 
A Seca ore, ¥en ve 886, 919, 968, 1181 
As i Viris' 
Love Me ON cue a's ce. RO 746 bis 
ee aes DL. (63 
eS cle ce SO , é raat 14 
Ub eh AS aan 609, 916 bis, 1176 
Aye ERE HS oe Gk, aa oye 
19:5 458, 595, 819 
DSO We ee ior. . 314, 345, 1165 
19:8 : OP 8] 
19:9 646, 649, 747, 1028 
19:10 : et o040.4L008 
19:11 706, 720, TOPs LLOo 
jhe SUE Ry Pale Ter 
1190, 1214 
10 ED Bee ee le 710, 1061 bis, 1094 
LOL Guat poh ele <4 ’ nO LDL (a0 
RS bre ee 653, 661, 738, 768 
1134. , Ske COO 
19:20 419, 476, 478 


1297 


21 949, 1023, 1088, 1083 
22 1110, 1127 
DATARS a eee, 192, 666 
2G 2 Spee ae oe eee L096 
Of, Gat sen 5. en . . 309 bis 
28 314, 565, 601, 1216 
29 f 673 bis 
) 12 p Slee ye COU BOO 
. 548, 638, 658, 728, 809 

470, 510, 562, 599, 611, 769 

pe Re Ng Ne tee 586, 620 

Fulbve ck leo “dy. ok cee en 320 

: 190 

—, ‘470, 738 

643, 1126 bis, 1203 

een OFS 

10 766, 876, 1028, 1029 
IZ 530, 658, 842 
iG 472, 510, 881 
16 cate (69 
ite 8 tee BO 
18 . 2 5ddn194 
19 349, 522, 595, 1072 
PAU. ; : ¢ 482 
20, 22 . 805 
a 597, 750 
2D, 291, 3438 
ae 5, 721, 765, 793, pW Ese Pg WE 
PASS 3 epee ere is 619 
25 1100 
A AM rte Mla Mal tee 190, 943 
26 f 874 
28 “175, 567, 573, 1088 
29 eo 
30 463, 464, 491, 615 
Oden sear eee . 994 
Bd... eee ee ee AeA ARS 
v1. 267, 834, 971 
= ADNAN be en el ph aes al Nite Oe 
OB dg feck erent ne 742, 874, 943 
24 ee: 1123 
536, 560, 633 

sytem ietre te aaeeeee _ 968, 1126 
es: : 409, 477 

: _ 279, 318, 404, 660, 690, 

774, 779, 838 

J Da hae re Nan We eee meats 525, 670 
10 fo Sard eh anne eee 697 
a Re or ht, 219 
“15 i eae 
LOM ore Past 649, 845 
19 _ 594, 603, 674, 948, 
1024- 5 

21 767, 849, 1018, 1026 
RP a Iai hay Gant ca AOU 
23 653, 740, 1188 


DOW WwWNMWNWW WNW bd 
WWWhH bd bl bd bb 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


482°740 9325 US.) . an eee OT 

Fe Al 3007613 2008712 © ais ae ee 
Ge ate. Re eee iC DEI e - , 892, 1116 
Wh ee 1185 23:15 . . . . . 278,299, 652, 763, 
eer 949 1202 
1157929716). 424, 475 

901,737 “28716; 18 % 7 eee 
_ 384, 996, 1060, 1066/1000. 23:17 ©. 9.0 ee eet 
808, 3405367399 bis) 23-17) 19 nee ee ee a 
575, 617, 727s 1214 29518. er 
M606 (2320018. 9S © Oe eee 

Eat) Gaye, PREDIAE Bee 

473, 485, 819,873 23:23 . 261, 309, 310, 337, 347, 845, 
Pe OBA GUY, 886, 919, 944, 1080, 1084, 1092 
Sabb See Save #057606 

= AR Sei Oe oben . . 642, 765 

119, 355, 727, 873, 960, 23:26 . . . 517, 640, 641, 642, 765 
989, 1201, 1214 23:27 . . . 203, 260, 506, 530, 548 

254, 410, 458, 587,615, 23:27,28 . . -. 1102 
655, 704,718 28)069)\) ee sB0SkG seen 

Seip S7s mae ee - 312, 340, 394, 922, 1015 

_ 787, 1029, 1035, 1041 23:31 .. . ; . 538 
334, 481,965 23:32 .... . . 948, 1198, 1220 

409,860 23:33 ....... 476,929, 934 

408,957 23:34 . . . 266, 333, 356, 515, 599 

885,919 23:35 . . . 213, 255, 645,715, 789 

_. . . 788 23:37 . 120, 204, 267, 486, 531, 689, 

399, 691, 692, 695 718, 917 
834835 23:39 . . Witenis 

milo weet "565, G01, 828, 960, 1001, 

_ AQ 1158, 1164 

485, 818, 1138 bis, 24:3 _ 224 bis, 787 
Ei oe ae 430, 933, 995 
Wiimote . . 604 

SPA13S, © 2456 430, 500, 889, 932, 949, 996 

486,828 24:9 . _ . 353, 593, 889 

2 148064. 24-12.” 8572 6601858, 066 

(B92, 5505619 -- 24:13 9° . = case ee ee 

_ 269, 1058, 1158, 1177’ 24:15 . .°. . . 820, 434 
 891,1081 24:17 . . . 231,307, 328, 330, 548, 

_ . 348 599, 856 

488,668 24:18 . . . 453, 548, 586, 645, 856 

2, 9883) 94500 *  ) > een Goce 

392 24:21 . . | 207, 244, 731, 793, 1175 

. 840 24:22... . 752,772, 1016, 1163 

660,740. 24:94...) ee aod 

VTA bis, 24:26". | Pe eet 

A11; 661.660 -24°97°" °c) | ene ee 

939.580 | 94:08.) 4a aie ema rong 

317 24:30 . . 334, 356 bis, 357, 603, 611, 

760 819, 871, 891 

© 480 = 245312. oe eG rroeee 

. = 3105814) 24:32") oso aad 

"758, 786. 837,866 2423251) 2m eee en 
733,866 24:33 ... . . 525, 604, 792, 972 


"560, 1184, 1186. 24:35... an ne? 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Take.) PAN 

621, 639, 717, 974 

975 

tee Dyes 

Me LEO, O09 

154, 231, Si Mayer 

bp mney O22: 740 bis 
349, 708, 740, 870, 922, 
1014, 1015 

: ees LS 
768 3, 777, 783, 792, 845, 
916, 1065, 1176 

891 

604 

: Bal e540) 

: 716, 716, 718 bis 

_ 727, ee / 

212 

611 

Sete cee GLA 

349, 367, 838, 883 


"495, 522, 595, 775, 793, 897 


318, 879 


244, 334, 689, 818, 929, 933, 


9349 995, 1127, 1159, 1161, 1174 


272, 763 

oe 1200 

. 969, 1203 

oa a hese} 

SF .eu 009 

282, 696 

746, 813 
meee: fh 
111391525 

cent ways 

835, 910, Tats 
be as) 

337, 601 

.. 299, 604 

718, 909, 910, 1034, 
HG 1116, 1118 

. 648 

. 1045 


886, 919, 922, 1014, 1015 


873 
a eg!) 
. 408, 1153 


, 504, 516, 777, 793, 1106 


340, 347, 1087, 1200 
915 
234 


- 334, 339, 357, 819, 1123 


O17; Lizs, LL/6 
: 234, 1123 
733 

963 


1299 


eee eee pee eet 1 es 692; L096 
Siete ees Pheer ew fe LEO E. 
OME Se a eae i a OloseL LOG 
ee eee oe eee A FL 159 
POUR hx oh ee eels Loo 
Poet dares O02 O12, OO. 1U; 
1072, 1090 

4 263, 698, S11, 993 
5 : 1202 
Cees sd a a Se 263 
sii 84 eh are 2 ad 
8 by!) 
SLES i ee ne ME Cae es bea 3 CON SS 
DU estes pss, (5. sah gle LeOd tere 
le May bekl 2) tome CUO MIU CO 
meer Ce i ev) O42E 5/5 8009 
a Ol LOC 
ad, 951, 1023, 1183 bis 
aly Mes eee : . 674 
ae tally =, “400, 935, 989 
es ie dt, pekee 625, 744, 870 
PAW ae Cen OR. ae ee 
Sie teeters. fk O C0; (402740 
Pe ATG, (IO Sea sfeke BOL be 
20 O20 e000, 000, G98, 707 bis 
24. 707, 886, 887, 920, 1014, 
1015, 1160, 1169 

20, %. «809,915, 1028 8, 1114, 1168 
25, 64 iia 842 
26, 28 nae eee aes ocak OS 
2 (cae sda Sec. OLY) 
28 213, 352, 567, 595, 618, 
EOoe LI GS LULs 

<2 Laie. cede eye 
yee eho Be _ 490, 563, 858, 1089, 
1074, 1092 

{DO eee ee a ee LOS 21 026 
“34... » ee eer ate eh 
STEN eS 208, 628, 849, 875, 1026 bis 
OO Mie ee oe 7 O 
ie heli te ne eae 617, 643, 856 
Ue ae Rae AOU! GOO. FO fanbles f 
ae: nt oe, 1020, 1160 bis 
143 xs) G epogero tA e 
PAA Sk ce. mano G 
Te eae 807, 882, 890, 948, 1183 
“AG, . . .' d12; 428, 430, 799 bis 
AT ai ee Me el ae 
sy) ee ae oe 602 bis, 696, 725, 917 
op eee ee 00S SU od Oe LeU 
P02) el Bathe oe O24) 00409 BLL OL 
iD) enema 21.0012. GOO) OS lel oie 
aa) eae a ae Se a Oy Peo 
Ti eS RG AUP B PCE 
HO >: Tee ne eee ae geome Ba 
WD) mein os! A Scars fad ee Ook 


1300 


Matt. 
26:58 Mery otatess 
26:59 . 505, 986 
26:60 sig. Bane DOO Ee 
26:61 So AAS Lae 
26:62 B02 ibe: 1126 
26:63 475, 607, 781, 865, 883, 
'993, 1045 
26:64 678, 679, 842, 915 
26:65 212, 802, 842 
26:66 . 504 bis, 658 
26:67 . . 212, 561, 694 
26:69 4 313, 337, 674, 1182 
26:70 . 517, 1136 
Ged Lt ates os Le eee 547, 697 
P| ay fs hee eam so AB Hy arate bi Fre 
26:74 : REP sail! 1028, 1035 
DAs tae Cs ome ; 910, 1028, 1091, 1113 
Zi eee 5 e056, 990, 1089 bis 
21 oe 609, 817, 858, 859, 860, 1112 
Qi t45 109, 290, 339, 626, 736, 859, 
860, 874, b O42 is, L113 1121, 1128 
ia a SO AAU: 807, 860 
1 het Le eee IMM Yo) 
OT tSC ae , 648, 848, 962, 1202 
A fed, TN Sls See Pe eee 
Pa Ld ae ae rs aii 
PA cl Ie hal gee Le 3 678 bis, 768, 769, 915 
Ca at WE: : 473, 484, 1073 
27:13 ; 512, 741, 1177 
27:14 473, 738, 751 
27S 606, 608, 884, 888 
Pht SOG ‘ oS 737, 1177 
2L21S ; 583, 841, 888, 898, 1029 
27:19 396, 707, 842 
27:20 805, 835, 993 
PAN Sea b 515,577 fal 
PH ae . . 484 
21:20 279, 845, 1149, 1190 
27:24 516, 576 bis, 639, 644 ter, 
678, 770, 874, 810, 942 
ao ee 22 
Pt feleg g 962, 593 
DA IOAS Dit es eee 
iene 465, 474, 598 
27750 . . 898, 884 
Deo. . 483 bis, 840 
OT ise . . . 828, 993 
PEG ATs : 411, 714, 881, 1105 
27:34 ol Ol alUse 
hig Oi Ne 690, 811 
DEY: 604 
Dima, 47, 54 Seas OL 
27:38 675, 750, 792 
YA ees\) i re Ce ees 
27:40 308, 465, 581, 781, 892, 


1107, 1116 


fe pe et pt 
DOONOMLWNH 


744 


ity 


ur . 
2 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Sales “891 
307, 419, 746 
1028, 1029 


- 409, 473, 480, 482, 487, 1106 


602, 643, 772 
. . 29, 95, 215, 219, 261, 
412, 463, 705, 739, 842 
we 035 186 

. 1136 


"374, 430, 877, 931, 991, 1045, 


1118, 1128 

. 297, 300, 580, 643 bis 
es Ba bs 

258, 780, 781 

548, 727 

cee esi Y) 

. . 263, 501 

_ 208, 263, 475 bis, 487, 
697, 800 

.. 697, 1078 

. . 642, 681, 715 

_ 405, 505, 639, 747, 1104 
653, 728, 765 
: 707 n., 816, 870, 1035 
280, 669, 775, 794 

949 

te GEL 

_ 517 bis, 519, 522, 622, 
646, 672, 775, 841 
840-1 

ay aby; 

430, 845, 931, 949 


nee a se omne 
475, 525, 592, 649, 684 
a” _ 1128 


Mark 


. . 481,798, 795 
606, 621, 956, 960 
. 1106 


” 496, 595, 782, 891, 892, 1127 


. 592, 791, 1127 

_. 118, 204, 485 

231, 722, 961, 1052, 1126 
; jot ees 
_. . . 497, 525, 592 

. 517 bis, 561, 577, 597 

. . 582, 768, 837 

880 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Mark 
Tels 255, 611 
TAM: aye ee at mes LOZ 
eds 119, 453, 536, 540, 601 
B16 art hos 
|) Ey alae eee _ 481, 656, 996, 1023 
NEEL ES EeR en ora eed 528 
1:19 oy, Pa eles OOO 
URC AAR” oy LUA re en 262, 559, 880 
1 LAM Ba ae ee ee § 1127, 1140 
1423 E 589, 784. 
1:24 118, 263, 395, 488, 738, 
762, 916 
2 : 334, 540, 1181 
1:29 255, 611 
Leg . . 860 
£232 341, 348, 1214 bis 
35 eA GEA: 
1:34 195, 315, 319, 367, 546, 
1034, 1216 
1256 606, 766 
iest awe" oe 1028 
1:38 299, 424, 477, 595 
1:39 Pal 118, 593 
1:40 474, 849 ter, 1214. 
1:42 : Oe a abs shasta! 
1:44 118, 430, 619, 932, 949 
1:45 ie; 300, 604, 1186 
Bele 2veet ~; 119, 525, 559, 581, 586, 
593, 1120 
oe. 119, 625 
2°35 392, 1097 
2:4 604, 969 
B=5 866 
PAG ‘118, 291, 697, 705, 1025, 1129 
Aes ; ; 737, 885, 1215 
2°10 ; 119, 434, 907, 999, 1203 
2a 428, 855 
2:12, 16 ue 1028 
AO 3 ees WLI YEDSG 
oie 316, 393, 1043, 1190 
2:16 730, 917, 1029, 1035 
OL ; . 990 
2:18 : Bais 786, 787, 1186 
2:19 ; 528, 587, 718, 733, 879 bis, 
978 bis 
azo) eae at LSS 
ed: _ 212, 214, 1025 
Ls : Pos 3/3 
Uns} a 523, 763, 1043 
2:24 523, 738, 1045, 1159 
Beh . 679 
2220 603, 628, 714 
Pi aal 584. 
2:28 tes 6439 
ret Le os ee 656, 789, 902, 1123 
ea, Me eee ee eee a A LOZE LOS 


PRA RR PD GSN Aa RG ey eee ORNS Cy RN SED ee 


Aa RRR RR 


35 Lon ee, Donate Heo 
HN | 5.0 De aera eae Sy OR elite ed FS 
Hees . . 994, 1214 
Fe 5506, 611, 624, 838, 1183 bis 
SS eee ny. 20, 620, 733, 898, 1123 
10 ji) BA 
11 ‘118, 404, 884, 922 , 958, 973 
14 P 611, 1088 
16 434, 441, 459, 488 
17 411, 434, 713 
20 Pb 627, 792 
oA . 614 bis, 842, 845 
Le wes toss LUO 
24 817, 879 
1, ALE a errata, Sg 602 
Ze A AULY 
28 479, 732, 733, 1036 
DRS ha haba Ne 504 ter 
BAO" va 2) ae ae 589 
aM 991, 1115 
oe <a) th wage Gee 
34 1. O21, S247 GL, 
1 625,615, 625,670 
3 “eRe 431 
A: se : 107, 3 39, 1073, 1153, 1183 
4 ff. coms bog 
5 747, 749 
fé siete 1s 
Sees ae. 589, 592 
8, 20 < eee 
Oi Se eee eee te 20 O56 
10 244, 341, 482, 550, 653, 765 
12 239, 310; L1i73 
13 pe es ea 
i Ws 2 - 300, 880, 1131 
21 ag? : 739, 917, 1028 bis 
AL 24, ROO ae oe Pasa 
22, . 653, 764, 960, 999, 1020, 
1185, 1187 

oe 956, 1009, 1087 
24 ee . 392, 471, 718 
25 . 392, 720, 956, 957, 1158 
26 603, 928, 968, 974 
26 f. OSE. 
2k 1 ee YAU Ss 
28 160, 183, 273, 275, 276, 549, 
687 

29 . 3809, 800, 972, 1214 
30 © 407,.678.47a0 
31 TAGs 782, 1104, 1129 
ay 343, 371, 635 
ae 710 
oat. 884 
34 224. 
36 Se eeAD 
Bt : 231, 561, 800, 868, 1000 


1302 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Mark 

4:88 ..) 497,602, 623,679, 879, 965.5, sGcitemn cn re neem OO ane 
1034.62.09} ak eee eo 
4°39 -) 25.) 300,360; 428, 908, 950s Oi 10 Sie eee ee . . 969 
4:41 . . 405, 468, 699, 1001,1182 6:11 4 ot ed cee O57, 517, 647 
ue eee i220; L165 0 ale 993 
ipa: Volek a 231, 533, 581, 636, 828, 6:13 . . 483 
909, 966, 1070 bis, 1071 bis, 6:14 694, 1111 
1079, 1081, 1091 6:16 698, 719 
WPT ee ee 244, 5826) 0 Smee OM) eee ee 964 
Be OAR eee «sot Paper ewe hi) Gadirabe We glee see © 539, 542, 800, 1202 
Dist i ater ones 279, 475, 483,070) | O720 ae oe oy see re LPs 
DR See ett, oe sale 4 BODG) = G2 Lee. ee ee ee UO ane 
ha Be . se «624.018 9 OS22 RN oy caren men toes) 
Ditloes me 283, 580, 607, 674, 884,968 6:22-25 .. és sh ROU 
Bld eaeen ig. _ . 1043 - 6:23 .. 275, 502, 643, 655, 729, 775, 
OL 0a waa ae: - 868, 900, 910, 1099, 959, sie ee 1040, 1047 
1117 bis, 1136 Giza see one ee Be! 
BELG sire rales eteenemes uh. eed Um are & 3 2 ge OOO Z93E 
bA1LS) fea oy ad gee Osc eee 431, Gin 933, 943, 993, 
PLO vee 624, 733, 901, 1045,1177 1139, 1214 
6520 Ae eee vate ae) MOBY BG SZ iene, See ee ae ee eee 
Tera gO) Pe a aa  NO2Z5 2 <6 929 5 Gee ee ee, as LO 
Dome mee (i 299, 3 324, 546, 800, O5a% ba OS OU sleet aoe Bee fit 
943, 986, 994 G25 eee ‘ 24, 367, 488, 653, 1087 

Biba ote 1? el  doabs) ane, Creo eee ee aN 
BrZO) oe a a ob se > COO PSOZ EL a 204 eee ee . » . 482, 1140 
5325, 2h, a) Gas, onde Ee ee cg Bee EU ae Oe Oe Manne 279, 640, 670, 737, 
520-2 8 eee eRe 1044, 1045 
520 a ee Ge Os 1110-11 6:37 ~~. 201, 309;.580, 678, 876, 934 
hee pee hee Mem Pah heat ee oe oe . . 916, 949 
SES ea eS 208, 1018, LOZ5 S102 (8.0 00 Gene 460, 487, 604, 673, 1084 
D129) Seiad. O24, 1041 bis, 12169". G30 fee >< Jee aco 
5sD0" Ciera ie 508, 599, 1042, 1110, OBO er 460, 487, 673 bis, 1210 
LIS S23 SEVOGw Os lee ee, oko rae cals 

5ig2. Wea os 12, 1838) 88571 OSS el sOee Oss een we 259, 975, 976 
5233105, 4542, 726, 858 BOF 1 Sees G46 alee ewe tena 
B84: ei ai ey, 2 es ROL AOR aD OO mms OU iame: ©) eames Tay 686, 775, 884 
SF igs ae ok, A , 502,845 6:48 .. . 400,477, 528, 640, 1073 
6287. ok Ga ee 2 Ok) he ie Lo, Lee 
5289 od sy hE oe SRL OO e020 ete oe ee et ey 
5240 Ree eee Neve ol L LOPE GAs cee ee Mey eee Relays 
HrA Leaner 29, 104, 465, OSA TAR OP807 | ec oe, 234, 477, 604, B17 bis, 
866, 881, 1119, 1215 884, 953, 1029, 1049 

et Aha ee a 497, 531, 1190 =6: Reed le Wed tse 733, 806 bis, 922, 
5:43 ; 308, 1079, 1085, 1214 957, 958, 969, 973, 984, 1025 
Gal see eee gets OT rem Aneeooe 
Geena 262, 705, 710 bis, "135, (i78 b eye te 234, 399, 416, 705 
6:3 255% 263,,.697, (689050 8 to Fo 806 
6:4 San yf ote Ai Mee rise . . 439 
6:5 _ 368, 682, 751, 1011, 1013 biss ies 256, 791, 807, 1087, 1218 
LOO aD 2 . 790 
625013 0 eet 2 ee be Oe 367, 546 
G:6 den Wh 3 ag oo ee De we tn a! ee . 1198 
ale al ee se Oa 284, Veep este e 793 
6:8 438, 441, 657, 944,950, 7:11 233, 270, 433, 599, 1023, 1203 
993, 1042, 1046 7:12 . 484, 1162 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Mark 
(pss ¢15, 716 
teLo . 642 
ets 233, 438, 548 
ibaa beh 21, 23° a Foe 300 
nO eS LIS 5418, 438 bis, 1130, 1203 
Perea W) 707 
(pois 40° 
fies oa eas 
7:24 150, 334, 350, 368, 
1094, 1162 
foe) : 560, 683, 722, 1205 
Fed & 155, 487, 884, 993 
1225 633, 634, 647 
7:30 ee ae 123 
ish | 491, 596, 775 
Tos 210, 770 
ao pee nL 
L244 yo. om 27, 29, 217 414: 
‘i SGy lee 349, 549, 835, 838, 885, 1213 
7:36 278, 279, 488, 546, 663, 
680, 733, 967 
TST , ar 171, 297, 546 
8:1 : 407, 696, 708, 737, 1131 
ay : ae 4005726 
8:3 : 266, 275, Oot, 1215 
8:4 . 508, 1028 
8:6 : 561, 983 
Sif . 339, 1046-7 
8:11 net mOLg O14 
8:12 “94, 1004, 1024 bis 
8:14 pee 90; 8A, 1060 
8:15 ie ee i, Os], 577, 949 
Say 360, 409, 656, 789, 902 
8:19 Pe eon 
Soe fee Zoe SUF 
§:23 508 bis. 916, 1027 
8:24 423, Wages 
Bee . 170,368 
8:28 . 747, 1028 
Bio L See LOS 
8:29 fe 861, 1186 
8:31 . 350, 579, 1035 
8:34 727, 956 
Be 34. +. be met iis) 
St00 193, 9 956, "957, 959, 961 
8:36 . 472, 485, 689 
aN - 309, 57a; 935, 1214 
its te hans <r 472, 473, 485, 523 
ea kt es 742, 957, 962, 1041, 1116, 1123 
9:2 . 428 
9:3 375, 723, 890, 903 
9:4 : 268, 529 
9:5 ee . 750 
9:6 : 473,73 8, 1028, 1031, 1044: 
9:8 657, 809 
9:9 1025, 1065 


Cc < 


OOOO O OOOO OHO OO OO © 
bo 
=) 


Wh bw bb bo 


WOOO OMOMMOM OOOOH OOH OO O © © 
ys 5 
_— 


i) CO Soe CrmCar ISD 


1303 


. 1058, 1065 

Mie 244: 730, 917 
149, 219, 224, 316, 342, 
602, 993 

. 1152 

732 

Gee G2Z0 

407, 597 

ert ee O24 

184, 318, 850, 969 

; . . 264, 464 
36, 603 bis, 883, 11389 
300, 740, 7AL, 974 bis 
312, 472, 948 

- . 340,1214 

. 118, 491, 766 

. 465, 769, 1173 

Pee ct? APD UOR YW IOOT 
24, 244, 514, 730, 917, 1060 
308 983, 994, 1055: 

1156, 1214 

815, 870 

ee see les 

334, 52 29, 668, 811, 818 
775, 874, 961 

a PSUO 

710, ‘771, 954, 1163) L187 
. 964, 1123 

. 726, 1164 

Pal) 

“484, 795, ‘92 30, 1033, 1034 
; 663, 997, 1011 

, 218, 1019 

661 

; 849 

peo eso 

. 849, 1084 

neers LS 

. 269, 534 

145, 269 ter, 534, 767 
801, 904, 968 

794, 916 

574 

314 

ap ee SS 

. 747, 1028 

J etek 

392, 538 

. ene 318 

ae A19 bis: 474, 675 
176, 276, 298, 479, 480, 
656, 661, 916, 1176 bis 
aoe . . 897, 842 
: 302 476, 541, 834, 1193 
888 

741 


No: 


1304 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Mark 
10S24 wepeee a ON eS lee 22% he ee 
TOO Re i eee 
1OS26 V8 so PSP eae Lares 
TOcc2 (ator Loe.) hes eee ee 
1OS2S" ial) ee owe eo oe 
10229 8. Fn ee AZ T26 baer 
10730} 723-27 G16 (Sie 
LOO 2inks ne sda cope UC aurea 
10333 72. oN a ee DSSS ise 
10 x64 K eee Ate. . . 8008, 356 
W083 5 get coe ie 405, 501, 933, 994 
10:35, 3 oN RTS vst Uesthas 
1LOrs6 aes es . . 4380, 994 
1023/4 oe _ 750, 993, 1065 
LOSS grees 426, 478, 482, 485, 879 
10:38 f. gin ee ee Ler ae 
10739 eae ee. ee OLE Sa0, 1214. 
0 0 Soe cee 721, 1058, 1065, 1076 
10:42 Ae, Rhee Cs: 
10343 tak ea Le aGL 
LODAS GPS Stee se. byae 632, 815 
LOS 4G ae eel i 1204 
10:47 760 
LO 25 Lae ies ie ee ee 933 
UL ieee Pe ac eae 259, 624, 971 
LisZ ; 505, 1165 
Wh Bs" 738, 874, 943 
yied Pe ba 
LOG 309 
Lis 198, 593 
Lis9 620, 786 
LILO 279 
Pets : 877, 1024 bis, 1027, 1043, 
1045, 1190 
ye ee ae 854, 913, 939 bis, 940, 
943, 1170, 1173, 1215 
CR ENS ys ee OL fi 
Piel One eee ee | 815, 431, 993, 1216 
Tle Se ae Nhe TOO: 838, 995 
Epa O-treee vee: 399 2, 922, 958, 973 bis 
1120 Bee ok eee 
112k. Se ee 
TES22) 2c eee nee . 8600 
e235) eae 720, 880, 1048 bis 
po ee. eer ee. 732, 1023, 1029 
11:25. 150, 188, 351, 742, 958, 972 
11:28 . ... 292,740, 915, 916, 999 
11420 Se ee ere a Yad 1177 
Leslee . emo Le 
Lie 2a 295, 443, aah 887, 1029, 
1034, 1109, 1203 
i nf 190, 308, 409 
L282 Wk 2 See ee Ce 
1224) ai; . . 149, 551 
125) - 213, 304, 694, 696, 1213 
12:6 334 


we 
O 
(sy) 
Ww 


430, 768, 789, 931 

339 

1 Bile 

23 34, 254, “410, 655, 704 
. 858, 1060, 1078, 1183 
PR oe We a ee 233, 786 
. 792, 850, 928, 934 bis, 
TiIbSH LIS ire 

; Se OE: 

; 1046, 1082, 1171 
309, 348 

. . 669 

497, 587 

700 


199, 253, 395, 603, 1032 bis 


410, 516, 613, 669, 740, 
1042, 1123 

774 

Sherrie 

667, 688 

ne TTS? 

789, 890, 1058, 1081 

297, 546, 551 

660, 774, 775 

. 441, 589, 1106 

. 1199 

a eMAGS 

|, 233, 413, 1106, 1130 
_ 639, 844, 883, 884, 1032 
3898 

“411, 674, 713 

700 

 enaas 

413, 741 


a 638,980, ), 960, 962, 1174, 1175 


224, 593, 644 

sae NP 

75i, 995, 996 
593, 603 
peemood 

233, 709, 738, 768 
nae eet 

859, 889 

320, 429 

a BOS 7509 
453, 525, 536, 547, 548, 
586, 593, 645 


. 547, 710, 715 bis, 722, 731 


_ 424, 584, 752, 818, 1015 
Bee AW 

. 891, 1075 

hee aoe 

_ 353, 375, 782, 889, 1116 
‘ses 599, 775 

232, 341, 350, 827 

601 


Es 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Mark 

Meee ket oer tc orea Sheers SEs 873, 975 
Loreal”; an ab Fa 
Vo OOe Ms tte hs ees ee ; LR or 
WE Spates oo ales. seit ; 993, 1203 
LASS LN enter gate, eee 495, 1188 
Lar OO ain 8 Fc, ‘PLAIN Ame eye 
SOMME nee yh hee Oe s meet 20 
Me eet Ne ult NU. we AO DOU 
ES a ga Tee S85 

ES ee ae 253, 339, 349, 499, 512, 
607, 1127, 1131 
Lh eka: fe fads 910A 176 
14:5 341, 368, 511, 538, 541, 
642, 666, 674 
iV Se She eee eae . . 484, 564 
Argel tree ay 8-0 299, 473, 879 
14:8 ~.001; 845, 1120 
(YS et Se era eas 593, 969 
ECT (URE aN Sri eae 675, 983 
eer Ot em bee ok ee: . 009 
BY Oe eas ee ees Pee LO0GG 
Lae he mt 522, 980, 989 
SACU yee ges 333, 306, 499, 573, 873 
YA 14s ee ee 234 bis, 442, 737, 955, 
960, 969, 989, 1045, 1049, im iy; 
5 Oe be ae pe ere) 50,200, 038 
PALO eee st 105, 282, 450, 460, 555, 
568, 606, 675 
AONE EUe. ni 231, 525, 560 
1 ROO Nike ooh eae ee aa 432, 1016, 1169 
4a. ee ote OLS, 629,052 
WD bee pe... - 215, (08,854,.930 
| lye Ma ill ea hO 
142 ZSe Aes 355, 681, 765, 871, 1070, 
1074, 1083 
14:29... 394, 1008, 1026 bis, 1203 
14:30 .. . 622 bis, 550, 873, 1091 
1A eo. penne, O19: 850, 875, 
1019, 1026 
(CEU ron he ne aaron at Aa) 
OGY a ee ee a, EO OO 
14:35 . . ) Aaa 603, 883, 993 
14.23046,003 26, 29, 186, 461, 465, 561, 
737 
Sy eee era 2O LOS 
NAS Sey Biya Wes > 933, 994, 1153, 1170 
1440s ee 7) 0197309, 1183; 12138 
14:41 . . . 391, 392, 470, 487, 577, 
800, 842, 866 
11 OY ECE ay ee 312, 931 
er dmesg ts tes aa ae ea 5268786 
Ae ee ee ee eke, cen 4 eee OL Oy OUD 
WR hd gor hee as yak Seles e.006 
LA CAD arcu’. peta 339, 684, 1213 
Ue EY Rien ar 292, 564, 684, 742, 805, 


810, 828, 1110 


. . . . 


. . . . 


. ° . . 


1305 


O56 ae er ue 


ie 5o6 
550, 625, 1187, 1203 
Rete en SASH h90 
_ 314, 548, 625, 643, 807 
367, 607, 883 

ety 

550, 648, 738, 775, 792, 
917, 1158 

695, 917 

| Wie 

me 1086 

391, 530, 617 
Metis ois 
620, 1185, 1189 
ee er Gl2 
317, 371 


. 509 bis, 550, 800, 861 dis, 


885, 1091, 1109, 1127 
: 787, 802, 812 
367, 511, 884 

292, 917 

. . 473, 484 

291, 608, 710, 884, 
‘922, 1154 

ata 905 

255, 339, 366, 727, 841 
: 2 ah 1205 

; 366, $41, 898, 1029, 

; . 205 
484, 718, 720 

282, 411, 505, 643, 712 
aes ioe ee Ls 
; . 465 

: 203, 483 bis, 542 

pict LS cre 

259, 411, 714 

tes LL: 695, 885 
"737, 916, 1044, 1176 
793, 1180, 1183 
eat 231, 1193 
307, 802, 861, 1113 

; : . 308, 856 
nTOar, 


ee 794 
29, 205, 261, 


714 


i Wet bee sa JA ie mos) 


. . 480, 742, 931 
. 300 bis, 548, 550 
597, 649, 652, 697 
297, 300, 501, 780 
Ae Ome O20 

Wire OG5e7 1359 
an _ 430, 845, 916, 965, 
1024, 1043, 1045, 1177 

é : 579, 760 
.. 642 
BOL, 1043 bis 


1306 

Mark 
Ah hs Seer ol ede Ri Ben a MOLL 
1 rs nor.) tees 523, 602, 672 
Nii yp er Orn ene rr i 596, 597 
LO Aga nee fee 1035, 1041, 1190 
TO Sah, eee co, pede Ronee 408, 485 
LOGO 2iaeeeice so on ot case 817, 842 
LOO tae.) ac Races 578, 672, 905 
TOL OieeR a) s 0. ote eee ne SueiUS 
1 ok ies a. ree Pees 293, 749, 792 
Ocoee. ee see. eee 208, 472, 1026 
LO 21 Stas - vee, oe ae 561, 1074 
16220 ee ee. wae ce ee eters 891, 1127 

Luke 

ps ee 367, 841, 965, 1154 
1: 1-4 mLOf, 2k, Aalies: 
432 bis, 1208 
ioe iin ae OU TOE 687, 1214 
Lid mols 244 21 odes 463, 464, 
670, 771, 1039 bis, 1084, 1085 
| De See Fo Sak Shaped ia ys, See Fe ei OD 
Li De Jeeee ose. 292, 395, 743, 760 
1 OF cui eee at ae ae . . 005, 641 
Lie sees 523, 587, 906, 963 
128 pikes 505, 640, 658, 979, 1072 
12 9a . 231, 509, 1060, 1068, a Wi Bs 
pre OM rte ee Sag ytstts 
A Bes Bee 418, 560, 602 
1213 ec Ue ie aon eee ae 480, 964 
Le aide 357, 541, 871, 1078 
eelsate a . . 889 
L215 : 270, 505, 642, 871, 933 
L216 tea. . 0 cee ee ee 889 
1107 gL FO ante es ee 679 
1 Bots fe SO a eves 255, 477, 562, 683 
1218 Wt del eco, es 739 
1:20 - 208, 353, 594, 714, Cline 
728, 889, 960, 963, 975, 1173 
1 Oe 260 bis, 532, 979, 1073, 1092 
12 582, 680, 888, 1029 
1223 tee. ee . 658 
Ue AN Be eR ee 351, 617, 17 
15 224, 566, 721, 792 
U2 (eu We age a) ere eee 364 
1:28 ; 611 
1:29 “TAL, 938, 1031, 1044, 1045 
1: 30 gun. Se ee ee 614, 647 
el . 480, 1202 
1:33 pike ae Pe ee 602 
1394. 2b) See hie eee Pam tod ES) 
Lee) ee . . 409, 560, 764, 1181 
Le Caen 256, 267, 272, 275, 701 790 
LO 1) el 2 pane rhav? 
1:58 ee soa eee i Fae AD 
13369 «>be eee 200, 652, 708 


a 


Pe eh TS 


bo 


NwNwbhw bd bv 


ee 


eel seer Sl eer Sl cer er eee SN ee Oe ee ee 


DOR Re pp 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


AO oe. oee 255 
Lhe Ss ee ee 506 
A ca Nat > 2 eae . 417, 660 
LO RARE. 7 sae . 422, 1199 
43 235, 398, 699, 992, 
998 

25 a. 6 ost ee ns 615, 689 
46-55 242, 422 
46-56 LSU IELTOO 
A] Ronee eee _ 532, 605, 1212 
48 355, 547, 560 
hte oe re 594. 
Blige «hee, eee 590, 793 
B12 5o 0.) eae eee 5 ey 
53 ee ee ee ee “510 
54 508, 1001, 1086 
56U LS ee ee 535, 562, 628 
57 1039, 1052, 1061, 1076 
58 . . °530, 610, 611 
59 . 480, 523, 605, 885 
60 . 391 bis, 1164, 1187 
61 _, 234, 726 
62 683, 739, 766, 884, 890, 938, 
940, 1021, 1025, 1031 bis, 

1044, 1046 

Ee phetatuhiaves V. 457 
64 297, 550, 885, 1127, 
1201, 1213 

6621.7) So eee 409, 736, 739 
G7E70 | sein ae Monet intra 422 
63-702 ton el ore einee - M1199 
70 107, 762, 783 
(ise at ee eo uae ado 
Toler 2 eee 509, 1001, 1086 
73 475, 479, 488, 718 
Ti te eee 540, 1039, 1076 
/ pn toie Pay, ATO ROT 
76 . . 560, 678, 694, 1149, 1185 
76578122) 1001 
76 f., 79 990 
79 231 bis, 341, 349, 371, 1086 
Ek elles Sap 1 AGT 
‘1... . 185,417, 561, 708, 809, 
1076, 1086 

2. . . . . 82, 510, 657, 669, 701, 
704, 790, 793 

ay 24a es . ) AIT P746 
-4 5... . “417, 578, 728 bis, 729, 
966, 1039, 1071 

:5 . . . 216, 364, 804, 807, 809, 
1080, 1214 

Goer ae eee 1061, 1076 
(SE ee ca ete 541, 1210 
RR A LS Us 376, 477, 479 
Qs, se ee ee ae Deo ee 542 
10 538 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Luke 
ea tn ance Mies re 350 
AW : Ree oT UL 
Puja Ba 272, 404, 407, PAB SER O56 
2:14 ; s . 242, 792 bis 
yh be Wy 2 393; 714, 1149 
Zao "759, 760, 861, 1109, Ls 
ieee Le 532, 619, 838 
PAR!) . . 828, 884 
20 cee Sea 29 2716) T17 
PASIA | ; 457, 480, 621, 858, 978, 
1039, 1075, 1076, 1091 
PAsgape _ 491, 561, 609, 1088 
B22 2 .. .» , 990 
2024 . . 204, 1088 
2:25 , as 395, 602, 770 
m0 oes : 302, 816 858, 977 bis, 
1030, 1036, 1047, 1080, 1084, 
1085, 1091 
PNP ae _ 47, 490, 504, 619, 858, 979, 
1039, 1065, 1073, 1081, 1109 
228 Pe ots 473, 593 
2: 29-32 pal 1O9 
ee Be ee eee LO 
Zeon 405, 412, 605 
LD 687, 986 
PLES Cee ete ee oO 
PRY 6 . 232, 495, 518, 559, 576, 
680 bis 
Parte: 523, 541, 574, 686 
2:39 i ag ae 766, 800, 841 
241 : O04, 270, 523, 608, 884 
2ae Sa LAIT 
2:44 _ 269, 469, 479, 496, 
1036, 1060 
2:46 491 
2:47 oo 
2:48 : eee 02 S10 
2:49 : 502, 586, 739, 767, "884, 
916, 1034, 1176 
2:50 : 680 bis 
ar ay k ee ek on OLOs Bot 
oil 189, 255, 510, 523, 788, 793 
api oh cee en ; 255 bis,'501, 603 
S25 458, 595, 652 
3:6 tie 
aes} 853 
ak! ee oe MSF 
Sr Oa enue 850, 916, 934, 1176 
Bab 2 243, 996 
Ae he cats Sees 187, 667 
3:14 . 409, 532, 541, 582, 626, 
853, 1173 
Bald : 939, 940, 988, 996, 


Ww Ww 


1031, 1044, 1045, 1177 
355, 520, 521, 722, 828 
260, 503 


ee 


PEEP RPP PP PWWWWWWwWWwWwWwWwWwwww 


Re ee 


He ee RE 


. . . . 


1307 


».s . 4/4, 749 bis, 1181 
; mer 619, 717, 719 
An het ane RG0R be 
"871, rlalOro 
_ 795, 837 bis 
eel 02 

236, 761 

Zio, 203 

a ALD 

214, 236 
2155236 

214 


255 


ea 

236 

184 

_ 396, 880, 1185 
781, 1009 bis 


. . 682, 762; 1068 
, 076, 771, 791, 974 
2 OUP 

Nee eee 

219, 299, 358, 920, Dal, 
881, 909 

pene 29, 105 

425, 641, 901 

cane 757, 13 

418, 496, 532, 651, 
697, 838 
te? 1103, 1207 
5, 410, 523, 602, 
604 

219, 263, 399, 1016 
. 1187, 1203 

214, 603 

. Mies 1127 

P65. 603, 905, 990, 
1000, 1089 

, 581, 648, 775, 
791, 905 

. 391 bis, 488, 5389, 738, 1193 
. 230-1, 472, 482, 484, 648, 
860, 1172 
moo eLOOL 


ea, eo phe 50. te. ee) oPie 


505 


. 590, 565 


800 

"404, 1035, 1041, 1103 
643, 1061 bis, 1078, 
1089, 1094, 1171 
474, 748, 776 
375, 615 


ae “em be, Piey e 


1308 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Cr St Or Or St Gr Or 


or Or Or Or Or O11 Or 
—_ 
i 


OS? OS? O? O? G2 D2? G2 GH H OV Or OF OF Or Ot Ot Ot Ot Or Ot St St St Ot Or 
OO 
nN 


fap) 
jn 
iw) 


CO? OS? D> SO) DH GH GH. G2. SO 
iw) os 
OO “I 

ms 


or) 
bo 
I 


. 1183 
. 509 
597, 733 


_ _ 431, 860, 891, 1102, 1121 
_ _ 339, 582, 604, 774, 1186 


. 212, 318, 885, 1219 bis 
. 529, 616, 745, 748, 769, 
1039, 1068 

ABS BIR AT 

_ 358, 504, 528, 765, 889 
334, 792, 817, 849 

. 442, 537 

323, 393, 788, 888, 906 
EV TB6G 

_ 494, 506, 550, 561, 636, 
652, 740 bis, 1029, 1044, 
1202 


560, 1025, 1027, 1182 
pee stilt) 

ave Bi 373, 486, 1097 
168, 393, 533, 560, 1043 
. . 20, 425 

300, 726, OTe 

. 1045 


"435, 714, 1032, 1039, 1084 


393, 684, 748 

Me; 1103 

7-2 = | 68025800 

397, 854, 885, 938, 

940 bis, 1021 

F 500, 582, 1040, 1049, 
1058, 1085 

477, 577 

428 

S72 ARG 

Sere es ON Phe? 

"28, 273, 579, 613 

: 2 ek! 
; 593, 681, 683, 770, 910 
O00;,500 

. . 641, 834 

208, 523, 855 

1107, 1187 


o> &> 


OO > D2? DD? DD DP HHAAYARAAAHAAoOD 


NININININSINT ST NIST 


et re CO OO NTO Or BH 


| Os 


NINN 


Peace ag MY Fs? 

333, 356, 459, 466, 
110721195 

ess 

wale 

Leen 

. 473 bis 

1% Sake . . 618, 746 
. 855, 890, 1214 
ae eae 1019, 1026 
Se te ea eee FU 
eel AP _ 687, 850, 1019 
576, 720, 721, 1010 

tae 223, 476 

930, 1164, 1182 

; . 4... 948 

; 184, 213, 718, 828, 1136 
OTT ee 115%, ELS 

Ser lo 

692 

312, 597 bis, 659, 686, 932, 
980, 1138, 1139, 1214 

676, 762, 763 

436 


212, 214, 232, 256, 365, 530, 


551, 779, 909, 1071, 1081, 1091, 


Doe 
we) 


1105, 1136 

gee ete 

212, 648, 785, 1105, 1114 
841, 965 bis, ral 
ee 

; Po ey ee oe 
: 724, 872, 884, 961, 996 
367 


767, 856, 865 

: eC Pe eee 
; 523, 530, 547, 660, 774 
. 292, 556, Doi 2650, 

1116, 1183 

842 

eo 

Sie, 194, 258 

742, 1108, 1116, ae 


.. . 535, 594 
_ 778, 792, 1107 
. 519, 1189 

837 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 1309 


Luke 

CUM a ern ERT tart Ma a OO Pies te OE ce 607 
TS Ana he ROO LUOD “Sed aaa ree Ae Se) B39 
fishes "B25, EU ONO ELOO). ho Oumar? Ly Pes Rate fy ton bo ROOY 
DOO MEE. ea Pe | Oe Oman wis see th OAS, L045 
b0  A ses 292, 727, 736, MEUDIST? (Sc eee, OER t ed tee) LESG 
887, 923, 1012, 1014, LS oe a ts ee L2Ua, o42, L2L4: 
1049, 1177 S390 Fees eer, Pe ae 00S, 450 
CAO ee oe: 742, LOS4 > Sve Ue, ee “107, 587, 891, 1073 
FERAL? os osket Se 201, 668, 749, 750, Bas “ie Cee eee : ee AOA 
LEA tase Fe eo Ee LOW, 515, 737 Se raat ne ge 232, 680, 827 
(iy VARS ee eee POU OPA a ait oO Ue 1105, Te 
Pic 3), nc ae ee ee 659, 1034, LOC ee PSA en os . 1828 
an eee eee bey rs pk CO O246 7). ees 234, "742, 910, 1035, 
Tee See fo Ser moe cate OL 1041, 1042, 1103, 1109, 1118, 
PE Ny Go eee ee 581, 653, 717, 978, 1123 
PLZ 2121 - 4S is . 718; 721, 726 bis, 966, 
T:47 ee E120, (20, 014) CT, 1045 bis, 1032 
J0z)060 ~Si48i-ae..*. . 264, 462 
Fjote: 2 ae a ae 708, 724,785,961 8:49 0.55 742, 827, 867, 890, 895 
a i ae age pea aoe! 00S # St o0 rian tae ; Le Meee DAY 
ee Ve Pa ie eae Fi Natal 0 ager ces) MOR Ry eg IM a tie 
ts a een ee 214, 215, 599.749 8252509 wae. “475, 809, $5o 1.166 
8:4 ‘ R515, 000, 000 -,. 010d rn geet. 4) O41 58277838 
S20 107, 478, Gop; 90001072)", S87 DE ak Gan 264, 465, 769 
1073, 1153 S00 ewes ee, 2029 SLOG 
Serre ee ereeee Ore vs 249 S56) 1 Le, ae we ce hae ae -o ELOO 
Serie ek. ge ee tettoe bbe. O°] Ma Pees ck a ee 
8:6-8 350, 749 9:3 . . 571, 944, 1092, 1189 
Ber 216, 341, 644 9:3-5 . . 1047 
8:8 Seem Zsa i 950. 437, 733 
ake) Re alae mr O07 Joo, LUoL: . 920m 3 . . 299, 608 
eee wee meres ws OOS . Ore +, 233, "792, 1071, 1109 
rl ee eer er COS OPTI T eee . . 7438, 750, 1049 
ete i eee tir ae 200. | OTB ls. Soa welt oe Ans 636, 747 
Pe ee ere ee Pe ne OD 19a - OOhrs, ee 
el ee eee ee oy Pe OLIGd «=. 9:9, 19 ee STis6 
So Laie. eo Awe 910 691, 733 
od Li dea ieee ‘176, 600, 1182,1201 9:11 Sea BOs 
Salty eee, 4 318, 6540 S12 ae 800 
Sa 726, 764, 1001, 1158, 1164 OSS eee 201, sca. 751, 762, 1016, 
spl isS, 5 ase =e 957, 962, 1170 1017, 1025,. 1172 
Belt eee ys ste ee bo O14 Ue eee 482, 487, 968 
er ee veer ot GOL (Os Lbs ee Gl. a etl cay 5 eT EL 
“ay ig Moret Sohne Bake a eae Me We LUC) oA Oe ct a0 Ge Spe eee ree ee Spool 
BEL ee PO ee, peeeOro, O80. OCIS al ee ee 371, 375, 891 
Reh eee ote ee, 834, Batmosy ooo. (O9lecZ0R ferme 2c #1086 
er er eee hy ol O00. OFS fy. noe ee. Greta 21085 
rate As re a SN via 541, 697, 917, 1176 O10 RES eee ea teres ees OG0 mLOee 
eZee eee Ee OOOO MOON eco, Orde Wend Gee Oo wha. oo LOL ae coe 
Oi ere ea .aG, ooo, oFrl ~ 9923. 33, ... ©. 681-688 76905 al 
S25 ey i eee eotpeOo, 404519, 19524" 4.2 7641, 688, 6895 698 
So) Mera la eOo. Ps 1G oud, O2t,s. Nano. «5 «6! 4» 816,2102351129 
DOL MOA Met ee cut. nk 8 lt Ae 473, 743 
OO OF eal Ds won 4 Peto Ge) OO ae tess 1 ee 107, 434, 460, 968 
eo Rg Pee ae ieee ne crn: (AY ame 3: Sab! Ded Se Dee eae Bt es 748, 1073 
i aren aa ea 404 AOS duels a bee ea ce. e957 


TS A GRAMMAR NEW TESTAMENT 

Luke ; 
9:31 Be age 343, 884 10:19 875, 889, 890, 1061, 1076, 
Sea mee 529, 533, 582, 628, 766 1165, 1175 
9:33  . 720, 726, 750, 931, 1030,1048 10:20 . . . 965, 1035, 1173 bis 
Gee hI ty Bae ae pene dee 1. *299° 2 40221 . 464, 524, 709, 764, 788 
9:34 431; S8by 5 sts luis bs cee . . 845, 959 
9:35 shig Sp ea ase © DOS SELL 339, 678, 843 
9:36 : 337, 364 1657. 680) 020 ee LU 0 a eee TAS 796 
776, 834,89 Abise 1020 ee ee 423,917, 1176 

oy ee ee ta 393, 52074 LOO mie ee ee 765 
OsaR eee, ok Gee 939 s5Ale 10228 . 949 
GaSe ewldl Sieh oe DS SOO tine 20 he as eee , 234, BAT, 1182 
Gea Wiech none GO3* 510720 1360" eae ae 646, 765 
9:41 264, 299, 463, AGA, 623 10:30 ae 542, 634, 1113 
Cre ee Te Sem | Pa 212 BtRs se slOss1 ; > pelo 
OES he iar eee ik 537,716, tlm LOtsLE: Sa: 56S, 572, 613 
9:43-45 we S83" = 10384 508, 691, 817, 1220 
9:45 - 509, es 1212) A034 ee ene LS 
9:46 . . 424, 491, 585, 739, 10:35 107, 243, 291, 602, 681, 
766, S90, 938, 940, inn 1031, 688, 729, 959 bis, 964, 

1044, 1046, 1176 1039 

Oy fae en ae A oe Me OTE PEL ORG 501, 561, 585, 593, 908 
9:48 Se eh 668, 698, 954 10:37 Se Olt 
9:49 = 611; 888.864, 885,869 l0c3 Sry enor eee 633, 743 
964, 1030, 1041, 1048 10539 (ets . . 289, 613, 696 

9:50 . 607, 720, 956, 962, 1158 10:40 : 529, 560, 565, 573, 618, 
9:51 349, 426, 951, 1002, 627, 816, 1087, 1090 
1042, 1068, 1183 10:40f. 620 

9:52 .621, 967, 987, 990; 1OM1% . . emeass |G 
1089, 1091 10:42 . 518, | 559, 562, 728, 810, 819 

9:54 _ 561858, S788 0son lie lee) ST Leora eto 742 bis, 
1046, 1080 891, 952 , 1036, 1042, 1181 

OF55. ee et oy ee 731, 740 bis 11:2-4° . ee Ss 
9:56 71S eel ee 159, 487, 766, 855, 1214 
9:57 , ee O60 eee 315, 335, 541, 744, 713% 
9:58 969, 1044, 1045 853, 880, 963, 1216 
OTD yaa ee 1039) 1084." 11e5>. .*. 185). 7384875, 03805934 
Ge G0 SGo a enue teen: 582, 1201 11:6 . . . 720, 726, 960, 965, 996 
OFG Lido cere a eee 536,593 11:7 . . . 300, 340, 362, 593, 853, 
0762.0 ae ee ; 1097 947, 1170 
TDS ie ee "284, 299, 571, G55 LL Sie eos.) Wa2440 51 Se 793 bie AOto 
673 Bis, 749, 884, 969 1026, 1027, 1070, 1071, 

O33 tgs tee oe 2644 1148 bis, 1149 
10 Ae Coe eee - 608, S53 a1 oak Oita sence ae . 357, 1213 
1D PDEY ONS Ae Sa DSO ALOT soe ReIOIS 
1036 ee wae 334, 357, 304, Ave srk | Se RL 436, 490, 573, 738 
874, 948, 1025 11:11f. ap: 439 

10:6, 8, 10 ee S40 cael eS ; 548, 599, 1045, 1204 
10° 7a 408, 561, 615, 709, 7H elled4 aba) 
10585 2 «eae O95 OS Ehamel Ie) eee ee 515 
10:8, 10 OP RAIA D7 eee Let by fr yet ee enn eee 749 
1D LLP ee 401, 539, 600 Berl (eae ee eae 750 
10:15 Gea vise md Mil bss a 5 50, 891, 1081 
10:16 ee eel iol Ae OoUwe EO 
10:17 RD. 9 eee BAS SL oo 231 366, 580, 904, 971 
10:18 $43; 8645883. 910104 a tieo4 > J ae ee ee 969 
1012, 11141116 Rose bee no ee eeeee 775 


OF THE GREEK 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


995, 1045, 1169 


" 532, 621, 808, 965, 1035 


399, 505, 642, 643, 786 
sopeseet04 042 
315, 477, 499, 500, 800, 
SME 1171, 1193 


_ 529, 1153 bis, 1190 
1181) 1202 

213, 796 

789 

265 

474 


|. «. 231, 577, 587, 623, 696, 
714, 722, 727, 802, 


818, 952, 
953, 1091, 1192 
627, 818 bis, 1158 


_ 696, 722, 724, 818, 952, 962 
_ 472, 577, 704, 752, 935, 


1046, 1087, 1213 


. 232, 560, 818, 858, 950, 


979, 1046, 1074, 1092 


DL O18, 9175. L1o7 1182 


818 bis, 1186 


: 108, 193, 459, 475, 524, 541, 
588, 684, 955, 956, 957 bis, 959 
eS e o ae ee 1114 
Suter Laon i 439 
Rete ce, 812, ‘818, 819 
. 436, 459, 473, 594, 718, 


818, 957 


me 004, DO], 739, 787, 1170 
Lode WERE U UN Berges 
A hy Bis ee 742 bis 
Pr ede Vereen 
Ly ae YP? 476, 543, 598, 772, 
802, 807, 933, 949, 979, 994, 


1073, 1183 bis 


594, 902 


| | 264, 392, 406, 463, 464, 


523, 541, 816, 820 


Beles dole tb omy oe es a aes!) 


411, 516, 654 
606, 1035, 1183 


“A (2. ages ue, 
748 436, 477, 479, 485 659. 718, 720 


49. 502, 739, 917, 1176, 1193 


6 ae Le 4 6” Le 


1311 


. 669, 670, 1012, 1024, 
1160 bis 

eld4s 352.1212 

ei, se GUD 

419, 705 

See ee LLNS LZ 

; Dole LOL eabo 

| 215, 504, 1100, 1109, 
1137, 1172 

969 


_ 313, 314, 328, 330, 360, 


37d, 890, 908 

‘ 597, 1044, 1045, 
PLO bias 

158, 523, 794, 1018, 
1025, 1182 

471, 740, 922, 1014 
eo rake: 

eLtow 

604. 

o-oo L 

604, 866 

; eis aed S 
; 479, 485, 626, 859, 
1112, 1114 

653 


302, 729 
_ 1187, 1188 
361, 375, 907 


109, 686 


559, 909, 967, 988, 1062, 


1079, 1081, 1147 
775, 976 


.. . 290, 317, 611, 613, 686 
616 bis, 661, 801, 1029, 1175 


lt a eet) 
253, 283, 616 pes: 724 
906, 1115, 1117 

yb IS 

739 bis, 879, OT EWATS 
528, 620, 976 


. - 208, 394, 594, 874, 924, 


1018, 1023, 1025, 1203 
: : ae Aly, 


_ 283, 460, 518, 887, 919 


542, 605 


1312 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


458, 595, 690, 791 


"| 488, 319, 800, 978, 1102 


Mee yt! 

_ 559, 773 
39, 348, 876, 
972, 1218 
Rees 
, + 658, 1202 
_ 393, 652, 1198, 1202 
204, 219, 267, 348, 635, 
689, 718 

. 972 bis, 976 

613, 811 

743 


ee 


360, 477, 800, 811, 883, 
1032, 1202 

907 

988 


910 


186, 308, 328, 338, 561, 
910, 984, 988 


ie “186, 656 

109, 360, 375, 480, 550, 
653, 1041, 1108, 1122 
LO 


we 774 
: ss, 789, 1012 
ae res!) 
1024, 1045 

eas Lede 

770, 1102 


_ 281, 531, es 748, 1045 


. 546 
_ 515, 720, 744, 1158 
269, 889, 934 

. . 585 

529, 697 


976 

213 

738 
562, 563, 786, 805 
035 

. 661, 1188 


253, 410, 608, 680 
: er OOP ann 
208, 716, 883, 885 
510, 532, 741, 828 
. . 694, 874 

Gs 98, 1076, 1080 

. 1061 

oy 

neha a 

. . 483, 649 
701, 904, 906 

. . 807, 792 
407, 411, 736, 890, 
938 bis, 940, 1031 
881, 893 

oe ee 

470, 477, 879 

697 

Ree srt 

834, 842, 887 


529, 652, 697, 703, 966, 1140 


312, 736, 916, 1164, 
1176, 1214 


. 480, 483, 559, 600, 1060, 


1078, 1102 

; Sere eet ty. 
308, 518, 827, 842, 893 
201 

: Pris tec ge 
496, 633, 65 “Ak 667, 779 
les 254, 510, 598 

, 658, 660, 782 bis 

. 1009 

Peon Cede 

= oh Yates OLS 

251, 508, 748 

472, 705, 778 

te coeer eee Lt Os 

221, 645, 975 

ie BRR Al 

"579 bis, 910 bis 

DEES samt 810, 883 
061, 364, 366, 905, 910 
: . 1186 
pe yl UI). ty: 

“408, 502, 586 


—. 


Luke . 
16:24 495, 775 
16225 seat. &) 341,696 
Keep} eee oe 548, 561, 800, 896 
16:26, 28 bis . . 986 
16327 1046 
1Gs2e- ft; 1046 
16:28 986 
16:29 268 
16:30 791 
16:31 : _ 819, 871, 1210 
Leal 393, 720, 721, ‘996, 1002, 1040, 
1059, 1060, ‘1068, 1094, 1171 
17:2 . . . 212, 472, 485, 560, 661, 
992, 997 
17:3 . .~. 477, 542, 689; 802, 1202 
PIS Mt saree oi lae wiret c 505, 769 
Le CATy Nees eae . . 10, 948 

1 GLie ake 887, 921, 1015, 1022 

VN, Re a ps Men Sate: 
Les ee PRCT: 340, 738, 869, 976, 
1045, 1215, 1218 
Ne ot Gi? Bere kee = 349 
17310 es Nata P40] 
Lyd : 550, 560, 562, 565, 581, 
648, 791, 1042 
Lad hes a Oh ee 367 
ee ee a aes ee 1042 
eS iy ee rg ed Bee i ae 611 
er Dice eer tet: Seeks Rens SLs, 1157 
1 a Dn pee Ca 505, 641 
ied Feenes or Bhs hep te te 224 
Lo ere ae 627, Neeson ek 392 
Le Dara eee ka Se, 652, 792, 1202 
Lich Se ht, Alois Lac # ote . 12, 079 
De a ost ot Cee 717, 884, 975 
Lge SER ee Aa ce ear) chess, Ss 968 
gL SUAS Ee ae A err ol 
a td ew one es es 522, 718 
WU ee: Bon 208, 968 
17:31 308, 440, 442, 708, 724, 
957, 959 
Lie were oP Me No tage 3 Codie 000 
Pa OS oe kd 193, 957 
NA ts Swede eo yo 748, 749 
| at Soa a ee ae 602, 889 
1D ree 969 
Teliuete ye rir 620; 997, 1003, 1049, 
1060, 1075 
Ll pee es eae, pet43 
Lees 50 34) O88; 1012, 1026, 1027 
AS ADell eo a _ 201, 244, 966, 1039, 
1148 bis, 1149 
by; Ole Sesh oh ee . 496, 651 
ESA 8 re ee 495, 930, 934, 1158 
eee titernks rs cRrscit. arabe S10 abe 802 
AS ab eal Pee oe hes 589, 916, 1176 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


18: 
18: 


18: 


1313 


9 . 842, 540, 605, 778, 1107 

10 . 748, 990, 1080, 1087-8, 

1088 

11 502, 697, 700, 965, 1035, 

1159, 1188 

PAT AA a nes 505, 646, 769, 880 

Loy en, ira 231, 561, 756, 858 

TAS OO ee eh 661, 703, 708 

LS Soe aes Sac ee at, ch 8 675 

PPP Be seb tes hey ae Ty eee 541 
ATE Og irate Saree ae 192, 1058 
ON: Soe ie Ga Seeks Sau ROC. 234 
Pritts ctr eras eee Pe EOLU 
RAO ET TR ren ee eee eek 641, 726 
ReaD a) cA ete cee ee, 284, 673 
RO LET DOTS cae came Geet salar Be 539 
ey Sa Le aia om sch tien salen aa 1190 
NOs ice tae ee oes ea eto 762 
NOAM ay a wh Nie et OG oe) fo 
Bo 743 
36 890, "938, 1022, 1031 bis, 
1042, 1044 

Sle. tron ote 3 Uso 
Ot EAL No aN, he & 463, 464 
£50 8 tine) Beaman 532, 664, 800 
re 8 Ps et Biiedee eer 924, 935 
472, 476, 563, 800 

162, 457, 679, 723 

. . . . 4238, 488, 580, 738 

. . 186, 201, 472, 476, 494 bis, 

BAT, 652, 709, 983, 1202, 1205 

Hien, ay . _ 328, 861, 1127 
Dito 1109, L127 
ae Peek Cemet oreean, OLS 
:8 199, 275, 502, 742, 870, 
880 

Sof, . 1008 
9 ‘ . 963 

10 P ee 411, 764, 1109 

ipl ; ae 640, 1071, 1126, 127 

1b ae eee 

13 690, 976, 978 

14 : ee OLD, GOUT OULU 

lbs: _ 107, 308, 737, 841, 1044, 

1048, 1049, 1214 

*16-20 ar . TA9 
17 299, 330, 375, 90, 950 

20 : 361, OtD; 776, 906 bis 

Dit Soe Serr OOF 

23 . 929 1014, 1023, 1129 

29 : ploy 232, 259, 267, 

458, 780 

30 i BS 

BE ale ee OOO 

ti 212, 799 

36 318 


ie) 
Luke 
10° (ae ieee wee 154, 412, 619, 623, 
624 bis, 719 
19:40 325, 330 bis, 356, 3615-801, 
873, 907, 1008, 1010, 1217 
19:41 eee: et oe 
19:42 ‘ 483, 523, 793, 834, 835, 
842, 1023, 1203 
19:43 . 617, 873, 907, 1183 
19:46 +. aeASO, 
LEYS fit ee ese eae oe 470, 487, 550, 888 
19:48 190, 317, 340, 766, 771, 
1127, 1217 
ZOSL of epee 
Jie ee Berne 1177, 1188 
ODES etme aac a Oe eae eee LS) 
20:4 tig ed Baie. 
20:6 163, 891, 903, 1030, 1040, 
1081 
Uy dicetom yc Ce Kite ha Mate n arch 
20:9 aE . . 308, 470 
20: 10 324; 519, 522, 872, 984 
PAN pa BR Ss cere RLS 
ZOOS T 551, 1078 
ZO 212 94, 822 
20:14 497 
20:15 : 876 
20:16 939 bis, 940 
20217 eer a Ok: 
20:19 one = BO2Z65ISS 
20:20 "481, 508, 787, 990, 1036, 
1038, 1039, 1040, 1089. 
FAO eae Me : . 1158 
20:24 (ee eave 
en ees | 425, 767, 1154 
DU 220 eaters aie ee Sst POUS IaS 
DUE27 458, 1094, 1171 
20:28 <2 a 
20:34 150, 1213 bis 
Ea) Ciera in eee 509, 598, 782 
Pt GB ea ar ns val Mh, Ady 1189 
PAN EN dann Sel oe Mie a ot pee . 879 
ZA dame ee ee ne eae 253, 1034 
OPTAD dee tales Sets sates oo eho 
ZO SAD ree Ot er eee ee 199, 686 
PAV REY Bae ere) eg Pr fos sy ws 564. 
pA tt ees Pe eR a NO AT bag hi 4S 743 
PACER TA Slee 153, 187 
21:6 416, 439, ‘45 9), 565, 601, 960 
212 Ste eee ee 932-3, 996 
21st Leek ak oe Oe 219, 1201 
PARA MEMOS Mave et 622 
PALES PARE Bode os: 641 
Pa eee: 334, 818, 1094, ne hal 
a Usk Sysop Sits te pare ee eee 573 
eA OS Atos ts ae a eae 599 
yA We PON aes 8 375, 636, 878, 889 


18023 2G ake ee one 597 
1Otee i 3 eee 681, 683, 871 
:20 i 1041 
22 - 1061, 1076, 1088 
20 ; 216 
24. kG 534, 889, 974 
25 262, 419, 794 bis, 795 
120 Osh ee 566 
nea 876 
“Ch a oes eee 873 
Sa eae 186, 272, 400, 542, 550, 
657, 708, 996, 1213 bis 

736 . 476 
OL 154 bis, 939, 267, “ABB, 470 
. . 416, 498 

: 427, 766, 985 

Pipe So i ae nee aE hee 1031 
766, 1031, 1046 

Me ei 

; 517, 1061, 1068, 1076 

, OO 639 
en ee OV ee ee 887 

:10 roe 333, 356 
hil "955, 969, 1045, 1205 
Be Be ; {ng gL oOpeZOU 
ti 5B bis, O21, 978, 1075 
ie peepee are ki 976 
ST oo Rico scb in eee eee sTy, 
19 ; 685 
:20 213, 1060, 1074 
a Pe aut re 1152, 1153 
oe “eo 427, 430, 739, 766, 890, 
938, 1031 bis 

23.18) a014 54 Som nomena ie mene 1046 
23, 24 739 
a4 7 766, 938, 1031 
a2 510 
226 1214 
26st Oe dark oe eee 1140 
22 Ga wt Se eee (BY) 
ZOTBAy 9! Cnc ee eee eee 1108 
7) Beth SEN EE ap or be , 581 
aoU 239, 1216 
eee NRG co gthat mic, woes f 300, 1139 
SOE: st. 2.659, 
B44. 6 548, 908, 976 bis, 977 bis, 
1036, 1094, 1171 

OMA MAE Ee ro 219, 750 
OC 401, 611, 766, 818 
toes SPST Fhe ga 411 
:40 603 
4 Bie : 469, 559 
<4, : 193, 339, 1023, 1203, 1214 
44 231, 339 
945 580 
:47 477 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS Talo 


Luke 
22:48 ee er 18583 28205-82726, 729, 1032, 1043 
22eA9e 2). 8745456, 502, 590, 620, 24:1. 274, 495, 522, 672, 718, 841 
Como 1G 0040085, 412 a dee ey Okan OE 575 
1024 brs; 109, 1118/1215 24:3 225 
22:50 156, 292, 675, G42) AD4ed 267 
22:52 611 24:5 611 
22:53 Wd oe DAC Ge nee ay ecient, 1032 
22:54 eo 1 924.27 . . 649, 1049 
22:55 617, 644 24:10 214, 501, 767 
22:56 meme oor 9 24211 . . 404, 540 
22:58 MGs, Ors 24:18) hi. 4 a 263, 424, 469 
22:59 roDU seo 43 6146 240144. 529, 625, 883 
22:61 » 489,509, 878, 1091 . 24:14, 295,314 ; 28680 
22:63 Ax. pee O28 meet 16) bi ee 518, 765, 1061, 1171 
22:65 S21 130) 824 A757 2; 625; 703, 735, 835, 1202 
22:66 Se Li7O #2218 é 172, 235, 549, 656, 
22:67 Pet 020 657, 1183 
22:70 678, 695,915 24:19 . . 399, 419, 651, 735, 740 bis 
22°71 510° 649. “24210if) ae . 1046 
23:1 De 404.412 24:20 : 731, 732, 985, ‘1045, Lie? 
93:2 339, 1039, 1041 bis, 24:21 ; 216, 244, 392, 424, 628, 
1094, 1123 679, 701, 771, 884, 978, 1029, 
23:4 Cee 1035, 1148 bis, 1185, 1186 
23:5 413, 548, 1126, 1203 24:22 550, 657, 1181, 1186 
23:6 916 24:23 489, 1028, 1038, 1039 
O51 meee 5616 24:24 len 9G8 
23:8 BOBS CA OD cn caer ie tee 658, 659, 716, 
23711 . Wa eAS30 628 1061, 1077 
28512 226, 289, 405, 625, 686, 24:26 887, 919 
690, 888, 1103, 1121 24:27 367, 566 
23:14 219, 511, 560, 720, 750, 966, 24:28 ae’ 297, 298 
1141 24:29 . . 625, 765, 792; 1065, 1088 
23:15 . 534, 542, 794, 820,903,1186 24:3 ere <p tee 10 
23:18 170, 348, 530, 760 24:31 re 575, 682, 1213 
23:19 323, 375, 860 24:32 . 867, 888, 974, 1212 
23:21 bOn a4) S40 eae 334, 842 
23:23 Mees, 246350 ay 3 rae A ae ode SR ae e6 
23:26 mrt ie4s +. 24: 38ie Dasr wie ees eh S RC 7e0 
23:28 BATH bliio,. 1247 30te we, men. 8 20a. S60 aL OAT 
23:29 DAG) 24-410 See ae ees FORO 4S 
23:30 : rea, 3880 e442 aaa Alix! 
23:31 : 195, 587, 588, 929,934 24:45 ee 315, 1036, 1212 
23:32 a ee 1749 24:46 . 858, 1080 bis, 1081 
AERA Me 696, 792, 794 24:47 413, 491, 535, 946, 
23:35, 37 _ . 1009 1126, 1203 
23:38 . PSO G04 224: 50g. eee ee, 643, 683, 1205 
23:39 BOG 24-5 Leh Si ee ee 561, 581, 1072 
23:41 ee 20) 
23:44 . 1183 h 
23:45 775 John 
23:47 Re e007) 1-15). «ipo: 079; G2snbepatDs: 
23:49 366, 560, 77 POOL 22s 794, 795, 883 
23:50 eet O Worlele- Sill t he Ne ONES 
23:51 ’ OE Lt Ek eg 628, 761 
23:53 316, 375, 906, 1165 te ater te eeu dtis os eo tee es 700 
23: 54 AGZ (885 172-8. 918 


1316 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


John 
1:3 ahi OL 
1:4 243, 768, 801 
1:5 Phe Wot: 
1:6 ate 434, 460, 534, 615, 
707 
Liv 583, 703, 707, 723, 850 
F770 Poe eee ey ah ed Les 
1:7, 22 eee he 
Lite: ; 505, 707, 708, 1187 
10 ie 2104, 89 NAIS 
MEO AL cry oot 5 ee eee 762 
ToL ew ees, o. 8384 
1 Sy oy Pe ae 502, 691 ter, 767, 834, 
1157 
1A Lie  seep0o 
Te Aes s "839, 732, 778, 834, 1076, 
1107, 1217 
LEE irene pee: . . 408, 534 
cE ft: 275, 276, 394, 407, 413, 
505, 767, 794, 818, 829 ter, 
1204 
1:15 . . . 280, 434, 488, 473, 484, 
516, 640, 662, 670, 801, 887, 
895, 896, 1111 
ext Bai he ae) ee 964, 1034 
TAG a. 407, 505, 574, 829, 1181 
Lea7 here API) 
Les ieee 133 n., 364, 536, 559, 586, 
593, 614, 656, 707, 708, 829, 
893, 896, 906 
119 Seen it ee eee 905, 915 
Le19 tt Sree . OUT, 
1220 1205 
1:20 f: . 918 
1:21 233, 768 
LEO Se ai het aA ee ee 
13247505 905 
12255 Gee: 1012, 1135, 1160 bis, 1165 
TAG Shee es uy 505, 500, 644, 720 
12 (ite. 503, 658 bis, 961, 992, 996 
LeZs7. ce A ee td) 
1:29 ntlis WR ose ee Lees 
1:29-—42 veh en Ae ee ee 
1230 ad 254-629 Caeeor a 
Resa | : . 904 
ofl “408, “440, 602, 792, 893, 897 
1:52,-34,; 41 ce os « Se OU 
138; (sie 2, 677, "707, 708, 724 
154. a se EO oe auG 
Lida) VR ae oo ee 
TEST? «3 Aiea ee . . 1042 
2th y <, ee ee 411, 416, 433, 465, 
1044, 1123 
ars! eg 299, 470, 714, 813, 871, 
875, 949, 1044 
1240 ) 2-519) 614 bis; (62s 


1 


—a | 


ee a ee 


NONWNMNMNNHNNNYNNNNNNNNNNNWEH 


bo bw bb 


Wh bw 


WWWWWWW WW W&~ 


:-41 . . 416, 4338, 549, 657, 691 bis, 
692, 714, 762 bis, 770, 795, 881, 
893, 897 
:41 (42) ee emeee La 
42 et 255, 376, “411, 678, 835 
44 eee ee) Litgers cs: 
45 eee os 720, 782 
46 428, 598, 748, 875, 949 
47 ; hie OU 
48 ; 621, 634, 635 bis, 6838, 765, 
858, 978, 1075 
749 ae 769, 781, 1126 
50 277, 396, 476, 634, 871, 
1028, 1029, 1123 
51 364, 423 
Jie Cae ae 762 
2 428 
DE Pe . 405 
Ae 40% 539, 736 
HES 243, 729 
5-8 855 
6 571, 906 
fi 510 
) oe ‘474, “506, 507, 841 
Shep poe renee Lae 
10 Ge 218, 277, 6438, 678 
11 216, 701-2, 704, 771, 781 
12 470, 680, 681, 686 
14 265, 427 
15 Oe ak: v7 
16 ye S05 nGaU 
Ee lee _ 500, 903, 1029 
18 293117433; 964, 1034 
19 ; 586, 856, 948, 1023 
20 283, 365, 367, 523, 
527, 833, 1183 
21 399, 498, 707, 708 
oe eer: rata 
ay . . 523, 760, 1184 
24 226, 287, 476, 686, 688, 
689, 765, 885, 966, 
1071, 1186 
24 f. ae Dade ats 
PAT CIS IS : 1029, 1043, 1176 
; 395, 434, 460, 599, 
782, 1185 
Oo ee . 611 bis, 793 
rire 857 
oro se 751 
5 ey Gs 
6 eee 
re ans ont O20 
ahaa 299, 342, BAS bis, 800, 1177 
10 . 678, 768, 1175 
11 +407 
12 654, 1009, 1012, 1160 


os 


oS 


ALAA ARERR RARE 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


John 
Sols . 600, 859, 1183 
3:14 pee U8 ase! 
3:16 135, 437, 753, 108;-402; 
770, 1000 bis 
SHY) LO ce eee a. 66 
3:18 897, 898, 963, 1028, 
1159, 1169 
oD acne. 1 4-20,060, 666; 699, 789, 
964, 1028, 1033, 1183, 1184 
Poulg f. pee OL 
Spal ee O04 195 
3:22 405, 438, 884 
Stee eet BO! 
3:24 . 905 
3:20 433, 515, 598, 610 
3:20 . 539 
3220 857, 907, 1019, 1162 
3:28 Mee ihr 
3229 “04, Aes 550 
3700 218, 707, 708 
SAS Ee ate he ge 243, 598 
3232 . . 901 bis 
3:33 . 859, 1034 
3:34 5 -ov/, 1163 
ay | eae ae 585, 649 
3:36 reek, 040,879 
“A "1 Pa, ae seca? 438, 666, 684, 841, 
1034, 1049 
Mc ESSA Scr tine cen ope uae . 434 
Aare A 1129, 1148, 1149, 1154 
7 SA We ae OS) 
Adis). ai 393, 582, 887, 919 
Aah . . 505, 547, 596, 646, 715 
4:6 367, 428, 549, 599, 604, 778, 
pall oe 1146 
2 BAY Eo) ae ee ea Ze ; 598 
G05 hee 434. 
eee) Ea ee, ae eet bat a, fake 
ee ett AS 905 
4:9 eee 204, : 371, “482 , 530, 678 
4 


“40 “418, 656, 678, 762, 92 2 bis, 1014, 


1015, 1046, 1069, 1105, 1110 


:11 . 394, 656 bis, 762 TTT, 778, 1105, 


1106, 1166, 1179, 1182, 1185, 1189 


12 667 
13 es 59S 
14. 519, 520, 716, 813, 889, 1212 
15 _ 201, 985, 1088 
16 ex 299 
16, 35 856 
vis eae yes _ 699 
18 657, 702, 720, 790, 823, 843 
20 . 426, 842-3, 1183 
20, 24 . 919 
21 . 1159 

Nata ARGS 971 


AAAI AA RRR ER RAR RARER AR AAR AR RRA 


Or Or Or Ot Ot Ot Ot Or 


Or Ot Or Or Or 


1317 


722 =. 233,429, 677, 678, 713, 1159 
ss 234, 400, 476, 540, 566, 
710, 1186 
25 215, 707,708 
26 he aes) 
DH 424, G04, 611, 756, 791, 
1154, 1188 
28 eh RS ave erarey. 
29 751, 917, 949, 1167, 1175 
31 587, 645, 884 
ag 2, 743; 917, 1168 
Pate peared ee a LOS 
25 ER tite a 685 9, 992, 1078 
a5 : 122, 626, 678. 870, 1180 
36 299, 659 
at 786 
39 Lag Be: 
39, 53 709 
40 4 e762 
41 eA RYE 
42 686 
43 ee Oo 
44 Beanie 1191 
45 - LiZs 
46 uh ave fs a EO 
47 368, 597, 884 
49 th OES, LOOT 
50 >. 715 ts, 841 
SL sy 1212 
52 206, “470, 546, 665, 834 
5S qe: 566, 680, 721 
BT eee he ae Seales 
104, 169, 524, 604, 760 
3 a a2 g 
4 aes 291, 585, 710, 719, 1149 
ar eee ey Oe DD 
Geshe ee Pee ASP 879, 1139 
7 879, 960, 978, 1001, 1068 
8 681, B55 bs, 890, 950 
O oegind “scade . 681, 838, 855 
Liane O58, 274, 480, 481, 656, 
695, 707, 769, 855 
tials ON 75 
122 _ 778, 1114 
13 fot Asa 
14 . . 284,890 
15 836, 859, 928, 1035, 1112, 1014 
17 : tee TRAD | Aatsde 
18 ar 884, 1060, 1166 
19 190, 707, 708, 1018 bis, 
1094, 1181 
20 188, 311, 985 
DL eRe Pi eener Re ee, 969 
YES anes fy, ta eee ee yee 
24 593, 897, 898 
PAN Be tat ne Sd a 0 453 


1318 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


John 
5:25 on) 413d; 2o4ed0a/s Goes 
781, 859 
DONS Oe ee a oii hn a ee eee 
BG Sy ei lgh os. ch heey ee meee 
ROT Oeil oa, ee OL 
Fy 7S ens nl Se a ee 
CET OU ation ea) tee DOOURSO9 
Do) eae oe) = ree, _ 685, 828, 890, 1162 
Diol Ven he OU SI LULOS LES 
HS lp40 2 ee ae ee 
BeBe ace eee at enh ea A ORO 
5133) See Art ee ee 
W250; OO Lee 16) 8 ke OU 
he eee oe eo ae LOPS OG 
Ra ee ee - 334, 625, 656, 1212 
DADO 8 tO) 265, 274 bis, 402, 516, 
667, 686, 789, 894, 1204 
iT SYERe aka Ogre, ep domaaG 
Ovi Tst,2,6 170 ee. 1 ee by om oe 
Fy Se- hoe ene ae eee tes OS} 703, 708 
F250) Ge eee aoe DiS. O1o: 707, 941 
DloU i eee eee gs he tines 
BAO Bee ey ae LS 
Beal cee Ge) eee Go) 
By42s 1 toot ee. oe eee eo 
RS Ae ets sober AU gee Oe 
5 Adve See oP 437, 442, 776, 857, 
1128, 135 
5s44 fy ee eee ofS 
i Hebe te, Be 779, 853, 890, 895 
5460 eee ee ee ee 540, 1014 
5 PAG Es koe fee ok ee 
5A io eh ee LO0OS I OL Ge 
6: ; sve 444, 503 
Gi22cur : 368, 404, 604, 1218 
G2 28570 wee Ms Tic! 
G25 te oa he ee O35 
G26 Sree ae 891, 1029, 10438 
Giz" ree 745, 921, 998 
G20. 407, 674, 704, 713, 736, 762 
Gs100 2c : -. #486 
GSLs) eae ae _ 732 762, 967, 1181 
6:12 >- 2.01) fear deen ee Lee 
6212, 160 '5 © oe ie a 
6213: oo) a" 2s 28 8 SORE Toman 
Or14e fea ep. ie BEL eS 
OrlD. 7 2 seat e ee ee 2S ee See i 
GrlG 9 seca SS ee O02) aU 
6:16-21 .. of 2904 
sd i ed ya 361, 366 bis, 904, 1214 
Gi-18 “is = a Oto sla 
Gal 2 ger atl er. 263, 469, 603, 904 
6320)" 2 el ee ee Ot ert 
OF2lor is we 6088 ocseGn Le 
6:22... ~ 437,'444, 2 1034 
G22-4 0 Ry, Cee 


DH D2 DD DADAAAAIARWAAARVAAO 


NSNNNNNN DODD DDD OD BD? SD? BD DD DDD AY.ADY.AAADAAAIAAAAYMH 


OG Mee eee Ae Sy. 
TO Ae a: “887, 1029, 1049 
1) Pe ee ete FS) 
ie ee . . 471, 595 
ld Sa eee “850, 880, 889, 923, 934 
o29" 2) 6675/06; is 720, 421;.850 
Si ae 40 6 Cree as enna) an 
:30 ye ere, 7 SoU 
$5 Ls C1254. A eee 375, 903 bis 
SR hg gee Re ee pee eg 
oT See rr ee inh ce STN} 
Tou aay i ae ee CLI RODEL 
35, 37, 44, a 235, 889 
736 Pe oe ea Wl fe 
SOU k OL ee ae . 409, 682 
SY PGS ba Rene nee 653, (legato 
130 sen ara ae SUD Loos 1187 bis 
att Dk eee ee 437, 439, 684, 718, 753, 
769, 775, 992 
24) 7. %. 520/522, 586, 7084162 
7-41 .. . 444, 561, 853, 859, 1201 
a: Wd Pte Seb ee 697, 698 
SAS Pees hie ee OL Soe 
cs BN 1 es 2 "520,-52a70S0e 
AD ee 504, 516, 859 bis, 1097 bis 
45 f 614 
46 1034 
47 653 
48 Be AYES 
BO eS cn hen ee ee 1183 
Oe oe a on 599, 768 
51 "234, 768, 872, 1185 bis 
52 RP a 811 
VARS eee 444. 
4 18 DSO 
Ys 584 bis 
58 968 
ey Ropes 587 
02 ete 470, “487, Jaaay 1023, 1203 
“Ho mee en ee (OS nL 2UG 


:64) 2.3 374, 515, 550, 597, 792, 878, 


L118 bis, 1159, 1214 


{HORE ey Ab SIL eee Higher teak ot 
BG elds og st4, . . . 444, 597 
SOG lonerwetels _ 878, 917, 923, 1175 
2655 mts 790, 791, 876, 924, 934 
109: Foe sete 4232 652) 763, 895, 1035 
70 set 79 
71 501, 884 
1 444, 885 
2 399 
Sra ek we - 308, 328, 984, 1180 
SAL ye _ 752, 1009, 1038, 1100 
SAS 10) 5” eee ys a gaa aed A 
TP POU a treaty mn MEL 
"G50 ty Gea ee ee Ce LLOnae ad, 


a ee ee ee a 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


John 
rit me ie de areas 
7210 429, 444 
fagl . 707 bis 
(13 491, 500 
pad Woe We . 619 
7214 “444, 838, 885 
od BS ale hey? 
16 . . 496 
ely. 299 S551 7Al, 757, 878, 
1019, 1045, 1177, 1188 
718 : : 698, 762 
Fak!) ee 1175 
(22 - 243, 434, 1166, 1187, 1202 
23 275, 418, 541, 656, 774, 
965, 1175 
7:24 ae tis 
TROD : _ 27, “444, 698, 703 
1626 ; 135, 845, 1168 
iezo; 35, 47, Bit Ce vols 
7:97 £. ; one RS 
7730 : 231, 905, 1183 
ook _ 716, (20,1175 
732 444, 1123 
7233 e059 
7:34 . 969 
fot, oO ae! 282-235 
Visti 495, 501, aye 1001, 1205 
gf Ra¥l awe 234, 444, 1019 
7:38 333, 355, 356, 437, 
459, 1130 
7:39 . 368, 4838, 795, 859 bis 
7:40 . 599 bis 
Tce . 1190 
fin: What 578 
na 970 
7:44 857 
4240 . 444 
7:47 e175 
7:48 Oe esses!) 
7:49 . + . 404, 407 
fees 308, 1168, 1214 
7:52 866, 949 
8:3, 9 Pere 12.10) 
8:7 MOZ ti2t 
8:9 . 282, 294, 606 
S212 ee cs 
8:14 208, 866, 870, 1010, 
1018, 1026, 1045 
S16 ae: 208, 424 
8:16, 54 Se Ae 
a A wee 02281015 
8:20 a: . 586, 905, 1165 
8920137 7 oes . 1159 
seg : eh AD) 
S220 : 547 bis, 548, 765 
8:24 356 


MWOMDMOMMOMOMOM OOM MH MH OHM MOO OHH HOH OH OHHH OHH OH OH OH OH OH HO WOW WOMWMMDMDMWHMHMOHWODDMDMDDHDHDMDDDMOHWOHMOHO OO 


bo 
Ou 


1319 


. 244, 294, 419, 470, 487, 
546, 550, 729, 730 bis, 
738, 917 

698, 1186 

. 473, 1029 

698, 837 

aay eecral 

37, 549, 611, 659, 845 


cn 


872, 896 

: . . 614 

: 921, 1015-16, 1022 
ae: 579, 708, 881, 1014 
. 224, 551, 683, 768, 1219 
or? O00 

, _ 850, 1019 

473, 507 

441, 728 

Re 1034 

PNR 530, 1026 

we 993, 1212 

ate: Pee 310, 337, 1183 

. 394, 880, 977, 1091 

. 300, 581, 807, 817, 1136 


1 784 
2 998 
3 ee oe A. 
4 976, 1081, 1159 
5 . 684, 972 
6 420, 503, 681, 779 
x. 253, 592, 714, 855 

fey eek 
ane 768, 866, 887, 1115, 1139 
Ole Lan ies taal 028 
10 ae 330, 419, 420, 503, 681, 1213 
if 420, 779 
i 25 708 
j P 234, (07 
14 368, 718, 1213 
15 681 
16 cue 710 
16, 40 779 
Ny ie Be. 964 
LZ, 263530 . 420 
Wikeey’ oamer tye 
18 291, S41, 975, 1029 
19 f. 768 
ot : 0 (eS 
2 366, 480, ‘811, ‘816, “905, 993 
24 wea AD FO feo POO 
25 866, 892, 1045, 1115 
27 cs . 878 
28 268, 473, 707 bis 
30 . 433; 1190 


1320 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


John 
G80 32530 00. er) ee ee eee 
OS 1 ee a fren OR ice Gon hee Os 
OL oe eee so eer of et eT 
OPSoe Me. cet ea: 920, 1014, 1016 
Opa Pie. See, e SOOUAG iS 768, 774 
DFS Ea ale ont Pam) ni ota eared 
heat A iain een a Mei aie Te 960, 999, 1182 
Oh! 0 Dah eet Re near sw HIS: 
OPay ey eG On tee eo 
10s 300, 708 
Tones 608 
1033, 9, 12 : : 428 
1034, 358, 404, 801 
10:5 355, 356, 418, 889 
LOS 62 Ana Pe ie Ee ee 708, 736 
TOSTe OR oh ees ey OU es 
LOD Ot) Badan. cee 507, 622. 
1021 O0eee ree LUZo 
pena ; 308, 418, 429,656, 762 ter, 
776, 788, 835, 1206 
10311 ld) Bea Si ee De 
104 Laide ae Bon 
Log ee 434, 764, 955, 1138, 1163 
10vS eee ek, : oe ahs US 
10815 2 ly ti ee eee 
LOMA Pea tse 5 tae oe ey 
LOTUS ee ie oa ey eens 
LO 222 ee Ne ies) ee a 
iboefe oe Re were 
10228 _ 333, 356, 752, 875, 1164 
102503 ae i 2 ka et OZ a 
10852 et Een (AOS 880 bis 
LOS3 32 ee le ees 
TO84 Fee ak. sa L028 
10:55 RAR ee _ 434, 480, 708, 1182 
10:36 . 425, 437, 442, 781, 952, 1028 
1033 fee eee OL 281020: 1060, 1170 
L023 ie eee <«e= L160 
TO: 3S deere. _ 425, 850, 983, 1026 
10°30 Wenn a ar 409, 885 
10240 -2 aS. “487, 659, 833, 970 
LUST om ee ee eS 
1122 <n e liey SOOO en Ley 
11:3, 6, 2, Mele ~ 1191 
11:4 eres Lane 
1146 ‘470, 706, 718, TSZsaine 
Teh ~ 93151205 
11:8 SO atin eee 
1 OT ea eae _ 587, 800, 1019 
10) C0 ee ee Se, 
Dae er ee Se 
11:11-13 Meer Sor 
1 en aa et eg . . 1009 
1A Bol ene a toc - 498, 905, 1029 
ji EN ee ae he 1210 bis 
ELEIG i Uw a ee LD 


bhi tok . 266, 800 
SL SS Caltex stots 283, 424, 469, 575, 760 
LO 6 Ec. og eee OO LOO ue 
pis tm bare 4 521,791 
Le G2 ee ee eh) oe 
21, 32 : . 318, 922, 1015 
S222. ipl Pa. Pee oO Op Cie aer ces 
23 420 
24 . 669 
he 356, 768 
AT ie Leen 915 
VE ee Olea 3S "301, 781, S91, 1028, 
1034, 1150 

320 a5 a eae eae amo Oe een 
pOU Pe hee eee ee mee US 
SOL” Met PG ey 0 ee 
7:32 . 420 bis, 681, 706, 722, 779, 
1015 

POO. Rakha 20 car eM) Learn 
33860024. $5... 802,009) 14 pee 
7:37... . ©6698, 857, 920, 985, 993 
738 . 341, 559, 560, 593, 596, 604 
oD ae. ; 0 ent Seed a 
39, 44 i 0 JS ke ae ee 
MO Os > Taw Sea pees 
Sat. ee eee, we eee ee 
AD eed) EO ae a ee eee 
435 CSTR fe oaes 1193 
44.00. 193, 197, 361, 366, 486, 
905, 910, 1117 

e ATS ¢ My «ae ee 880 bis, 923, 934 
SAS oS) Gasaaeen Bane Bie eee 
PAY Poe. ( ene 2. 615,142 
SI) occa ee 631 bis, 993, 1034 
a) PPM etre ce Master RA ee 
DL DOn vas eee ris)! 
HOD aie balk tay ee ee a ERT. 593, 1162 
9, Sea meee deer oh coc he od gL a 
O51) SOE a he, Nh ee 
POG oe wate fA coe ee ee 
POG Peak: Po OU 
7 134, 234, 308, 905, 986, 993 
“Ay... We L10;4247°598, O21 ho22- 
702, 762, 970, 1191 

2 SiGe 
PS ee. a oan eee 510, 598, 859 
7: SO eo ae ad 3 eet Dieee ies 
et pe emer ce) a aR 932 
a Bese 656, 777 
90-120, Serrae 762, 774 
+ LOM teat tae - 811, 993, 994, 1180 
NLSeEE! alee 243, 528, 595, 838 
ay eo . 264, 462 
‘1 Gee 487, 550, 605, 655, 765, 905 
16,5522 °.0e Ea ee er ALAA! 
‘AT * Are UA ee ese 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


John : 
12618 . 909, 1035, 1042, 1103 
i219 -— . : . 843, 941 
en OL 243 
ee AN wacny % pal 
MRD Ge Mars Favhr 271 a gh RC 923 
12222 . 405 
1 895, 992 
1224 . 1019 
12325 ole 
12726 ee _ 870, 969, 1019 
7. _ 598, 843, 895, 1187 
1228 ‘ ee see S02) B4D 
12°29 908, 1047, 1081 
L230. aa fi BOSS 
122382 ‘ 190, 597, 889, 1018 
P2500 wee ete bis 
12:34 697, 704, 735 
1 igen a i he, el 
ea weet. ot, 133, 807, 974 
Le Lee. es hae . 1129 
PAGS Me eee Rtiss Bet a Out 
12:42 Bee toby bl So07s 
12:43 301, 633, 1150, 1154 
12:44 ea 
12:46 Toe 
IEE fe ey ee A 234 
12:48 698 
LAOS ae ee ke 698 
Scere rah (ose er Siac: ma 498, 691, 843 
‘Be Si eee ere 435 
13:1-5 mig OO 
1332 309, 799 
iS; ee ay 
13:4 188, 314, 597 
1325 : eT LO ED F. 
Ee : 418, 420, 880, 915, 1175 
1353 in 915, 933 
13:9 sell ba Lis 2, 1173 
13710 ee ay. le. hee’ 
LS S12 : 841, 1045 
Issa _ 270, 416, 458 bis, 466, 
1028 
13:14 399, 845 
1215 633 
16216 516 
136h/ 850, 890, 1019, 1022 
13715 . . 560, 845, 1203 
13:19 ’ 765, 978, 983, 1075 
13:20 190, 956 bis, 1018 
PEA MOLDS bLoo 
13:22 Saou 
13:24 ~ 703, 724, 1045 
Leo 602, 707 
13:26 » Ue 4s: 
1o2e7 “488, 664, 880 
14725 626, 739 


1321 


:29 235, 442, 595, 706, 720 
Pail 843, 847 
ROOTES oo. eet OE brat ys"! 
34 845, 993 
0 Li oes Sais fi 
237 Steer eek) 
1 : » » °629; 941 
bh é 424, 1015, 1025 
ike : . . 869 
ait ee 353, 690, 846 
Di es she estes eGo 
LO) ee a ee wee er. 
aT alee eee ea 429, 583, 769 
7 ‘ pacos LLOL 
8 a esite: 
9 ey: ‘419, 528, 879 
11 287, 395, 856, 1016, 
1025; 1202 

i 243, 727, 729, 850 
lah - 956 
15 ; 5 ae ULS 
16 A 613, 747, 1023 
Wie es 233, 614, 857 
17, 26 . 709 bis 
1 Ea oes see « ovfos 965 
21 635, 688, 707, 708 bis, 769 
22 : 739, 916, eee 1034 
ao : 802 
24 A Se ee a6) 
26 : 418, 4892, 483, 509, 634, 
708 bis, 709, 795 

oa ; ee COLD LET 
28 : 234, 817, 923, 1015 
:29 . 1091 
ae gl 308 
al eae 
2 aa 243, 437 
ma) toe 
2 584 
74 Sra oe 586, 587 
5 Mime. (431, 442. 1165 
76 . . 892, 820 bis, 828, 836, 
"837 bis, 847, 850, 1020, 1204 

arf : adn OU 
S : 324, 699, 837, 8438, 984, 
992, 1078 

9 856, 968 
10 779 
Lia 784, 1204 
Ti 7 eh eee ee OOO 
T2er . . . 393, 699, 992, 993 
13 . 272, 401, 429, 699, 992 
14 eet lew 
15 Cae Rk 480, 769, 845 
16 : 309, 327, 729, 993, 1214 
18 . 280, 670, 1008 


John 
15:19 . . 559, 598, 921, 1013, 1014 
15220 . 509, 716, 1009 
TRS rlte cea deee tes . . 484 
Layette es a Ol leY ae 921, 1013, 1169 
15:22, 24 fr OU, 339, 887, 922, 
1014, 1015, 1016, 1147 
EGG) Mere. 921, 1013 bis 
[5225 Plena . 1033, 1203 
TieOpeLt. d 561, 708, 795, 970 
Peay oon aes Mee res 
16:2 859, 998, 1114, 1186 
1G Ese eos? EN De ase 834, 845 
LOE ~deitre etek (2 ty? core aces : 1049 
dL Ciciy renee cys toes eee 1019 bis 
1668 a ers eee 566, 1126 
LG LL PaCR oats en ce 964. 
16212 : 857 
16:13 : _ 698, 708, 709, 1109 
Toy 393, Bin 599, 698 
LGalyia; 703, 719 
16:18 “ier phi. hats’ 
16:19 : 610, 659, 699, 857, 1029 
120 e _ 458 bis, 595, 871 
16320202 See ee ee (SUSTA 
LOS 1 Is ee eee 2, Re oe te ae 866 
LQE22.8 DAP ae hak eek ieee 424 bis 
16:23. . . 190, 482 bis, 708, 1018 
167239640 » . 2709 
16:24 . ; 395 5, 360, 375, 848, 907 
LOS 26 Dare ae aa eee race Seb ies 
16727 te? ee 579, 614 
1) S25 aiaee ses ect, 26 ee 098 
16550 Ae Le ne Ss 579, 589, 699 
LOST, oc leoes, 2s Sebo ee 1175 
1G2 82a pup. oot os Seat 657 
16/33 te Se en 135, 677 
Lie ee ee ee 801 
Gen Rail 462 
Ley ee BYR 309, 348, 409, 411, 437, 
900, 713, 718, 876, 963, 984 
17:3° (l8S-.; 208: 690°71Rea76 
985, 992 bis, 1079 
1764 15, e234. 418 S077 eGe2 ete 
LEG. VRAIS ABT S678) Beane 
765, 891, 978 bis, 1074, 1075 
176)" ae ee 337, 598, 894, 895 
LNT? Se eae ene . 337 bis, 820 
List to tee ee LO 
Less thy 234, 337, 423 
1/401 ee ite 5G7, 618, 619, 720, 21 
L710 685, 770, 898 
Lisa eee ae. ee 464, 948 
LCE tee es ee 716 
1 (AT 2 eg 099, 1188 
1i713° Saran ae eae ou 902 
17514 16ers 598 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Lb oe" G1. 598 bis 
Tah. ae gedaan 768 
Lo tee ast te eee = 439 
LO ne ac Shae 360, 908 
19, 23 é 983 
vA 234, 395, 461 
21, 24 : 264 
ose Davia 462 
22 . 898 
es _ 360, 593, 677, 908, 1049, 1116 
24 658; 713, 933, 969, 1048 
P20 ; 264 bis, 419, 461, 464, 
843, 1182 

:26 2 one Sa OU Toease 
‘ie 2138, 275, 627, 680 
wap Via Geou 
ue . 548, 1127 
a 888 
:6 >» eo 
78 ow SOU: 
eT0 40 ET OS 
11 _ 459, 683, 850, 934, 1161, 1174 
13 ; re Bas 
14 d 529, 1035, 1058, 1084 
15 ; AOS, 529, 537, 707 bis 
16 746, TAT bis, 775, Cli. 
Le ee iss 
18 909 bis, 910, 1116 
20 es Eps brsierdiiak 
21 yess 
7, eel iG 
Pry 1009 bis 
24 . 841 
DA§ ee EG 
26 B75, 706, 720 
28 - LISS 
29 Sea Ra 
30 ese LOL DT eG 
el 531, 740, 1029, 1043 
34 288, 688 
Bo ak 1172 
36 > - 922, 993, 1015 
37 233, 599, 915, 917, 1165, 
‘1175, 1192 
38 Pie 411, 736 
39 430, BAT 876, 878, 924, 
935, 980, 992 

Al) cae eae 1172, 1173 
1 as OU 
2 wwe ie 408, 483, 521, 883 
35 A ae _ 811, 465, 769, 884, 1214 
Gi -.e ete 1190, 1200 
Tt ae ich 480) 
<1) aie e _ 887, 906 bis, 921, 923, 
1014, 1015, 1016 

12 542, 573, 885 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


John 
Lear Sere es cate Sark 104, 367 
13 pd No a ae ue 501, 793 
ht PY Eh a wears 5 Ne 104, 539 
1 ES Bead eg aa em per hy Fk 300, 775 
POMEL O Me heh. eee 362, 375, 603 
LOSZU PS 2 eS ae 28, 104, 205, 524 
Oe Lae els, Oe. DY Sede aes 707 bis 
19:22 . 008, 801, 895 
19:23 : fe OPAL 408, 1184 
19:24 619, 690, 811, 928, 931, 943 
19:25 235, 255, 501, 614, 767, 904 
19:26 Nog dehayds: 
19:27 502, 586, 691 
19:28 425, 898 
19:29 Pop 214, 254 
19:31 ; 365; 392 1212 
19:32 530, 746, 747, RED 
[PAPE eye 1212 
19:33 546, 602, 909, 910, 963, 
1041, 1042, 1118 
Este cyeuih ee es : 707, 1118 
19:36 , ee 2004604 
19:37 293, 594, 406, 720; 721, 
772, 871 
Lat 0 ae, Se See eo ait hes 
DOO ee Abe ocr eV 4 495,1127. 
19:40 ; 533, 1076 
1024 tras: ere 316, 762, 905 
ZA) ole ee _ 522, 672, 762, 868, 1097 
2072. = 5 2 oe 302,000, 845, 1202 
20:2, 3, 4 747 
20 5 ae Pe) Fs 
PANE Eo . 746, 838 
FAI pt 278, 401, 549, 1656, 662, 669 
COS =15 Oth. : . 868 
SADE CORRE SEP ha ain 593, 603, 648 
DU ae oe oan Nice lg BME oe OOS 
74 WO ae Sn oe ra, LO} 
PATS Wo 2) Regie Meee , 4 025, 624 bis 
Ol yia cae siete 589, 624, 653, 868, 
906, 1202 
PUY be tie ee Cae 868 
PU) S| Sear aes nak ek tata gh s 133, 868 
20: 14-18 . 443 
20slomy 683, 1009 
20: 15-18 869 
Below “416, 462, G5, 714 
20:16, 18 ela RP ZOO 
PAU BA Wi . 561, 853, 870 
20:18 ea Re roe 1028, 1212 
DOL Fe & 522, 653, 708, 722, 779 
20:19, 26 593 
BAUR SEL WN eet Day eek A a ete 1128 
20:21 429 
20:22 207 
20:23 190, tsi 1019, 1216 


1323 


20:25 eS eOo 
20227 , ee So 2a L201, 
20:28 : 261, 461, 462, 466 bis, 779 
20:29 ; 859, 895, 1028 
20:30 fm o022000; Lio 
DAG CoB, | Ee al ee te Se BAO Bis 
PM Nok 2 Sa ous 
Jit Zomer Bern ot 405 501, 767 
2123 i 35 53, 627, 882, 923, 990, 1062 
21:4. : Geos 
PATI : 155, 623, 917, 1168 
21:6 408, 580, 593, 652 
24 EY Dy ie ay 
21:8 268, 469, 499, 520, 521, 
533, 543, 575, 802 
OSD Paes. re S41 
Zlgi0 519, ‘577, 716, 843, 845 
Zhe UL : ..672, 1129 
PARA : 437, Mares, 1128 
Z2USLS . retake cUG 
21:14 .. 402, 843 
HA Bell US 187, 516, 659, 667 
ade loitt. fx ae 
21:15-17 «200, L201 
BUST, ; eee os 
2b as 314 bis, 802, 884, 969 bis, 
971, 1159 
PARAL! | 531, 740, 876, 891, 1029, 
1043, 1110 
2.20 Gh cee eee Yate 
20221 395, 411, 697, 705, 
736 bis, 1202 
ois v2 395, 736, 978 
2122 fi eee a e.bocu 
2123 MELDOS, (Uan SLU 
21°24 es 187, 406, 416, 785 
pA ALS . . 234, 369, 729, 877 bis, 
891, 1030, 1040, 1082 bis, 1162, 
1205, 1210 

Acts 
Te. . 280, 419, 440, 463, 663, 
669, 716, 954, 1152, 1179, 
1193, 1203 
1:1-5 AR AVA 
Lee ah he AA Eee Al 
1253 963 uy, 581, 820, 1039, 1074 
1:4 she Pa 2, 475, 507, 519, 578, 
AR eel ate 
Le ha 110, 389, 418, 420, 533, 
612, 656, 702, 771, 1158, 1205 
1:6 316 bis, 523, ee ae 1151 
Lode Sask at aes 2407. 
LoS eae ree coe hk ice cee aA LR Le: 
SL 1 OAe eaters 267 
Lao 904. 


1324 


See 


— NY bd bd 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


11 . 898, 701, 71Sprad 
12 . 154, 232, 267, 269, 458, 
469, 640, 778, 780 

(Breet: wees hs xii, 501, 629, 760 
Tapiaes S81 yeh Seales: 
15 283, 434, 602 
LG tapes ee Ne 399, 651, 859 
17 ae fet Wrecss ia 
18 _ 472, 510, 599, 775, 834, 
1151, 1217 

19 ny 2810 
20 _ 272, 939, 1116, 1214 
aA rm! Nee vel 
22 : 413, 039, 717, 974, 1126 
DS anit die: cunts ee ee 214 
DS 606 oho, a eee 15 
DA Bihar e ey” pe 678, 706, 861 
25 561, 692 
26 Deo lbenoe 
2 . 261, 376, 966, 969, 1105, 1140 
dy ont ries | ees 
5 _ 593 
Gs oS ete: . 1042 
e 224 
9 Pt ste 
Of. 427, 788 
ll me Tuts eS 
12 - 692, 747, 883, 938, 1031 
13 . 749, 903, 1127 
14 - 91307 
15 _, 793, 1158 
17 393, 581, B77 
17, 21 Mees (eo 
18 LAT ALS 
20 561, 1091 bis 
21 Replay cee 
22 399, 534, 579, 698, 716 
23 _ 317, 339, 698, 1113 
24 12281053 
25 _ 284 bis, 367, 594 
26 . . 224, 604 
27 591, 593, 792 
27, 31 502 
28 . 510 
29 234, 587, 612, 881, 1119, 
1130, 1182 

30 . 479, 531, 877, 1205 
31 e503 
32 eeiOlnT4t4 
:33 448, 498, 526, 543, 652, 781, 
1179 

84° >, 5 Wea A 652 
36°. = See ee 772 
Buti... _ 350, 1179 
38 . , 389, 592, 595, 780, 781, 


782, 795 


Wwwww www 


GO 


WWWNNNNNNWWNW WD 


WWWWWwWWWWWW WWW & 


ALP RAR RR RO 


PPP PP 


39 541, 593, 733 
40 666, 813 
41 . 239, LISI 
42 542 
43 . a a DAL 
45, 581, 722, 884, 922, 958, 967 
46 . 508, 519, 608 bis, 609, 1179 
4748, 318, 891, 892, 1118, 1116 
Ped Wa eatin. E : + hs e002 
1-10). ae ee oa. oe 90S 
52) OR ae cokomoue "480, 884, 891, 
990, 1088 

2 Pes SOR eke meee ote. AZO 
3 . 313, 559, 877, 884 
Onis: 538, 828, 1036, 1127 
6 a yt 9 Seas 
7 Bie ee 8 LO EUS 
8 423, 1116 bis, 11386 
Oi ease wate oF L LOS 
AKA oe poh, 262 Gols 885, 887 bis, 
1111, 1117, 1179 

| Lae : 269, 407, 604, 655 
12 ; 334, 423, 818, 1065, 1068, 
1078, 1140 

13 . . 649, 707, 1161 
14 399, 651, 785, 818 
15 ; Paes a: Fak: 
16 517, 639, 644 
Lit . ae. ‘609, 1128 
18 : 409, 858, 877, 1036, 1080 
19 : 649, 1075 
19 f. . 986, 1049 
21 a LOS LSE 
22 Se batroosi ian 
23 “148, 189, 598, 727, 959 
OL Net igh deco oy sate meets ae Pia 
2D ae Sein ay OAL 
ean Dee 538, 549, 800, 891 bis, 991, 
1072, 1073 bis; Vt1G, 1128 

De than otc eee ea 587, 966, 1071 
Eb ate re sis eencteNedes 538 
Bil, shebob: see see ee 1047 
Ohgeie circ), va eee Ree PAL: 
TSE eee 648, OS 95, 678, 740 
1D pre. eae ane 500, 703, 780 
10 656, 698, 705, 715 
10316 Ra . « . O56 
ll : ier 698, 703, 769 
12 635 bis, 749, 751, 778, 1107 
13 127, 415, 691, 812, 887, 
1035, 1197 

14 1087, 1179 
15 tac eL Ae 
16 656; 665 n., 880, 1152 
17 . 531, 538, 1094 
18 546, 550, 607 





aN 


AKA RAR RAR ER RI 


ook 


Or Or Or Ot Ot Or Or Ot Ot Ot Ot Ot Or Or Ot Ot Ot Or Or 


Or Or Or 


Or Or Or Ot Ot Or 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 1325 


ay ate iss eee 516, 666, 1045 


. . 312, 677, 1094, 1164, 
"1171 bis, 1173, 1174, 1214 
. 766, 905, 966, 1031, 

1046, 1128 


_ 268, 498, 602, 666, 905, 1214 


733 

419 

739 

oh ce 3905 

204, 560, 765, 772 
1072, 1073 

. 905 

688, 691, TOl 

5 Sa! 

587, 884, 891, 892, 
‘igh; 1116 

190, 312, 318, 615, 922, 
958, 967, 1214 

Pet 487, 530, 579 bis, 714 
dee OO LS LAG 
eee Lone. DIS 407. 
256, 319, 517, 627, 810, 
1116 

. 1001, 1089, 1090 
viene 965, 1166 

aed ah) 

a ee Rp le 

. . . 460, 581 bis 

. 308, 510, 710, 810 

. 529, 601, 965, 1084 

oor 200 Dis 

ay!) 

vane ms _ 435, 453, 1106 
: 194, 214, 928, 984, 1091 
404, 412, 617 

261, 1107, 1108 

408, 581, 791 

. 497, 706 

. 635, 1086 

Vos ey cl 

. 601, 603, 621 

_ 405, 736 bis, 789, 938, 940, 
1021, 1044 

233, 881 

fee al. 200 

224, 253, 510, Ba tibes. 
697, 760, 878, 895 

. . 405, 747 

_ 317, 603, 1127 

. 480, 526, 1088 

653 

eee GUS 

172, 233, 411, 540, 542, 
581, 743, 1038, Lp 
fa2 


AAA AHD OM or on 


NMINNINNNNNNNNNINEN ONIN TIO 


Sif Pasoo 
Soe 547, 1018, 1019 
CSOT se, eae eee pirat o%s) 
39 995, 1009, 1096 
41 . . 632, 884, 1151 
42 : 1102, 1109, 1121 
ul 104, 626, 782 
2 Pees 
“3 ie Wsi6, 989, 1149 
5 173, 235, 275, 276 
ee Pee ISS 
11 594, 634, 801, 897, 
1042, 1113 

13 LOS 
14 eee OL 
1 hoes 546, 800, 916 
2 . 215, 419, 464, 1091 
35 : = 3951 
4. : 561, 566, 721, 979, 1074. 
5 1036, 1131, 1138, 1139 
6 . 889 
7 203, 959 
8 522, 760 
ONG eee 308 
10 ee. 339, 480, 481, 640, 1100 
12 262, 536, 1042, 1103 
ifs: : 537, 587 
14 fires 589 bis 
16 367, 510, 561, 716 
17 716, 968, 974. 
18 re ee 639, 748, 975 
19 477, 703, 1002, 1068, 
1090 bis 

20 Peenor. OL lails 
St! 339, 401, 482, 680, 811 
22 EF 
28 an 207, 392 
24. ; . 805, 1204 
2p 315, 885, 1036, 1049 
26 318, 522, 739, 861, 885 
Pa 367 
28 206, 718 
29 . 589 
30 760 
31 . : 474 
34 187, 430, 932, 1110, 1147 
Oo 253; 268, 649, 698, 778, 
860, 863, 897, 1113 

"30; 00; Ob GOL 40) a, eee tOoS 
36 794 
af 778 
39 etsy 
40 436, 459, BAL, 697, 701, 
703, 960 

41 ae OG OLS aia 2 
42 - 409, 463, 800, 1087 


Oe) 


00 00"G0"'00"00 Onrod Co Od ST STS] SI SS ST Sts St att 


COMWmMDmDDNMDMDMHMDMHMO 


0 oe ole 2) 


00 CO OO 


WOO MM WO OC 


1326 
43 . 244, 355, 517, 550, 642, 647 
EP Rd A Al oe ele ees 
ART ese oe es 367, ‘409, 582, 716 
Sis, So a eey ARTE ee, ee . . 4424 
O's ea i a otra Peale (OU 
Hl ie, OUUP 020 Ae centre 
1y2 eM Serio cies et came i Tae Oe 
Shee, Sakae are Le od ree “482, 596, 728 
56 1123, 1213 
57 339, 789 
58 256, 811 
GO" Ate) Fol ee en oan 
HGF cue be on AeA ROSS neo eas fi 
aD MESS UE eed oe ee sl by 
gi lee a tea tat.) aye ate ‘174, 419, 473 
4, 25 oy 695, 696 
he Pompe Se Pett ose 
Gy, 316, 743 bis, 888, 1038, 1121 
LO CSET crs : 704, 769 
10, 18 : BP 1113 
ital ; 523, 527, 533, 906, 909, 
966, 1060, 1070, 1071 
aS ey eee ae arales et Pat) ah at 1179 
14 f. 728 
Ep : pathy ¢ 367, 995 
16 ; 375, 560, 906, 1103, 1121 
Avi : 318 bis 
19 eee The 
20 _ 327, 939 bis, 940 
AA . . 541, 640 
22 ve 430, 576, 1024, 1027 
23 . 458, 536, 593, 865, 1041, 
1123 bis 
24 , 630,706 872081217 
20 hc plote LD ke Se Ate 
726 . 328, 602, 608, 698, 703, 
792, 1205 
24. 4314, 877 bis; 991 LIS ies 
28 562 
30 244, 571, 916, 1148 bis, 
1176, 1201 
ol . 194, 628, 890, 938, 1010, 
1021, 1022 bis, 1214 
32 715, 968 
34 748 
35 J. obs 
36 2, 743, 974, 1094, LOL 
Bots 578, 597 
39 ee rae 349, 479 
40 : 218, 593, 643, 975, 979, 
1060, 1074, 1092 
ol Poe are sae 2LORO0R 
eS ee 190, 482, 497, 1018, 1041 
Ori se, eee eee Doom Lute 
> THT eg ae «cake ae eee 506, 1042 
Ae ote 5 ; p -762 


© CO OO CO 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


926° es fe, S18; (29 falyou Ose 
1045, 1176, 1215 

9°6584 5 £3... 5 5 eee 
9:70 445 . 35 218,449) 47250005529 
Gagner 2 os Sa On eee 
OED Re) a ee ee 1138, 1172 
CPST Ls ot MESS Saas 310 
Orit Le: 762 
el 2s 864, 986, 1114, 1116 
9:13 Rais 484, ion 
9:15 ‘ 496, 704, 1179 
oh ivf CLG 572k 
DALSS 1 wre twee : Bae aS 
9:20 are 698, 885, 1034 
9-21 - 699, 769, 860, 905, 1107, 
1108, 1123 

927272 213, 891, 1127, 20 
9:24 ere YAN) 
9:26 or TBs 
Or27 244, 367, 1035, 1047 
9:31 524, 607, 787 
9:82.25. 1043, 1085 
9:32, 37, 43 . 1043 
9:34 866 
9:35 eeu 
9:36 : ea Sar: 
9:38 ? 256, 505, 538, 568, 640 
9:39 . dll, 529, 542, 732, 810 
O42 Ae ti a aie 607 
LOSL Gr Ss) SI eee 258 
LOS2 0c ce i. 172 
LORS ch ae ee 471, 864 
L025) 6 oo a ee 609 
LORD? Gar. ahs re ree 615 
LORS Byres eee 272, 892 
10:9 538, 793 
10:10 : 623 
1011 : aie. 603, 1213 
10:14 Tete Des 
Itvabo tee .-., 396, 1202, 1205 
10:17 : 579, 602, 890, 910, 938, 
940, 1021, 1031 

LOLS ae 1043, 1045, 1105, 1107 
1021S, 255 Se eee 1108 
10320 72.2 a ee eee 571 
Oza i F Tete 
10:22 é 561, 614, 1179 
1022274 833 
10:23 . . 809 
125 see 98, 393, 996, 1002, 1040, 
1043, 1059, 1060, 1065, 1068 

10:26 ; ;) 2.28686 
10328 3 314, G65; 967, 1032, 1036 
10:28, 38 pees pa LOAD 
10:29 212, 739, 1043, 1044, 1113 
LO3350 2 eee 471, 645, 793 


Mm OONAAwWNH 


729 


wo 
i) 


0, 


_ . 658, 736, 968, 1008, 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


A Ree 9, Ss ee 233 
. . . 399, 792, 794, 1105 
861 bis, 990, 1080, 1088, 

1113, 1121 

Pea 1i08 

438, 718, 723 

. 413, 458, 607 

_ 219, 533, 1032 

| SEO 

537, 794 

ee 1005 
612, 752, 960, 979, 1074, 
1162, 1163 

Re rai ee 2.833 
. 419, 1035 
. 1036 

PREROT 

_ 578, 782, 897, 1181 

231, 728, 960, 1061, 

1094, 1171 

. 1084 

. 608 

Prraiisi 

599, 766, 885 
1102, 1126 

315, 498, 639 

787, 838 

. 1042 

oa ass 

1041, 1049 
402, 405 

566 

1181 


- 1032, 


- 160, 192, 298, 659, 774, 
833, 1043 
253, 410, 603, 728, 877 bis, 
891, 1036, 1082 
Pe 367 
_ 714, 861, 862, 1113 
578, 608 
mE OS 8534 
411, 434, 551 
- 629 
408, 620, 621, 878 
' 310, 328, 559, 597 
_ 314, 807, 811, 855, 950 
_ 855, 1153 


477, 550, 728, 762, 777, 794, 


1107, 1213 
339, 772 


oe oe Oe eA Mee Sle Reet ee ee 


1327 


eR CS tree he nT EDO S 
12813 att. 990 
eso ee 231, 319, 358, 580, 621, 908, 
1036, 1039, 1040, 1081 

es ~ 695, 1036, 1084, 1186 
12216 Wee LUZ, Lele 
12:18 224, 411, 484, 736, 739, 916, 
1131, 1177 

12:20 235, 906 
ieee | wese, 000 
1225 235, 431, 835, 859 bis, 
'862 ter, 1099 

lord adele 608, 1107 bis 
1322 566, 816, 1149 bis 
LB POR: 682 
133 30% dBA SO2 
Phew . . 440, 686 
13:5 214, 258, 269, 480, 
828, 885 

13:6 639 
ig By mye: 
13:8 279, 433 
13:9 eng 734, 761 
Lait) ay: _ 264, 330, 463, 464 ter, 
“791, 795, 874, 917, 942, 1157, 

1162, 1193 

Hing att 639, 800 
jee B. 2s 
ISsis 620, 766 
(PI BB ac 5 oh ee 836 
LOS) wae ee ee fake oa 234 
1 Rape AT AS PES ees ict ts Pa 1107 
Fs faa We =o he 611 
13218 Rtas his: 219, 528 
13:20 : a250Det 
18322 ; _ 458, 482, 501, 780, 
1114, 1136 

13:24 ; 94, 621 
en 720, 736, 738, 916, 996, 1036 
1or26 24. 497 
Lo2h ses ae OOSS508 
13328) hoe eee 1085, 1086, 1129 
13°31 : A 429, 602, 728 
13°32 ‘ 423, 474, 483, 1035, 1107 
as : 861, hiia 
13:34 392 
LSS3C Wie acc ea tcce fey ened 560 
15236 fae. centers 1153 
ey , 706 
13:39 af 566, 720, (oA 
13240 a eee. 409, 430, 933, 996 
13:41 . . 597, 849; 1019 
13:42 313, 314, 594, 645 
LD pastes or 990 
1 S24 5a Ssh ee see Pa 2G E 
T3240 Fees he Rates oe 4s 810, 965 


3) 
Acts 
13°47 tegen eee 221, 482 
ESO At. ss ore sas ete mers 582 
13%50 Bele ei es ee . 578, 788 bis 
J pe Laer ero ee Lod 
Ta are? Boe 197, 502, 710, 789, 1000 
1s ae ee ne OO a ee 649, 833 
A ee a ee Bn id ems Rae #10)! bas 
1475 9ee . 424, 628, 789, 1052 
14° GIrls arg) As, 
Irae = ae at _ 257, 521, 523, 1096 
1429 Bie 1042 bis, 1065, 1066, 1076 
14:10: . 423, 549, 656, 659, 739, 838 
14S Re eee Sas ee OOS 
14:11-13 428 
1: 59 Pe Apis) my Re GN 258 
14213 aes a ee 621, 1107 
14: 145 &. oe aly 
1421582 483, 736 bis, 738, 789, 1036 
4s] GA: Wier’ apa 
14 ee 204, 210, 300, 1129, 1154 
14:18 . . 606, 800, 1061, 1094, 1102 
14319 tae * 319, 489, 859, 908, 1030, 
1039, 1040, 1081, 1216 
[422 1 eee iy eae 
14:21 foe hese 
14232 524, 562, 892, 1035, 1036, 
1047, 1113 
143 23. ee nena eee ae 905 
14: 26 ei, dew see he eee 905 
TAD epee oe. Be 611 
ae. aes Mets IE Le) o =) 2s 224, 1205 
Lijit es et eee 530, 780 
Bea FS Ge 760 
1572 eee 515, 788, 1084, 1205 
1d 3 sole. at <iteaerlc' yes 
15:3, 30 . . 696, 1191 
LE Se: ey deat ak oe 788, 818 
19:45:20 “3b a eae eee 789 
153650), ope eee mu . 188 
LOST Use nis ee ae ee 475, 1035, 1041 
1028 fee ae ea oe Jae GL 
15:8, 9 Rae BINGE 
15:9 _ 219, 282, 580, 645, 750, 861 
15410 Shee eee ee agp 1089 
EOS pen ae ae 487, 531, 718 
LL 2 ree tens pee eg ee ee at! 
LO 713s. a ee 834, 857, 1074 
15 414: ae ea ee 968, 1045 
153:15 7 Pa, ee ee 529 
15716.) Seer oe oe 1219 
15:1 7 eee 683, 713, 723, 986 
15310 aes pound be 
15 20 eee ate 788, 1068, 1078, 
1080, 1082 
Los ee . 173, 214, 628, 808, 
1039, 1127 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


D2 0 a ee A 413, 439, 655 
22220 ae o> ee vs. 1084 
23 . 582, 649, 696, 787, 944, 
1093, 1205 

DAA 6. ec ee 897 
DA~26. o> 5's soca nee 432 
25 1039 
ae mr 686, 891, 991, 1128-9 
:28 ; 186, 157; 518, 646, 1059, 
1061, 1078, 1085, 1187 

29 . 212, 299, 318, 330, 360, 364, 
808, 908, 962, 1121, 1160, 1169 

oe . . . 349, 686 fer 
35 tier 477, 655 
86 fe eae 546, 714, 1149 
ye AN; help PeOOO 
Bit , 857, 884, 1081 
3S) Fan eee eee oe ee 
39 1000, 1091 
ALS tg Oe eee 788 
Lie 863 
2 566 
25) 304, 428, 801, 887, 
1029, 1035 

ae waoll AiG eo02; 788, 1214 
5 ee a 524 bis 
:6 _ 788, 862 bis, 863, 1110, 1113 
Sa eae oe ee 781, 1156 
2 i CERES UN APES ey ey 863 
oa ath are 5. * ye 561, 581 
LO ea. Ree i ee ee 
1]. . 159,.244,.257;-367,; 65271202 
12 . 263, 412, 497, 728, 
729 bis, 954: 

13. 0P. G¥e = eee ae 792, 1039 
14 . 498, 1036 
15 . 537, 1009 
16 728, 810, 1048, 1128 
16 fi S82 eee eee 442 
13 See Lee 578, 884 
21 < Peo 10390381 O54. 
22 ; 212, 609, 618, 628, 883 
re 861, 863 
24 278, 710 
DH ie Aven ag ee iar DOM. 00S 
26 ee 202n0ls O07. 1213 
27 “431, 909, 1040, 1081, 1213 
28 299, 484, 688 
30 745 30 ee eee 880, 924 
ol Sale AL 
33 ; "518, 576 bis, 771 
34 el 70: 453, 530, 1122 
36 ; oO) God are Lo 
on : 339, 530, 653, 659, 686 
1120, 1187, 1190, 1213 

395 3° [ues eee 578 


— 


‘INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


(L023 3 a i ai NE a 1126 
teem es 40815377576 
iy ge eam 442, 1034 bis, 1035 
17:4 . 224, 669, 1163 
yeas eee a Me icstcs: 
We6 ee es 572.1035 11137. 1172 
17:6, 8 Lae 258 
ey: 639 
ELYs Sgn tate <7 Sea 763 
17:10 313, 728, 760 
17:10, 15 14 
17:11 487, 890 
17:12 ahs! 
17:13 760 
17:14 643 
17:15 . . 279, 313, 316 bis, 339, 488, 
669, 760, 968, 974 

17:16 . . 169, 224, 408, 613, 760, 
885, 1041, 1123, 1131, 1204 

17:16-34 . mee 2 
17:18 . 201, 529, 695, 787, 788, 890, 
938, 940, 1021, 1025, 1031, 

1044, 1082, 1085 

Leg Omcem ete. 1877701 785..879 
17:20 . 559, 736, 742, 878 
17:21 749, 751, 773, 1087 
17:22 187, 399, 464, 665 
17:23 362, 561 
17:25 Reis 
17:26 . . . 772, 868, 1113 
17:27 . . 244, 327, 508, 939, 1021, 
1027, 1030, 1044, 1045, 1086, 

1129 bis, 1138 bis, 1139, 

1140, 1148, 1149, 1190 ter 

17:28 .195, 422, 608, 694, 1200, 1215 
17:29 ae 920 
17:30 . . . . 487, 629, 1084, 1152 
17:31 . 550, 589, 590, 716, 860, 963 
17:32 333 
tie e187 
18:2 236, 459, 487, 530, 909, 910 bis, 
1040, 1047, 1049, 1071, 1116 

18:3 367, 471, 486, 1039, 1215 
io aes, i885 
18:5. . . . . . 529, 628, 808, 1036 
1326 hae ke ae . 810, 1202 
18:7 263, 529 
a ete ha iee4 
18:9 . . . 583, 792, 890, 1173 bis 
EY oe 477, 1002, 1090 
tool Tee ae hee are 6 6725833 
io oe agree 6 269,,006°510 
iV OE tetrad Rea G16 
18:14 . . 368, 877, 1014, 1015 bis, 
1153, 1193 

18:15 . 110, 608, 686 bis, 766, 1038 


1329 


18:17 256, 508, 539 
18:18 . 342, 1127 
18:20 iish 
18:22 pias 
18:23 788, 891, 892, 1113, 1136 
18:24 _.. 172, 189 bis 
18:25 “485, 524, 619, 816 
18:26 .. 665 
18:27 _ . 818, 1036 
18:28 _ 811, 529, 582, 1036 
19:1 189, 233, 260 
19:1f eat 047 
19:2 207, 234, 861, 916, 1024, 
1045, 1113, 1179, 1186 

19:3 _. 739, 1179 
19:4 399, 416, 993 
19:7 283 n., 773 
19:8 431, 811 
19:9 PATS S07 
19:11 253, 1138, 1139 
19:11, 23f P1205 
ye). he 189, 192 
Chaeh 475, 484, 617, 759, 762, 791 
19:14 ey 226, 2550742 
19:15 |, . 736, 762, 777, 791 
19:16 » 252, 559, 8 560, 607, 745 bis 
19:17 peu cats 
19:19 ; OV ERESES 
19:21 _ 310, 476, 688, 787, 1074 
19:22 586, 593, 800 
19:23 Hops 
19:24 224, 810 
19:25 . . . 620, 710 
19:26 . 295, 494, 643, 697, 701, 1035, 
1166, 1187 

19:27 . 219, 253, 257, 410, 518, 750, 
1162 bis 

102289 . 395 
19:28, 34 . 1202 
19:29. . mer510 
19:30 423, 885 
19:31 . Peoneenar 
19:32 . 301, 425, 641, 665, 692, 747, 
898, 1029, 1176 

19:33 SAS 515 
19:34. . . . 486, 439, 1130, 1200 
19:35 . 68, 253, 260, 653, 726, 892, 
1041, 1123, 1159, 1190 

19:36 212, 375 bis, 881, 909, 
1119 bis, 1121, 1130 

19:37 253 bis, 257, 410 
19:38 . 541 
19:38 f. . . 1153 
19:39 . . . . 545, 618, 1009, 1154 
19:40 . .229, 511, 547, 815-16, 820 
20:1 ; _ 1074 


1330 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Acts : 
:3 . 497, 1002, 1060, 1068, 1076 


OON GH Cr or 


ay (aol RT 
‘A ._. 173, 205, 235 ter, 236, 501, 
528, 529, 639, 813 

471 

, 23 475 

; . . 657 
313, 529, 653, 672, 792 

Ser OGS 

| | | 935, 579, 580, 835, 891 
ies en eee 
12 281163 
13 235, 1140 
14 -, 199 
:15 . 199, 214, 221, 505, 573, 638, 


1653, 748, 1202 


:16 . 470, 472, 613, 905, 986, 1021, 


1030, 1058, 1085 


:18 . 299, 312, 334, 561, 566, 717, 


721, 773, 793, 1032 


20. Periyar 
20, 27 1061, 1102, 1171, 

1174, 1205 
22 374, 523, 765, 878, 1118, 

1172, 1213 
23 . . 262, 646 
24 480, 499, 811, 967, 987, 

990, 1089 
26 . 515, 576, 765, 1035 
27 _. 807, 1089 
28 ~ 480, 510, 589, 810, 1032 
See ys I 6871680 
ih Mee eb behets. EPA 
33 282, 474, 508 
34 STRAT 
35 573, 663, 666, 679, 

708, 1034 
37  Meb15 
Bohn fen hee “659, 670, 716, 905 
-1 . 183, 235, 260, 263, 522, 547, 


653, 836, 1038, 1202 


=O SU eee ae ek ee 
23 4a de 200 ARB ERARe SI 

883, 1115 
4 . . 1046 
BES CW cca. 548, 643 
6) TERE ee 
7: Mee 205, 582 
18 0A Saeki Aeemere Omar 
ii 289, 690 
:12 . 1065, 1066, 1068, 1085, 1088 
:13. ... . 598, 657, 1077, 1121, 

1162, 1181 
14. _ . , 862, 863, 1214 
:16 . 393, 502, 515, 519, 599, 614, 


719, 721, 891, 955, 989, 1202 


482, 521, 524, 773, 950, 
1034, 1046, 1082, 1084 
310, 337, 356 

mee isat ati oe 

201, 324, 342, 412, 720, 
809, 816, 984 
476, 483 
318,814. 822 

_ 339, 1213, 1220 
300, 526, 769, 783, 844, 
894, 897, 901, 1107 
323, 362, 375, 883, 905, 906 
_.. 714, 1179 

213, 256, 774, 879, 1033, 
1132, 1202 

. . 835, 1126, 1127 
251, 375, 736, 884, 938, 
1031, 1044 bis 

_ 692, 747, 884 

_. . . 892, 1043, 1058 
. 404, 407, 412, 655, 1104. 
_ . 915, 916, 1175 
"769, 917, 1157, 1176 

_ 1151, 1163, 1205 
104, 770 

Pik 07; 

28 bis, 29, 104, 542, 
653, 1029 

. 495, 497, 615, 1105 
2a AAEORS 

299, 374, 548, 877, 
1118, 1128 

536, 539, 560, 617, 620, 
792, 1085 

. 506, 1042 

cna BOGS 

449, 472, 506 

716 bis, 1084 

. 580, 1159 

. 763, 1033 

Pgs eee SORES 
329, 332, 808 bis, 1110 
. 1039, 1085, 1132 


.. 469, 593 
_ 393, 886, 920, 1014 
e705 
308, 718, 726, 861, 
863, 1084 

| 258, 533, 916, 1181 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


29 op tee 1029 5103351034 

730 . 615, 766, 815, 820, 1046 
fo oe Oo 40,616,,678; 
120151216 

5 ee woe 473 
ap Oe 234, 422, 473, 484, 874, 
1041, 1200 

vee .hlees |e pene 511, 791 
afi) eer, eee Ls nde athe y's 
8 ! "745, 1094, 1189 
79 582, 1023, 1203 
a1 : 564, 995, 1214 
TE on eee 221, 593 

12 . 802, 1040, 1046, 1048 

13 , : 666, 802 

14 » « '473, 531,689 

LS 490, 546, 659, 978, 1061, 
1068, 1075, 1077, 

1082, 1141 

17 ek 
hee 18, 19 ase LUST 

18 . 696, 1151 

19 ess ae 736, 738 

:20 547, 968, 1002 1066, 
1068, 1141 

NE , 474, 517, 579, 976 
cee eee 235, 442, 1047, 1113 
222, 20,00 Jp pt WE 
3a ae 168, 239, 742, 793, 1047 
23:4, > 2-442 
24 1179, 1204 
26 PSie a i 944, 1093 
27 339, 431, 433, 778, 
1035, 1099 

Bats 243 
29 he dl: 

30 a 330, 594, 603, 846, 877, 

908, 1040, 1049, 1082, 1130 

fo : eral tt) | 
34 ; 578, 740, 1035 

ssa Dane 434, 861, 863 

Wer gas Oe rss. wu eh a 2 OOF 
2 aPcoO 

* ; 300, 530 

SPs de ae eee teeta BIBT 

ede fers eS ee DOG 400, VL 
Don Bad So oe Aa 

RE Date ey - 319, 705, 1084: 

BI Oe pia _ 597, 619, 811, 892, 1041, 
1103, 121551123 

Il 666, 714, 717, 877, 978, 

1111, 1118 

LIPLe . 374, 991, 1128 

12 f 1165, 1189 

Lowe oe Noe RE Aw 

NA ARs gibi oe Se hey 699, 703 


a2 
Pare 


HOWDNAMNANKRWHED 


co) ea 
715, 20. 


m N 


No Oo 
[a a 


— 


1331 


877, 1039, 1076, 1082, 1179 
et te 686,-7005705 

. 535, 581, 594, 877, 1118 

. . 578, 612, 1123 

235, 886, 920, 1014, 

1021, 1022 

Bess 
_ 348, 363, 701, 702 bis, 716 
235, 580, 619, 665, 1128 ter 
Pee Tih 

_ 540, 828, 861, 863, 1171 
692 


_ 470, 487, 547, 551, 800, 1109 


eer L2G 

284, 529, 546, 637, 638, 
665, 884, 1139 bis 
221,265, 267 bis, 1123 
Bead abet Ut] 9 

. . 995, 1046 

‘586, 593, 1036, 1038 
234, 534 

742 

233 

, - 666 

153, ‘477, 619, 655 

ae 1028 

oe 265, 603, 878 
277, 362, 375, 482, 484, 603, 
665, 881, 895, 1116 

472, 511, 720, 765, 809, 881, 
893, 896, 1059, 1066, 1078 
+. 4297316 

412, 580, 812, 861, 862, 863, 
877, 979, 1113, 1128 

197, 234, 542, 608 

. 1048 

-, 1048 

787 

, ae a ie 
792, 939, 970, 977, 1030, 
1035, 1048, 1091 

: . 603 

it 619, 718 bis, 719 

~ 472, 890, 940, 1021, 

1031, 1045 

. . 580, 976, 1039 

394, 886, 919, 923 

0% 254, 405, 424, 608 

. 233, 404, 412, 530, 1036, 
1047, 1085, 1173 

. « » 908,-1036, 1040 
742, 743, 760, 875, 879, 
906 bis, 1080, 1045 

ee 1059 

+ » 867; 8385 

690, 811, 895 


1332 


Acts 


£3. nF F489 MOO NOUSALICU 
Ate ai SIO TTS aT Sonos mL AED 
5.4) ae emo iy ets 
Fe |, 280 bis, 670 
7 , 463, 465, 522, 550, 718, 763, 
877, 1082, 1213 

eee _. 430, 614, 1024 
9 _ , 231, 688, 1038, 1039, 1049 
1085 bis 

10.6 aoe. eat ee 714, 1113 
10214% Site eee eee 432 
11 S's: eee 885 
(Ogee Re ee 714, 780 
Se ey 550, 633, 775, 864 
140i; ais aes BRM 100 GOR M04S 
:16 . 427, 700, 720, 724, 819, 871, 
1078 

16-18)2 ee Eby 
17 dete oe ae 559, 713 
S18 ey rates, 566, 1088 
S10 ea. a |, 272, 587, 962 
20... .. 585, 1047, 1135, 1179 
Ol ae (eas 
:22 . . . 520, 640 bis, 720, 1138, 
1139, 1179 

:23 . . .372 bis, 656, 1024, 1097 
:24 . . . 418, 420, 656, 661, 683, 
774, 789 

D5 ac ae he Meare ey) oR 
:26 . . . 219,323, 750, 903, 1094, 
1162 bis, 1165 

Oy RENN Hie aoe 538, 915 
DS ei S192" 653 4s80mL Ure 
1081, 1084 

:29 . 291, 566, 646, 653, 660, 710, 


732, 854, 886, 919, 923, 938, 
1021, 1025, 1162, 1182 


230) 4 dee tee OLA ZU NBO moe 
7:32 . . . 886, 887, 906, 909, 920, 
1014, 1015, 1016, 1080, 1081 

21 9522286;-91154595 743 81002; 
1060, 1068 

SL ficarh eee ee ee a 
PP MEAS er Ae ty 210, 223, 469 
Oi jseee ale os ae RO 2 OU ene 
3) Tae es ee 476 
tA Cee a 2 ee 1039 
tAT.& “Se aeeioaly ck ae 469 
74, 7 634 
bi 212, 257, 263, 476, 563, 608, 187 
°6 69ers eee 235, 585 
tf eee Le 
3 oe 186, 214, 538, ‘B68, 613, 640 
“At Rag rae 261, 884, 909, 1071, 1081 
LO gee ae 162, 438, 877, 1036 bis, 


1047, 1082 


oie 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


12 . 244, 608, 792, 1021, 1024, 
1027, 1030, 1044, 1045 

LOO ea . % 12a 
ahy faa 235, 634, 665, 909, 1060 
LD Le ens Stee eo 
tee LOG; 606, 702 799, 834, 1163 
= 1 PLB bo oh P ae LUD 
S10 Sse pia - 312, Siz, 1214 
Sate A 263, 477, 618, 634, 834 
21 / tea eee 235, 314, 633, 995 
£1¢526) 29 a, ee 
LS 25) Agee op ee 885 
1 OeGy ae ee y 212, 886 
2() Soe 224, 618, 765, 1061, 1076, 
1179 bis, 1205 

ART ARC RA Ay _ 464, 886, 920, 1014, 
TIS TSL SZ 

OD Rees iat he ee EO SO Pe 
[20 28h 9.32. cn BO eee 
OAS AS 11 ne eee cone 2 Ous 
Sint) hlad ae. eet a eee “487, 718, 758 
s24. = . 184, 284,550, 5819648; 
775, 1036 

Ul fOO)s 1 ee ee nnn 
20 ee ste we 2ols S00 
eo ae 244, 266, 886, 919, 995, 1173 
230 .. . . 256, 476, 966, 1141 
Ome: 219, 244, 282, 471, 751, 877, 
1102, 1121, 1173 

SAEs Ue lat ag 451, 517, 570, 623 
SOD. cE te. 3 te. ee ene Sy slivs 
DOLRer cH <i. Wepre 508, 519 
37 Vis 
tet, bar leet hams , 508, ‘810, 818 
COD) Osu ou Sere 940, 1021, 1031 
P4040 5, 2 elf, 1200, 509 mbes 
653, 1140 

741 . 145, 232, 256, 264, 580, 885 
A a . .. 432, 828, 987 
7343. 212, 313, 518, 797, 800, 835 
SAL es n> ke OU, 004m nue 
2 . 399, 1205 
3 : CE OU 
AA) eae 317, 365, 597 bis, 697 
02. eee Ue 233, 318, 1036 
F/ 516, 617, 620 
Per Rng ht ARS ay, 
res i Eraieay per ey Marita BA SET tails: 
-11=15: .4 fae Re ers) 
ol aoe ey cae 189, "200, 298, 590, 657 
ad Bee ete | J, Ol ae 
A Es tae ne reg ree saree EE wise OD 
: | Giese heres re LO een 
* | (ha ee 789, 1107, 1108, 1132, 
1138, 1139 

ro be Pear ame er a, 8 ate | Cn liaise 


a i i 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


28:20 . 316, 485, 562, 613, 815, 816 
28:21 428, 752, 11389, 1164 
1 aaa er eu 1 
28°23 : 548, 792, 892, 1116 
28:26 Bee 355 2000 
25220 204, 819, 988 
28:30 774, 833 
Romans 
ibd b 5 wen ees re Fe 263, 496, 793 
1:1-7 432 
Le eee a ee ae Fes A WP 
Lasy. Be Rete a aaa “407, 500, 678 
LISLE 1 ee ll aN pe 0042516 
liad : 396, 504, 576 
1:8 2 33,629, 1152 
eae ®: 3 . . . 589, 1032 
1A tee: 603, 1024, 1027, 1030, 1090, 
1145, 1147, 1149 
yA aE . . 983,991, 1060, 1071 
Wel2 . 244, 682, 700, 705, 1059 
1-13 242, 547, 968, 1031, 1181, 
11821183 
14 Moats (O4n117 9 
Leth 221, 486, 608, 654, 
687, 766 
ten] eeeeene Oe ores Mar 2afiglilo2 
1:17 499, 514, 599, 781 
1 Ee as ee Ce 2 4139,,606 
be19 . . 654, 763, 964 
12720 272, 606, 654, 763, 787, 1002, 
1038, 1072, 1090, 1182 1201 
1 A . 1188 
12ile3Z rari 20 
| EP Ae oe _ 319, 457, 489, 891, 
1038, 1084 
1223 . Lee ba 
Le 24. : - 585, 996, 1002, 1067, 
1076, 1087 
125 396, 561, 585, 616 
teeono : ae ee OU) 
1:26 : 496, 561, ack 1179 
Eye 5 ie ane 
T2238. - 968, 1041, 1086, 1087, 1138 
1: 28-30 ; Peel LOD 
1:29 ; 510, 533, 794, 1201 bis 
1:29-31 ee cee S40 ¢ 
1:30 ; 939, 629, 794, 1201 
L300 f eee OL 
teal 372 , 1097, 1201 
1232 a 710, 1166 
AN Ne - 402, 463, 464, rear 748, 978, 
1107, 1193 
23 402, 459, 464, 678 bis, 699 
FEISTY. Oat fae. Crem Pall AY, 


— 1333 


2:4 . . 654, 763, 880, 1035 
Dhee® 497 
226 714 
2:6 ff fee dat 
Oi . 500, 1200 
CE ON et oe ety ie, 4 . 100, 599 
2: O Rear oul” de, . 549, 757, 1179 
Ze LO aL LOG 
PACA le See Ae a3), 
Beis . . 424,757, 796 
2:14 537, 704, 778, 796, 972 
2205 nee) 011, O458725 
2:16 590, falenyeAar, 763, 971, 
1097 bis 
ek 341, 678, 796 
2:18 Sear, 4. 
2:19 “489, ‘801, 1038, 1082 
2: 21-23 OES 
22a 712,796 
22D . 796, 1019 
2:26 _ 481, 683, 819, 1019 
IAA Mee C18, (82, 
1022, 1129 
2225)" ae 590, 764, 962 
Dee tae ; note ee LOO 
aaron : 395, 408, 763, 1198 
ae ey 29 139 
3: 2ene 8 413, 485, 659 bis, 816, 1152 
Deo ; 395, 739, 1190 
3:4 ee . 193, 986 
3:4, 6, 31 art OR ae, 
a20 ge 315, 761, 876, 1108, 1199 
3:6 965 bis, 1022, 1025 
SY dake : 678, 739, 1145 
Oe tts Jee 2438 
Stas 234, 319, 678, 763, 1028, 1038, 
1036, 1039, 1047, 1049 
3°90 eae 391, 419, 423, 621, 812, 
816, 1036 
3:10 a 751, 1164 
Bd AL 5, 764, 1106, 1216 
3:12 or 638, 643, 751 
3:13 : 336, 343, 635, 1213 
aya ie . 1062, 1080, 1220 
3:18 500, 639 
3:19 teal 
3:20 752, 962 
B21 Lvayy tell 
S222 - a 500, 567, 1184 
Ou2o : 476, 518, 814, 837, 847 
37246. See 175, 401, 779, 782 
Aa, | 154, 401, 480, 584, 589, 595, 
781, 784, 810 
SEU AE, Sar. 567, 600, 624, 783 
ed TI . 547, 599, 766, 781, 1071 
Olah «es & @ 495,002, 140,2780 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Rom. 
SAO) . 3801, 1025, 1027, 1154 
ek . 3807, 316 bis 
4-1 em ete hl Lae 
A-2 . 739, 1009 
sae 393 
4:3 fi. . . 458 
4:4 523, 609, (evi prist) 
2) 258, .274 
4:6 b 394, 722 
Ley: 367, 720, 724 
4:9 . . 394, 1202 
4:10 on ks ele 
4:11 “498, 780, 781, 782 
4:11 bis, 16, 18 eee 1066 
4:12 . 423, 521, 548 
4:12, 16 tat 1095, 1162 
4:13 400, 499, 796, 105 59, 1078, 1188 
4:14 ; 599, 766, 1023 
4:17 . 644, 717, 719, 1028 
4:18 rao 207, 224, 616 
4:19 207, 215, 299, 674, 
1114, 1146 
4:20 . . 3804, 5382, 594, 861 
a "724, 816, 964, 1035, 1114 
4:24 ROU 
bil 200, 583, 598, 823, 850, 859, 
889, 928, 931, 1192 
D2 ; 224, 900 bis 
pecan). . 394, 1187 
5:3-5 ae OU 
yee “499, “500, 583, 896 
O.Gree 567 
5:61: ee . 632 
Ot , 530, 652, 653, 763, 876 
5:38 . 315, 594, 784, 964, 1034 
BQ mat 518, 659 
5:10 meee 
DAL ses 304, 1134 bis 
DalZ 348, 434, 438, 604, 684, 173, 
833, 963 
5°13 : elpte Too 
5:14 605, 833, 860 
5:14, 16 348 
Ho15 774 
hoi 5 8. 1159 
5215,:19 660 
Helos vs 860 
tae he 304, 438, 458, 500, Tis: 
1190, 1202 
5:19 . 394, 969, 1201 
5:20 613, 722, 998 
(aS Hig 850, 876, 934 
ei gl BS Aye fo ey ARO 
Pepe 539, "728, 889, 960, 966 
G:2--15 940 
Gea 784 


lone) 


OO & 
O Ot He CW 


ae 


WO DD DD DD RR RO 
FKOOMNOUORRRWWNRERE OO 
ae | ets nee 
ee) 
sy) 
bo 


bo 
Or 


at SS Sa Sep OA Si SST ST oe |S PS I STINT NT DD DD DD DD |D | |DY.ADAAAADRVWAIAND 
NI Or WL 


Ets 
. . 


bo 
ee Ne 


ft 
ae She 


iS Maeve 

493, 496, 651, 850, 969 
Pg cris. 

496, 699, 990, 1002, 1067, 
1088 bis, 1128 

529, 872 

eee ioe 

“479, 541, 715 

: ee aah), 
481, 537, ‘BSS, 1038, 1181 
: Sell ee OSG 

7m, eee 1090, 1097, 1192 
. 689, 855, 950, 968, 1140 
if AY pa Oa BOLO 
, 796, 889 
635 

207 

: MOU 
, 720, 1150, 1154, 1188 
461, 719, 721, 792 

Pols 

221, 537, 650, 856 

ae rodlonece 

: 714, 721 bis, 722 

y 602, (33: 0132925 

. . 600, 529, 1019, 1190 
425, 515; 876, 996, 1002 bis, 
1067, 1087, 1090 

sea POY 

_ 499, 539, 1071 

312, 782 


793 


_ 721, 1091, 1095, 1162 bis, 1164 
768, 874, 915, 921, 940, 1014, 


1016, 1192 
402, 678 

. 341, 1160 

232, 398, 539, 680, 698, 782 
_. 1152 

"537, 550, 609, 940 n., 1102, 
1121 

. 158, 1152 


_ 234, 399, 416, 431, 705, 
890, 1058, 1059 


683 


_ 539, 778, 1035, 1041, 1190 


: Sa, coe 
295, 530, 551, 748, 780, 
796, 1109 

461 bis, 497, 518, 706, 1203 





4 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 1835 


Rom. 
(i REACT ak eee 287, 537, 540, 687,770, 9:4f. ie i 24 O4 
; 780 bis = 9:35 _ 486, 604, G08, 766, 795, 1108 
LL ea ey soa : 425,1190 9:6 . 698, 724, 782, 752, 1034 
Se ea : ra ht or “402, 780, 784, 788 9:7 ee ae Ase 
Si3 372, 419, 459, 491, 618, 654, 9:8 me OLS LIDS 
763, 780, 784, 978, 1096 93972. 394 
8:4 778 9:10 . . (394. 
Een oe tetas, lm e fo, OLL _ 425, 434, 656, (o2,11 fs: 
ery sae ON: un te en eA TOOLS 1188 
S217, ities 962) “Orlane 4s) 218, 277,394 663 
8:8 ee ae a LO MMERe Te bi? , « #160, 967 
8:9 234, 589, 698, 761, 150; (90, Os Lae ee 876, 917, 934, 940 
1008, 1154, 1160 eas? 0 he ei aa suse LAA 
SoU ree es ee? tee NL ISG: Ge1Gs se ye 2, . 342, 519 
Sul Pe in’, ei 584,1009 9:17 1680. 699, 705, 986 
eid Ae ra eas 341 bis, 537, 996, 1067, 9:18 342 
1076, 1087, 1095, 1162, 1192 Gel9. 2 "739, 812 
$2144 0 Sede 6 Ore, 533, 698, fa2, 9719, 20 423 
eee ere ree 29-465, 595. 9°20" , 402; 464, 545, 678 bis, 1148, 
Leet. ale Mos 529, 1035 1149, 1151 
Sl fees. Ba ON), 1023 bis D2 eae ee. O03, 695; 1062 
rad ety) SA 535, 626, 661, 777, 857, Siig wanes eee TAG, 654,760; 1129 
: 878, 1035, 1107, 1191 22 2A ee eg eum tt ts. 
8: 18-24 e191 0223 Ee eee eu ee EIS 
8:20 224, 298, 349, 550, MOOF1ISO. OI2Z4sl > eas ete tle 
8:21 rere foe 503, 770, 780, 0644 - 9225 Byes _ 438, 1138, 1139 bis, 
ogee se le ea elles ee G59, 172 1156, 1163 
eT De Wee 40.000, 007, 0o1 9:26 . . 1042 
S724) 4 448, 531, 533, 543, 742, 1105 9:27 166, 474, 632 
S eOun. 529, 560, 565 bis, 573, 629, 9:29 ; Pal esta 
722, 739, 766, 770, 967, 1046 9:50" Soy See : _ 782, 1184 
SLi cee meee 1046! OFA 1its5 2h) Meee eis Hee 3), OG 
eA Ue Poesia, (10%) - OSS TEL 
eat aA 480, 504, 528, 621, 841, 10:2 sf etre 
991, 1071 10:3 “781, 817, 818 
Sige eee ede, He Soe 837, 841 LOs5 Jods 1035 
8:31 ee eer Oo LO, > 10:6 . . 499, 606 
Se er eee oe ewe 1198. 10:8 394, 505, 649 
8:31-39 ne opens 1 ANIM CUR Tat ore he |e ale eA: 
$:02. 244, 291, 424, 509, 632, 724, LOL OS eee GUD O20) 
125, 773, 812, 960, 965, 1001, LOfL27 At ee eaten O14 Doze OST 
1148 ter 10:14+-> 25 2506; 6485706. bis? 720; 
8:33 . . . 504, 607, 652, 779, 1175 721 bis, 934 bes, 1106, 
MACS ba inas eee 316 1158, 1200 
ros: NO a eae 652, 765, 781, 878, 1118, LO214 fae Mk eer e, 
1119, 1199 LOS lame 302, 395, 7Al, 917, 967 bis, 
e315 AAs weer ted aA Lt akg 793, 1188 1032, 1193 
hae, Tee wear wee ere we A051 01 TOA Gea eee tee Oe Leto 
oct ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee O20 0> TOTS 4+, ‘425, 506, 652, 1148, 1151 
te hee Re MenUpe EL ise, LO718 19 2018; 1158, 1169, 1174, 1175 
ics Ce thi ee ae _ 427, 452-1189" 10:19". 2 3850; 657, 760, 1163, 1174 
8:39 d 499, 749, 779, Fieve, oe AEFADY eae 3 4 Ce sak 820 
ee 434, 444, 588, 886, 1035, 1132 LI : - 810, 917, 1168, 1175, 1191 
ese ey a 367, 575, 812, 886, 919, A Bd Co ee . . 940 
1038 bis, 1148 4k Dara les Rares | Etna _ 529, 739, 1168 
Ee wads AA ae ll pA S42 Dll pee Ebr ene eee nse atc, f as OS4 


/ 


1336 


Rom. 
Lit eee eae 254, 411, 739 
LisG 504 Ss Pee Pe elo 
LIS G22 ers eee eee 1025 
LL eet be sad Se ee ee 509 
LIES tera) o torton aamts outs 1061, 1076 
TSO O Str es cone cee 262 , 1061 bis 
Lee Tee ete oc ae ee . 998 bis 
Liet2 NOEL cc as: 
7 BS BS PS ae PR . 440, 602, 1151 
11:14 1017, 1024 
las linmeee fare eaten A411 
Jae bt: a OUD 
LPG era eo e 1023, 1181 
i aay ; 402, 418, 678, 1201 
PL Ley ae alee . eats 1158, 1204 
is 20 ‘ . 532, 1199 
ip Eval - 609, 1012 bis, 1160 
DA 2272 wes os make ee 441, 524, eee 
Los SAB 418, 24. 
LE 24 8 3 824°825,.0599, ol, 616 
t 133 Ree cet a ee ee: 550, 791 
1126 324, 559, 772 
WL? dam, ee eee locas 615, 704, 782 
Le) oe i epees Auer ROMAL epcm tite 
Lest 532, 685 
Lis 32 ee Oat geile 
11333 302, 395, 461, 463, 7AL, 795 
1032, 1200 
FDR sier Ge teas 
11eS6 : 567, 583, 595, 159, 7738 
123 1 ee es ee 583, 1205 
LD eee ee eee SN nae 
1222 ee a aetae: 530, 609, 891 
12:3. 2.5 ..062, 58326107020 5655. 
eget 1090, 1201 
12545 eee eee eee BOE 
L230 Sikes. 989 , 294, 450, 460, 

487, 568, 606, 673, 675, 692, 

766, 774 
12:6 . 489,442, 581, 946, 1134, 1135 
12°68 4. 2s oc eee eee 433 
1227792 ee ee ee eee 758 
122 324 came a a eee eee 561, 609 
1220" Aas eee ee 396, 1133 
1229-13 ee, eae eee . 439 
1239 t201 0. fears ee 946 
1210 l3m a eee 523 bis, 1133 
12°11]: tn oe 1172 
12212 is ea A ee eee 524 
12214 See eae : . 439, 1133 
12515 440, 944, 946, 1092, 
1106, 1201 
12316 ees eee 440 bis, 594, 614 
TARE. oe ee eee ; 440, 573 
12:18 486, 598, 611, 766 
122205 o> eee 342 bis, 484, 1019 


OUNSMRWWNeED 


ONAN RwWNeE 


pb 


ue! 


= ae 
—_ 


WwW bo 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


. 534, 763, 881 
. 444, 579, 1108 


eo (64 6 Se pare ei 


Pee: ae Te 

24: 1084, 1162, 1181 

: 705 bis, 941 

, 758, 1202 

; 748, 897, 898, 

1066, 1078, 1173 

288, 688, 748, 758, 766, 

874 

. 298, 640, 666, 705, 1059, 
1076, 1134, 1140, 1181 

ta. abe. Paes oh ea Cro L 
. 261, 792, 850, 1140 

695 bis, 1060 

, ae ees LU 
‘ 402, 539, BAL, 678, 694 
2 : 423, 738 
"290, 616, 692, 695 

539 
539 
201, 1010, 1019, 1027, 
1179, 1189 
699, 834 


© J)4 (es oe) 6 56s tee Fis 


e 6 Te 6 e) *e 


325, 767, 1176 
i), Bee iss tiee 
_ 268, 706, 721, 858, 978, 

1059, 1066 

706, 721 bis, 1175 

. 897, 898, 1019 

. 372, 1096 


563, 685 


939, 940 
es UUs 1181 
499, 632, 909, 1040, 

1049, 1060 

aad 686, 909 
298, 583, 665, 846 
474, 498, 587, 594 


ON 16 ee = eye eh Pe a ed, ve 


ho ee ee 


Shee 1164 
' . 644, 645, 909 
710, 748, 1162 bis 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Rom. 
Rael » we COA 
15:22 470, 487, 762, 765, 774, 884, 
996, 1061, 1067, 1089, 1094,1171 
Tye ae Se 152, 996, 1061, 1067, 1076 
Ly Oe ae ts fees 
15:24 324, 974 
1s es mee O91; L129 
15:26 367, 502, 528, 782 
LO (AB sc on, est ee. . 529, 1009 
15728 582 
15:29 589 
LeU atts e os Pe alee 688 
Losey lati ry eat: ee emai Ne Se 166, 783 
Loe 529 
Was iy Cea ee de, eee ee 396 
iar of Any: B15, 782 
16o2 ee ree 232, 505, 680, 687, 
fakes 721 
16:4 633, 728 
OGD), aoe aes Bate nr ire eras maim 85) 
UW ricceAlt, ye eegeye Sane aes ee ae wey 242) 
I One) ae a 488 
Goa) 172, 387, 622, 728 
16:8 Pare | C2, 
16:9 e250 
16:10 172, 255, 759, 783 
1G2 uh 258, 259, 274 
16413 : ws Ose 
16:14 : 172, 173, 235, 255 bis 
16215 Ae 173, (ae 
LOS ci 758, ‘778, 783, 800, 954 
16:18 Pune 
16:19 “487, 605, 813, 919 
16:20 aed) |b 
16:21 F 173, 504. 
16:23 Mis LaO UtS 
16525 230, 527, 609 
16°25 9) eR ly 
16:25-27 439 
16:26 pie 
16:27 437, 438, 776 

1 Corinthians 

Le} 459, 760 
ule 235 
1:4 765 
i Bees We ee ee Be Bee Ps Si ee ey 
ibe Ciena Noy bid Caceres 20 ose DOO 
1:8 792 
TOP a, ee ait 583, 782 
ee (eee, a eee eee. 203, 360, 419, 983, 
1046, 1186 
iby Be ; 265, 267, 502, 1035 
Keg B- 255, 401, 497, 699, 1153 
Leh 2 9164175 


a a rr 


Db WD WD DO DD FE EE EE i i i i i pp 


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNnNNNWD DD 


1337 


235, 953 

. . C44 

; ie nas: 255, 488 
; 418, 987 bis, 1162, 1163 
500, 503, 537, 780, 
827, 828 


. . ° . 


654, 663, 667, 763, 962 
1200 bis 

=. 962, 1163 

NS ee 

411, 757, 762 

409, 763 

ere. + 0048 LLOYD 

nr D2, 986, 987 ter 

. 949, 985, 1202 

677 


: 157, 566, 1206 

O00 

be eee 

418, 586, 589, 621, 784, 1107, 
1110, 1117 


825, 983 

504, 516, 654 

Pe i59 

159, 208 

_ 724 

_ . 158 bis 

ee ee 
158, 159, 267, 1186 bis 
743, 750 


SIPs _ 427, 560, 983, 1178 
590, 731, 732 bis, 1176 
233 

. . 1008 

_ 350, 582, 1008 

412, 728, 729, 960 

. 658, 1038 

474 


weCor. 
ia EM ta, Rates 497, 685, 949, 1000 
St ADD Sie Ae ere, 7: 793, 1189 
Seo ale eos abies Utes e LE Rn ae 1027 
Ariat eee sae re eee 481, 710, 968 
SL NN Cat er Art ee ig hee . . 992, 993 
A030 21. 458, 53/7, 670,090 7et isk 
yA Eat WA Gar gig | gy oh 319, 627, 688 
2 A Se wae cine LL D2iLANLOS 
4:6 . 203, "260, 325, 842,501,087 
607, 622, 630, 675, 721, 749, 
984, 987, 1202 bis 
OS earl tk eee vite 141 SL 
AP Sa siren ees 529, 818, 841, 923 bis, 
1004, 1148, 1149, 1199 
OT eae, mca otis 480, 481, 769, 788 
A LIAS, coe iran ile Seti hes oe ae 148, 191 
AST 2S LHR, Bor a eee ene Li21 
ALL Oe eke Chareaee Pelee ae ee 618 
cE ed grr eles a 845, 1138, 1139 
ALUN ee ae 233, 283, 582, 1018 
1187 
4:17 . 483, 712 bis, 724, 782, 
960, 989 
BL" og. SFo oe tees pepe eee 356, 871 
A 20ST i Melber ke cue er ae ey Po 1202 
4:21 .. . 394, 456, 534, 589, 737 
ies Weer ey he CORY OES TUITE SE toh 
DIDS. os Pee Coe 705, 1152 
RE: emia ey eS Dog Retaces oy ln) 628 
OS G8 Sie EON tite re ee 776 
Ds teak Oereer ee etek 219, 349, 399 
On 5 oe ee 498, 931, 955, 999 
Peet be age exe oP ANA 157; SLL 104 (ea eO 
529.1. .A oe 4 oie ee eee 423 
530) LLG Ae ee oe ae 317, 846 
5:10 . 272, 887, 920, 947, 963, 965, 
1014, 1026, 1162, 1163 
els 232, 1047, 1060, 1185 
Ed VA eRe te ke 547, 736, 944, 1202 
HLS Fic ee ens ee 689 
Cea Pilar ena eee 603, 811 
6:2 . . 2338, 504, 516, 587, 652, 670 
Goa toa cnr. pam 751, 1149, 1173 bis 
Gea . . . 4238, 698, 941 
Gan 232, "313, 409, 5061, 648, 718, 
726, 1001 
TE Tees | had = 1h Pee ee ae 460, 705 
Gs Of; = ake Ree oa AS 610 
6:65 2 ee. ae 487 
EY URS or 218, 293, 690, 808, 816 
6°30 Aye ae 5 ek a Be OARS 
G70 DN beeen co) tea 947, 1160, 1164 
GslOv ter rer. . . 1164, 1189 
Gall 411, 654, aOls 704, 807, 
809 
Fe bE er aL ol Cm a 1158 


NNN NN DD DD OD OH OD 


COC MMO MMMDMMON NINN NNINNNN NNN NNN NNN NNN 


1st. eee 703, 704 
[40:7 eee 582 
LBS pak) 860, 940 
16) #5724) are 233 
MMR tun! 471, 640 
10 tes <4 2, ee 497, 716 
BO. adi a a 511, 1149 bis 
1 619, 720, 721, 722 
ie a = 408 
5 _ 597, 751, 1010, 1023, 1025 
6 6091109 
7 545, 688, 691, 695, 923, 968, 
1181 
UEP aid as i on 2 218, 1012 
10 iphone 518, 794 
[Ds pak ad ere . 232, 680 
130s ites whee 440, 442, 724, 956 
14 ete Osi ate eee 587, 1026 
15 pd: pee ty aera 429, 948 
16-4 Sh Ae eae 264, 462 
17 site A ee 1025 
1S A ee ee 740 
18 fii ae ee ee 1198 
19) 7 eee 394, 654, 751 
20: “2 aa 716 
BIg ve Sn oats pe ae 430, 1023 
DD es. ne ene 795 
D3) A. ar ae 429 
Oe 0 es ae ete eae 1128, 1140 
26 320, 545, 1059, 1205 
O71, i. <! ae ee 432 
28 536, 710, 846, 923, 1020, 
1022, 1027 
D0 y S0eks. oe Oana 319, 487, 994 
VE Ne MEE PEs ue, 1127, 1140 
31 oP  476 4778683 
83 ot ie 3 fe 767 
S46! coe. Wk eee 523, 993 
85 e . 287, 504, 587 toes 
687, 689, 763, 1109 
36 Wee sits eee 489, 629, 1204 
BTR a lata 440, 549, 656, 700 
BS oe 218, 299 
39 . 291, 716, 720, 733, 897, 
1076, 1080, 1082 
3040". a) agin ee 1019 
1450) CNP ee ee 435 
Dian ae 1038 
Bk. yest a ee 698, 845 
de. te, ee 424 
5 793, 1025, 1026, 1181 
Gircg eee eee 440, 583, 724 
Ti ack uci See 500, 532, 743 
Of usa) abe Aon aan 537, 995 
10. were ion ae 778, 1072 
1b LAREN or np 317 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


1 Cor. 
ole ta wut wee z0s, 96251154 
Lae ees at Cores . 364, 587, 917, 1157 
HOI ig eae any 244, 537, 1012, 1148, 
1160, 1187 
OMNES Fctaiho'c ot haan 537, 703, 704 
SIS PSY Eee Aare” Aan eae Pees 
Soe tLe totals Me NSE Ne ¢ 1169, 1174 
Ue ig Vee eer a, LAs 918 
Ue) ee te a Ge Let 477, 480 
UALS fy eee 402, 1068, 1164, 1177 
ETAT eee erg . 478, 532, 770, 1147 
953). . . +208, 917 bis, 1158, 1174, 
‘bre 
SRE) SS I ee eee 4 ae nan 508, 541 
LEE DSR en rai ie 2d 
9:10 224, 996, 1061, 1067, 1076 
9:11 681, 1009, 1017, 1022 
Ae NS RO ae ae ey Ve 500, 681, 1187 
SEAS be ee ee a) ve 
Ls ER Wee cig as 521, 542, 623 
9:14 : a DIS 
9:15 . 439, 587, 704, 845, 984, 
996, 1058 
SDE OGL Rite la ees (es) 2 
Ul (ats ws ae OO, 0OU, O40; LLOO 
9:18 . . 477, 656, 759, 784, 984, 
; 992, 1078 
9:19 . 516, 540, 597, 660, 665, 
778, 1129 
Soe it ata oe CR EL or, bts a, “ea 539 
APSF Lil eA Ga ah oN hs oy ale PA ys 
9:19, 20, 22 843 
EAL, oe ; 239, 349, 504, 516, 1216 
My erate a eae Go Te 742, 773, 1199 
et Meee hee Va . . . 804, 843 
ye ea eee Las, 478, 707, 880, 1153 
Oe Omer ell Ae, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1154, 
1159, 1163 
OPO legs wet is ee OO 
9:27 201 244, 633, 988 
Ai) ime Pies Ear is | ts 419 
ERAS lS On Ee en a fase 
NEUSE oa” LAP as A Siac ke tl 776 
NBS e Cie Coo le ee eae 883 
HS) ae eae iy, PAN 339, ‘A18, 838 
LAC ap Bop se Die aa 418 
LOSS a Seti eT A 488, 500, 704 
AER neopets ans ae . 931, 1088 
ih WPyeed Uae oe ee eae oP . 408, 1185 
10:9 . 317,606, 1218 
10:10 ; P 189, 967 
TOLL 404, 626, 703, 707 
10:12 : 320, 430, 933, 1000 
ORL 598, 632, 996, 1060, 1067, 
1076, 1087 
UG ec ag le Pal ee aie ala arn ; 471, 1154 


1339 


LG . 429, 488, 718, 880 bis 
Paley 509, 773, 774, 962 
eterce 2, ye sae at 760, 783 
19 . 230, 234, 743, 1035, 1036 
PAD arr Siamese 3 886, 1214 
JAS SAY Tae ty ae ae 509, 791, 1183 
hd: NS ei Da be 325, 516, 923 
ALL aA, le ile ae Se 394, 1203 
al oh ae pineal ete 263 
ES Tt) ik Ee haa tae am 1018 
COME Rosas eo er: 688 bis, 694, 739 
30 . 402, 509, 580, 609, 632, 
673, (202721 
4 | Br 1189 
ete _ 479, 487, 504, 652, 660, 690 
SZ ets 210, 452,487, DOGS SSL, 
895, 1035 
DME cert. ae, 769, 781 
4 477, 606 
5 _ 842, 530 bes, G58) 687, 789 
6 342, 371, 809, 948, 1012, 
1059, 1218 
ee pn. eS Oe ee 2 793 
2) Err Pere oe te ies 565 
5 PEL enon eas :cn cs eae 584 
UMP a) A 1187 
12S eee See o00: 582, 773 
j Bs" . 041, 687, 689, '890, 1086 
Lies Pee ees ta x re 686 
1D Stee ee ee ae ps 574 
tl ore Oe ee, 218 bis, 277, 663 
718 . 174, 487, 550, 585, '803, 881, 
893, 1042, 1103, 1152 
20 Mesa ees 234, 562 
“20 ff ee Oras. sou 1152 
AA OGY ee 4 342, 695, 854, 880 
722 . . 918, 928, 934, 1072, 1090, 
1169, 1174 
:23 . 190, 312, 561, 579, 838, 1214 
25. Seam OMe te ce it 1049 
2A al Ge ene oa 234, 595, 685 
yy aa eek ae 612, 1074, 1181 
sD A 81th nO 74 
SO set. see Oe Ce rs a . 880, 975 
VoL ahh Ec eea ee: . 504, 787, 1188 
POE eo he eee eer Lo 
PAS WS dake ee ea Ne 880, 1023, 1129 
4039 tien priest eee 1201 
= OU) fart. ce ae eae eee 880 
> Li/dsice (ous erage cee na oe eee 1015 
Sheen tawne el 6, ook eee 1000 
Goll tet Waker rea 562 
34 5a 521, “791, 974 
pay _ 407, 412, 563, 922, ‘974, 1033 
Ps UTM se Ae ese 116, 1034 
Git 1 Lae: dow eae eee 476, 773 


1340 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1 Cor. 
MAE ae 696, 770 
12:8, 10 746, 749 
lar9ten . TA7 bis 
12:9-11 758 
120 : ieee OG 
12en 1 : 530, 580, 653, 1199 
ibe ne or ae LD 
12 oe ' 485, 757, 1189 
12:13, 28 793 
Lol 550 
12210 ft: . 616, 1164 
12:19 oe oe LU Leas 
12522 _ 663, 664, 777, 1107 
12e23 B Leese: 
13:26 Bo) 18 2) 
12227 é , 597, 792 
es 300, pemen 696, 1152 
12329 R oe Se Duet 
12331 ii 551, 777, 784 
(oo Liaes : 129, 358, 1105 
1oc 1-35 eee ess 
1332 F 219, 316 bis, 609, (OU, fos 
772 bis, 1090, 1163 
13:3 201, 324, 484, 504, 764, 876, 
984, 1216 
13:4 . 148 
13:4-7. L178 
13:4, 8 Fe he, OF hire) 
1337 ‘476, 477, 774 
13:8 oot 
13210 ey DU 
lov i Se een Sere OU ROLE 
3312 . 208, 564 bis, 582, 600, 625, 
649, 792, 827 
16513 281, 405, 668, 758 
14:1 : iy et Soe O03 
14:5 ; 548, 640, 1017, 1039, 1188 
14:6 Err we 483, 1188, 1189 
1497 ee 92338" 357, Ae oo le 
1109, 1140, 1155, 1188, 1189 bis 
142750 9) ee ee Pi te¥eAl 
14:7, 9, 16 876 
142 S25 nome SS 80h 
14:9 323, 353, 582, 889, 
1110, 1115 
14:10 392, 1021 
14:11 272, 588 
14:13 950, 955 
14° 15 ee 533, 874 
14:15, 19 261 
14:16 . ; 460, 691, 759, 765, 
965 bis, 1026, 1159 
14-47 :  e 1152, 1153 
14:19 ; 233, 661, 792, 1188 
14:20 ; Paras 
14:21 207, 591, 748 


22 . 458, 537 
23 | 917, 1157 
24 427 
20 546 
26 2 O26 
i. 170, 279, 470, 487, 550, 
571, 670, 791 

28 166 
29 Sen 
31 606, 608 
a) 497 
34 1220 
on : 792 
iff beet? 10388 
38 ots ey 948.1001 
39 765, 1059, 1061, 1094 
Lf 427, 724 
1-2 oO 
Ame be 425, 530, 640, 738, 1008, 
1011, 1018, 1169, 1188, 1205 

525, 590, 1034 bis, 1035 

ONY | "844, 894, 896, 1182 

. Oll, 548, 642, 666, 674, 848 

ae Peeve E 
233, O44, Ale 669, 757, 969, 

1025, 1154 

279, 658, 669, 713, 779, 962 

10 411, 654, 712, 713, 720, 
791, 1166 

eL aee hey od wer tay 
12 658, 820, 1008, 1034 bis, 1085 
io, 16. : . 1008 
13, LO-L fie alt ee eee Le 
:14, 17, 19 sd tall ek cat aE LLCS 
15 607, 1154 
Lot 817 
18 783 
19 204 
AL 395, 794 
92 587, 827 
22, 28 872 
Pas 767 
24 _ 312, 851, 1214 
26 . . 870 
2h 244, 395, 658, 1034, 1106 
28 oy: 357, 657, 809, 819 bis 
29 630, 632, 963 bis, 965 bis, 
1012, 1025, 1180 

29, 51 P2376 
30 tp a ee ALOS OEE 
SH 487, 685, 827, 1150 
32 539, 869, 931 
oO . 207, 422, 1200 
34 Me Karle 
ahs) : 740, 1022, 1184 
vole 264, 423, 463, 678 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


1 Cor. 
15:37 374, 878, 892, 1021, 1106, 
LEO StS 7, 1213 
15:39 . 687, 747, 749, 752 bis, 770, 
1158, 1163, 1187 
15:39, 41 . 147 bis, 748 
1a eee ie gh RN 748, 749 bis 
15:41 794 
15:42 [Oe Sy pe 
15:42 ff 429, 866 
15:48 f. el ss 
15:44 234 bis 
15:45 ; 669 
15:48 : 429, 710, 731 bis 
15:49 . 200, 349, 678 
15250 : : . 405, 699, 1036 
15°51 _ 334, LORRY bats 0 1212 
L552, : . yi site¥ f 
15:54 is 778 
15754 1. Fete Aaya} 
15:54-7 eer ee A(X) 
Atay e Laas 461, 1106, 1116 
Os we were Ye re D4: 619 
LG LVL eeten eee aes erred Ve LS) 7, 
LOcCeeet ee. 243, 325, 343, 672 
LG gene ee wae rte 4) 
Loca" om . . 408-9 
16:4 992, 996, 1059, 1061, 1066, 
1067, 1077 
pay. eee . . 484, 869, 882 
16:6 488, 490, 551, 722, 969, 
1109, 1121, 1127, 1130 
LO tiga ere. ee 
16:9 364, 800 
16:10 . 795, 993 
16301 244, 853, 856, 933, 943 
Oo cee: 235, 423, 619 
TGOsi2e19 cme on AOS 
16:15 . 173; 1034 
16:16 oes 233, 627 
T6217 ‘173, 205, 235, 288, 685 
16:18 685 
16:20 re O92 
1622150 lea ‘416, 496, 685 
1O222 oe 313, 939, 945, 1012, 1160 bis 

2 Corinthians 

Tei ee ie 
lee 396, "785, 945, 1133; 1182 
1:4 ae: 716, 772 bis 
1:6 393, 632, 685, 784, 787 
j Pay tea DOA. 
1:8 Bais) 632, 765, 996, 1061, 
1067, 1213 
1:9 325, 360, 498, 577, 687, 897, 


900, 908, 983, 1186 


bo bo 


te ee ee 


Nee eRe 


NONNMNNNNNWDND bo 


WWWWNNN bd bd 


WWWWWWwWWwWW 


WONnWwWWwWWwWwW Ww 


1341 


10 212, 710 
11 47s 
12 . . 297, 659 
13 _ 476, 643, 828, 1187 
15 662, 886, 919 
17 547,614, 765, 1150 bis, 
1157, 1176, 1177, 1190 

18 1034, 1202 
19 236, 424 
22 . 212 
23 _ 602, 678, 1033, 1034, 1035 
Aaa ot Pesio 
vive et es). 401-530 bes: 700. 
1059, 1078 

20 ve Ae 1014 e118 
:3 . . 686, 699, 705, 706, 720, 721, 
887, 920 

3 A45 . . 846 
Atak oe 423, 583, 598 
a ee ee -. 1008 
6 _ 411, 587, 782 
7 ee eee 508 "eS oR HOG 
Ga eer. 104900041045 
10 720, 956 
EL ees |. 474, 1156 
12 ae eee 364) 5127505, 1915 
13 235, 490, 532, 536, 539, 688, 
765, 900 bis, 901, 966, 1061, 

1091, 1112, 1171 

bem 474, 498 
14-7:16 407 
15 ee ys 
16 626, 696 
72 eee 644, 881 
ol gy Be eet 4307; 316 bis) 1175 
9 . 560, 778, 828, 1201 
of 17 
3 404, 658, 1034, 1085-6, 
1120, 1163, 1166 

Rema: sige wees e498 
(6 ee ete ee 3a7 4nde1218 
Th aye ee . 1204 
8-10 Srid36 
10f. . 1109 
Le ote ee SS 
MY be + 532 
13 318, 394, 883, 1003, 1075, 
1159, 1171, 1203 

14 244,729 
15 602 
15 f. 300 
15, 16 Sees: 971 
16 207, 392, 617, 618 
17 Pee '760 
18 486, 503, 530, 789, 810, 


820, 891, 967, 968, 1154 


1342 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


2 Cor. 
FS Be Sen tte Lee 
Aclee 316, 338, 771, 810 
AcStih : Ae 2o4n05 8 
4:4, 503, 779, 1094, 1171 
Be ON . 584, 1187 
avg a, 764, 962 
sb bs i . 497, 514 
LOS hi . 596, 1188 
4:8 f. 208 
4:8,9 , 2139 
ASTS re ee REE! 
4:16 "599 681, 750, 766 
471d 297, 551, 654, 763 
4:18 yaa Leelee 
5a 399, ‘418, 498, 762, 779, 882, 1019 
Gail: Pe ee OG. 015, ON 
BL meee te ee 44 DUS Ole 1027 
TEE Soave one >. 604, 722, 762, 963 
Bae dae ae Peete t ee fire feo; Old 
DLOLE. Wee eete eal O00, LLoD 
BG ii. 440 
STO LGR eREEBES GC tre cet ve Sein 
DES Le) eee De ete cl nae OZo 
5:10 Weer ito 
GOL. 500, ‘877, 880, 909 
ia Be 316, 439, 626, 792 
Ole . 894, 539, 845, 1203 
5:14 . 499, 699, 833, 1035 
5515 517, 539, 631, 173 
ate Or 654 
aris Base iF (' 
5:19 - 683, 964, 1033 
5 20 Magee ure. 1140, 1141 
Geeta tk hua ae oe 1 440) 
G2) SeSee Cees 440, 497, 507 
has Sea oe ne Noa aS) commer pee wl: 208 
G'S LEV be eee ee ae Caneel eee ee 
G24 Pen ee eee O10. oem 
G:4ar, Rae cit h| 
6:4-7 442 bis 
6:7 yaya Tai] 
6:9 440, 827 
6:9 f. 442, 1136, 1140 
Spa Barras eats sis SROZOMoLS 
OP yey Loe eee ee . 895 
Gulls eee te “486, 487 
6:14 330, 875 bis, 528 bis, 529, 
625, 890, 1051 
6:15 oa ve 
G3. Thi: det lasa. 
6:16 216, 528 
GAL7 ao 
6:18 458, 595 
fis 
fé 
rif 


Ser 
coe 415, 439 bis, 807, 900 bis, 1135 
i: Abie 


. 665, 1091 


CO CO 


co © 


WOM MMMM OHOONNINNI NI NINN 


WOWOMMWOMNMMAHMM © 


OOM MMH MMH OOH OH OH OHO OH © OO CO 


foveal 027 

_ . 962, 1008 

- , 599, 834, 1166 

427, 481, 523, 686, 700, 705, 
741, 1038, 1059, 1078, 1215 
225, 429, 641, $46, 1060, 
1073, 1080, 1091 

. . 663, 1205 

603, 632, 968 


“434, 609, 616 

vag : 1152, 1159 
: 968, 1003, 1072, 1090 
195, 598, 933, 994 

a REL DS 

. . 708, 834 bis 

221, 425, 523, 703, 1059, 
1158, 1162 

ee LOG 

305, 600, 996, 1061, 1067, 
1073 bis, 1076 

957, 967 

Nee aie bs" 

. 707, 986 

- 218, 660, 763, 774, 1202 

; : 396, 585 
7) 8078065 

562, 582, 770, 1134 ter 
Peet. 3h 

: cl ge eso 
: 431, 699, 1039, 1134, 1136 
488 ter, 530, 659, 664, 1041, 
1103, 1123 bis 

395, 441, 504, 632 

= 8946 

ae 782, 1059, 1066 
221, 261, 475, 548, 550 
375, 983 

988 

. 988 

a, Ree EL OG 

996, 1086, 1182 

. 295, 604, 1202 

; 394, 597, 1202 

. 1201 


_ 946, 1136 

. . 439 

323, 376, 435, 439, 536, 
565, 881 

781, 783 

562, 605 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


2 Cor. 

OS Eee oe Ace Lally 
1Ge1 2 .. 407, 424, 457, ‘474, 686, 688 
LUA 2 Ziv. 
10:1-11:6 a a 4UE 
1022 401, 407, 474, 481, 490 bis, 


: SS CURET 


519, 743, 1035, 1038, 1059, 1060, 
1083, 1123 

. 407, 792 bis 

537; 626 

500, 593 

407, 497 

699 

407 

ats LO 

407, ‘597, "959, 969, 1025, 
1040, 1091, 1095 


10... . . 233, 392, 434, 1206 
11 . . 291, 407, 678, 710 bis, 731 
12 . 315, 401, 529, 687, 1201 
12, 18 ; 2 e316 
Bye. _ . . 407,719, 1078 
14 _ , 477, 561, 629, 1159 
16 244, 207, 517, 547, 550, 

629 bis, 647 

Sent ee 8156 107 
:1 . 368, 486, 543, 886, 923 bis, 
1004, 1186 

“Lf i16 f, 23 oy 
_ 261, 349, 1088 

| 7) 782, 995 

| | 747, '748, 1151, 1186 

297, 395, 519, 548, 550, 629 

_ 129, 395, 1202 

es ee 21951165 
RpN 756778 

10 . 1034 
L57e. e180 
16 . . 208, 234, 743, 853 bis, 933, 
1023, 1025 

:19 f. . . 1199 
:20 . . 606, 802 
:21 434, 964, 1033, 1199 
:22 aE 108 
23 244, 293, 297, 450, 551, 

555, 558, 629 bis, 1109 

:23 ff 442 
:23, 27 eee 
94. | . . 615, 635 
£25 212, 833, 897 
:25 f. 708 
26 501 
27 Pes 258 
28 244, 537, 547, 646 
29 . 677 bis 
WD Shee ves 
SPA 255, 258, 498 


THB = RS IN . 1092, 1130, 1149 
) Pp . 408, 622, 778, 793, 1035, 
1041, 11038 
L2O oi ee et tt ae cee sot) ee L045 
1332, 4=. 349 
2S eee te a) 
124 en 212, 225 bis, 491, 881, 1139 
L2G mihe : or tee, OL OS ISO 
12 oy. 532, 536, 538, 629, 
; 960, 985 
12:9 . . 488, 541 bis, 602, 664, 670, 
879, 897, 923 
12:9, 15 279 
12310. e973 
12h “478, 920, 1003, 1014, 1160 
Let2 pies tet ep AOS TOTS 772, 1151 
b2e3 ; 218, 341, 479, 512, 1025, 
1199, 1216 
1G EF oe. 702, 1077 
Nees _ 218 bis, YT 596 
12:16 2h 392, 476, 856, 948 
eA 436, 474, 488, 718, 720, 
744, 893 bis, 896 
bea AS Bo ea hate aw 
12:19 sg ae 297, 644, 696, 879 
123:2003 267, 408, 534, 539, 731 bis, 
929, 995 ter, 1159, 1161, 1174 
13521 _ 198, 475, 621, 716, 910, 
995,/1117, 11738 
ISS ee eee 478, 674, 702 
1922.40 8. eee . 674, 1035 
ls 4a Pop hls Vesey 
TS Onee 751, 1011, 1025, 1045, 1169 
1328 . 394, 423, 656, 763, 886, 
919, 1162, 1173 f 
1329 vit wice cease: 698, 703 
13210 Bs. eee 699, 845 
19210 9 ai eee ce te Larus 
Galatians 
1 Ea 567, 582, 778, 795 
1:2 Pe EET EY 
1:4 239, 618, 629, 778 
Hed : ~ .. 408 
PEGs ; 748, 749, 879 bis, 965 
1: 6 i3e wee ee eRe 
Tez 764, 778, 785, 1011, 
1107, 1169 
i:8 313, 402, 406, 1010, 1026 
Letina: 4 peat ea OLOUODS 
107% . 483, 968 
LIOR ea eee : 922, 1015 
| 5) Dee a ary en ee Pe . 474 
Tee : 582, 1189 


1343 


bo 


Oo OO 


oo 


WNHNNNNNNYNNNNWD NN NNNNNNNRH HB He ee eee 


Wwwww ww 


WW WW OD 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


See Pl OOLOoN 
298, 620, 633, 779 
587 bis 


se. 6. Or) 6 eg OF 6 eee ue oy ae 


Oy Aw 6, ee. 16 


oe Sete 16” Cre | Oreste, Ce Pe 


376, 487, 530 
Rennie i Seer 2 eae 
<n er 1115, 1139, 1147 


542, 923, 988 ter, 995 
613, 802, 984 
367, 438 
ABA 

_ 438, 731, 732 bis, 743, 

751, 1115 

ae Oa set 
_ . 208, 485, 540, 546, 550, 
816, 820 

_ 394, 1000, 1085, 1202, 

1203 

. 703, 714, 719, 723, 933, 960 
608, 816, 1118 


Ty ot eee te cet ty 


Fe ik See a Ty at el ea 


0.9 7s a1078 
_ 834, 530, 533, 1000 bis, 1181 
_ 224, 626, 880, 1028, 1029 
ahh ae es . . 530, 598 
BS 752) 796, 1025, 1904 

. 232, 916 bis, 940, 1176 
316, 402, 480, 678 
Sache, VAR 402, 539, 796 
479, 632, 715, 779 
Aarons fergie i _ 21190 
349, 473, 608, 621, 723, 

792, 1193 

_ 579, 1060 

710 


598, 631, 720, 744, 773, 
1067, 1086, 1088, 1159 
eo0s 
317, 681 ter 
a IA AS aoc Aan cic 1049 
423, 1155, 1188 
Riis eee ae 342, 604, 712 
. 580, 672, 699, 1003, 

1072, 1090 

pee ae S23 
| 221, 349, 411, 647, 736, 

974, 975 

REAL Py: oe, 
. 777, 778, 940, 1015 


eo. fe. ea F4 ae: aren ite 


SAAR RR RR RR RR RW 09 09 


AN Se Seats 


CLENOLON NO OB BR 


SO? GH? GH? G2 OS? Or Or Or Or Or Or Or Ot Ot Or St Or Or 


23 857, 878, 978, 1074, 1075 
25 ee Ai i 
ZO te aes (msi dad a ae “318, 419, 558 
Le ey os ee Ge DLO 
4. rey 40) 
5 ae 960, 987 
6 . 26, 231, 465 
6 f. 441 
te mers 319) 
8 Bie a aye 
eee 879, 1111, 1199 
10 613, 810 
MF iets Brome rhc 5 995, 1169 
| Dr AL cs 482 
15 ; 841, 921, 922, 1014, 1048 
Li ehead aa othe irs 203, 325, 342, 984 
1 hee Mae Beets ee 8 186, 1162 
19 2 parece sak 713, 975 
20 Stee oe 368, 784, 886, 919, 
937, 1199 

24 . 704, 729 bis, 760, 881 
24 f. 750 
24,26. . me ype 
25 254, 398, 411, 530, 547, 
759, 766 

25s ive, Se eee. Ot ear eee 760 
26 ots 398, 547 
27 663, 892, 1138, 1139 
OU Me. poy ce ae . 942 
1S BS se ae 399, 482, “484, 816 
Owe came roe s >, 1062; 1076 
A Fak Kah bet _ 518 bis, 562, 880, 960 
Oe GE RA Aa Gh 583 
1) Sn" tp Age? 1 ee LOOSELY AL 
TO Mirnscace ss arte 540, 727, 746, 957 
LU aly vee ieee . . 1008 
1 a Be ne 809, 819, 873, 923, 
940, 1004 

13: 6: ui.) %, 2 eee 6059 692-1008 
14 . 288, 419, 688, 766, 773, 874 
LD Wee cia ee 933, 996 
16 Se <i 4 OOL 
a : 698, 850, 957, 994, 998 
LQ” Ath. Ns om ee 404, 729 
20 As rea 265, 267 
NBEO TB EM ce ct, 794 
Le wish), Chena 290, 771, 1035 
DO Me etnies th ar ea 428, 1178 
BAe ors) | MPlice deal Shc Re ee ee 767 
20) 606: Ks Pea ane ae 1009 
AO MS oly ne ere 541 
1 ee ee 2 439, 995, 1027, 1180 
3 » 411,:743, 751, 1127 res 
A Teg (5S aka eres ee ae ee 690 
De ca ae eee 692, 889 
‘Gh CS. 2a ee eee 486, 773 


fe 


WNHNNNNNNNNNNNNNRPRP RPK KE Ree 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


698 
eeueey 779 
SOF 1023, 1102, 1121, 1129, GLO 
TOs. B53; 670, 762, 763, 968, 974 
te. 292, 533, 734, 741 ter, 
846 bis, 917, 1045, 1177 
12 . 148, 201, 325, 532, 698, 
732, 880, 885, 985 
1h ee iia chore 401, 796, 854, 940, 
1003, 1170 
Ay gir Wires Simos gains hae! cg 234, 743 
Lk > Sigaiballaws (ee, on >. Pa eee 295, 495 
Ephesians 
2h ka as, on 582, 1107 
eS Re eee AeA . . 780, 991 
4 Ss ae 396, 7638, °781,.785 
Pal Aaa sak Gsemiey > 5 =; 433 
TE ee ee 297, 644 
+i poe 226, 583 
24 503, 716 
AN GS oe eee 
qeotm 716 
10 296, 766, 809 
12 ee 778, 1071 
13 396, 453, 533, 540 
ef: Sey pis 
15 608, 766, 782, 783 
ley Sloe ie 
16-18 fe LOS6 
Liars 309 bis, 326 bis, 327 ter, 398, 
933, 940, 983 bis, 994, 1214 
18 411, 909, 1072, 1087 
ROMNEOCR Herr aaa <6! ly oy 778 
WER os USES Pelt Seamer 716 
20, . . 408, 440 
21 413, 629, 647 
22 ce em O32 
OTN a Sete et 8 . 729, 1206 
eo 805-6 
eer ee ts, erp ss!) 
2 : i AUT 651 
3 : 419, 497, 5038, 530, 788 
4 478 bis, 482, 584, 833 
Re US fer oe ie ae, 529 
i Se Amp ne ee oat 533 
(caer A Sat Ge 262, 784 
a Uke See AL 582, 704, 705, 1182 
Dee ae eae pen 44. 
1 ORE Rade a9 605, 681, LD OG 
Loe ote Shine toy tal ete 774, Titi hats) 
A ot SAAS Rhee 398, 516, 658, 782 
Doeiiet shat ee aan feel bow ao 
oo mem pes Tr 480, 498, 769 bis 
14-18 433 


COWWWWWWWWNNWNWD bd 


Seg rey ee pcn 
— 
(oX) 


ain i 


PRA KERPRBRRWWWWWWWWWWWwWwWWwWwW Ww 


CAR RRR RRR RRR RRR 


| 
= . 
CO 


_ 280 bis, 283, 662, 1038, 1089 


1345 


ee.) 0) % 6.7 6 6 


589, 769, 783 
483, 547 

: e745 4769 
498, 560, 787, 1131 


(ee ee OA ome Fe Pe ge ek 


; 424, 1045, 1148 bis 

845 

Be eet: 

523, 787 

. 1089 

Sere LOLS 

278, 439, 474, 483, 516, 663, 
670 Nes 773 Be 
Ri P07 

654 

724 

eth SA. 

412, 728, 729, 784 
435 


. . . . 


Qticrat. .e” “ale 43) ‘ve. 


2 6 @ «Vs 


309, 327, 593, 766 
a ee 1086 
1087, 1090 
212 


OTe NT, ee i #S te) me 


J erie ae 

_ 517, 548, 629, 647 bis 
freee) 408%.660 
_. . . 478,716, 783, 1201 
440, 807 


Ser Oe ees eT ie. -¢. 0. 0. ve 
@)) 502 ¥ 0.0) ee 8 6) Je |e | 8. ace. 


a ere). le eee) sé) Ve Se 


ame 392, 479 
213; 298, 499, 665, 668, 
735, 766 

297, 550, 647, 806 
424, 694, 1152 
ous 624 
503, 773, 975 bis 


1) Cele ©¢ 2 be 


. . . . 


eye; Sat er x6.° "ee Jes 


_ . 405, 407, 412 
_ 412, 518, 523, 910, 1117 
_ 507, 545, 588, 1027, 1148 


ieee (ice) 

605, “854, 949, 1028, 1173 
mous LLG 

626, 753, 994. 

ey 8 O94 

. BAL, 753, 1173 


1346 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Eph. 
D APA Ces 8 714, 887, 920, 1138 
HID 319, 330, 360, 406, 713, 753 
786, 890 
Deer ee Sie et rere s 497, 651 
PETG LA Oy Ae We Peer lnemee tle pa 529 
FAC Or Mua Sate. ahr end te Vives Beas 530 
5:14 310, 328, 422, 948, 1199 
ECL MS te Gs Rische Sierue? aCe 2 1172 
POM ery hs noises Phe oar eae 440 
FoR NA By |” Pah Peale eae as 33, 854, 8390 
Ti WS Phe Oar oe ere he An, 690 
Seo L Vuela. ot, ee een he 500 
Des A s43 398; 1D 1946 
Deyn 399, 416, 768, 781, 782, 794 
Deca) watts he xo toed tees 394, 794 
DUC OME rss lus anew Ga 1OL 
Bie Games. lialstaernts 521, 784, 811 
ie ba hott = ae eee ae 687, 1023 
BOL Hig sles Secu ens 1147 
Deo. 2 $s alte nis Rete: ha omen 260 
Tye FW ACA oR Wealth se 560, 574, 623 
Pyne a ken ae ear cae 677 
‘aera ps} 330, 746, 766, 769, 933, 943 
994, 1187 
Os le? foe ie os an er a ee oe TOh 
652 Rater cet ore ee 793 
Wet ill oe PER eld ee 299, 875, 984 
ae ee. tig eens ee rey ea Ye OT 
Ost) Aen ait 2 151, (82 
G3 OSes ae, Ut, ce ee ec 792 
O28 (Rea ie os as See Doo 
G2 Oe rb nie he ace 0 
G2] Opp ae ee ee eons as 550, 816 
6:11 502, 991, 1003, 1075 
OxL2 eee Set eee a: 566, 651, 763 
OFAN Bs Seu ga ORCL ya 563 ter, 777 
G2 4a oS cre, kee 409 
6: 1G ae eee 589, 605, 652 
iP fh) eine ot: ae Ae 412, 712, 954 
6:18 fx SS eee Oo eee 618 
G19 ae et ors ee 1090 
6221 ere eae 608, 785 
O3 22547 eee as 699, 846 
Philippians 
LOL ia es 394, 628, 763, 783 
V2 Yee ects ee 795 
133 ed eee 604, 772 
1255 eed oo. ala eee 783 
LSOn eeeeieeuist Aho, 5090, 00 OD LO mOoO 
126720. CU eer i eee 699 — 
1:7 . . 491, 504, 566, 632, 658, 787 
966, 1131 
128 vist eileae Oh cle ae 1032 
CES Beeps amen s [Pee ete) 663, 699 
LED Res oe ere 594, 991, 1071 


_ 


bo 


WONMONNNNNNNNNNWNW WNW WO 


fk eee pe 


a 


WONWNMNNNNNNNNNNKRP KR BBR ee 


11 . 483, 485, 510, 595, 694 
12: 608, 665, 766 
13.5.5 Ano? 262, 1091 
14s 5,400 te 279, 540, 784 
15 . 235, 265, 743 bis, 750, 1153 
15 £0) ee 1200 
16 cin ee 1153 
17 ees ee ae 538 
18 _ . . 218, 487, 530, 646, 
703, 871, 889, 1186, 1187 

193°... Ke ee 787 
DOV ce ae nea 787, 794 
D1 ail ae eek ee 1065 
:21, 24, 29. . . 1059 
:22. . . 587, 698, 737, 810; 875, 
1023, 1183 

23. 130, 278, 442, 488 bis, 532, 
546, 628, 664, 858, 1072, 1076 
ERO Nee te Doky" < E1066 
25 613, 787, 828 
26a. 3 . . 588, 783, 784 
27 _ 439, 505, 529, 637, 766 
D8 i | eee 412, 537, 729 
D0. meee 487, 632, 777, 1162 
30 414, 439, 530, 731, 1135 bis 
1s ake eae 130, 410, 744, 1019 
Dates onan 992 
3 519, 690, 692, 1123 bis 
Ae pi, Se 292, 746 
AiO epee . . . 699, 703 
:6 . 152, 407, 546, 1041, 1059, 1066 
Teg hou? 2 oe a eer 1114 
30 ok Wie ae Lene 523, 645, 1122 
Que 5) i) aes 629 bis, 632 
10). > ee tee 503 
is 20) [eo 188, 795, 1034 
12 . . 564, 606, 634, 1162, 1173 
13 . 560, 564, 632, 1059, 
1182 

15 . 488, 505, 550, 644, 713, 
714, 775 

16/350 oe . 550 
178 aa ee 787, 828 
LES 627 
[Rie a ee 207, 487, 535 
20 ce See eee 960, 961, 996 
Of yn Nine oe ee 767, 773 
22 cid iat Wren eee . 441, 1199 
D2 qe hee 224, 620, 687, 974 
D4 ee cl ee 895 
251 ty ee ae 172, 418, 502 
26° <: eis ae 888, 964, 1120 
D7 AL ae 505, 601, 646 
28 . 297, 298, 545, 665, 846 
2075, 014 ae ees 480, 481 
30 . a ae + 148 bis, 508, 781 


Phil. 
3:1 . . 420, 487, 546, 550, 890, 1058, 
1085, 1146, 1153 
3:2 . 471, 769, 949, 1100, 1178, 1200 
aie ce 5 asa 
3:3 540, 769, 785, 1138, 1139 
si et pe eee pees L129 S154 
S20 me ee DLO, 598, 657 
3:6 eee 208 
Sea 396, ‘480, 481, 584, 698, 704, 1041 
S20... 096,45]; 485, 504, 652, 764, 
812, 983, 1036, 1109, 1145, 1148, 
Tiare iss 
3:9 . . 588, 598, 685, 782, 783, 784 
3:10 . 150 bis, 990, 1002, 1067, 
1088, 1200 
Salk pA, Vee a Apter TONS 
3:12 605, 811, 812, 845, 901, 916, 
1017, 1024, 1030 
o:18 _ 472, 489, 506, 509, 807, 1038, 
1060, 1202 
el SB Sikes 
3:14 146, 547, 608, 656, 782 
e215 : .. 895, 749, 931 
3:16 : 329, 944, 1081, 1092, 1187 
en Ui ee} L 
3 pal its: 473, 718 
B218 1. 413, 1107 
o720 714 
or21 496, 528, 996, 1061, 1066, 
1067, 1076 
4:2 : 235 
4°35 eel ( 28 
1S as Bote mete @loaG, (05,1202 
We em 2 477, 499, 629, 800, 1183 
4:8 . 698, 724, 733, 765, 812, 1146 
1 A ae ate 698, 724, 1182 
A210. 348, 476, 487, 604, 963, 965, 
1049, 1059, 1066, 1147, 1212 
ele OL LO, 721 bis, 835, 845, 
1038, 1041, 1060, 1103, 1166 
2B SWAG : . 965 
4212 ; 117, 842, 371, 1181 
4-13 ; Lf eek 
4:14 1121, 1187 
4:16 Se DOES: 
A-17 . 594, 1166 
4:18 eS. SAW 
4:19 262, 586, 783 
4:20 Wee at Bis 
4°22 BAB, 599, 670 
Colossians 

ie ae OO. 405 

[Dee 6: 14, “iG 18, 20, es erie 
A i 28 ‘ we. PIG} 
es 3 f. Polos 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


ee ee ee ee ee 


ee ee ee 


DD DD DO DDD DD DDN BB EB BR RR RR 


WNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNW WD 


1347 


73,4 860 
a be 783 
23] hen he 
76 881, 968 
76,9 Se LEhAdTS 
i. 172; 250,031 
:8 Ae ecto tian Raggi petit 
79 483, 485, 576, 600, 721, 784, 
993, 1049, 1102 

9 ff. (ie. 
9-23 bie Bac 
10 1086, 1087 
10-12 : eae b200 
13 212, 496, “497, 503, 818 
1a ae 233, 234, 772 
15; 204 pre wd it ps 
LG Agere 567, 583, 588, 654 bis, 762, 
763, 844, 894, 896 

17 234, 534, 622, 679, 774, 896 
18 eto, 375 bis, 890 
20 atthe aco 
21 B75, 777, 910, Logi 7 
eae ae eee Ad: 
22 : “437, 496, 644 
20 : . +2408, (17, T148 
24.0, wept 574, 712, 784 
24, 28 f Cel an ee oe 
DOPae: . 440, 11385 
oT 262; (13 
2D Fe Boe eee 114 
Mae eC 3 887, 364, 733, 886, 908 
Db foe wetter ae ae LO 
0 Noor. PN laa ame 243, 262, 439 
Oo eo ikae| EERE Oa Sige, Pome ey 
SUA hl a ee eh ee . 987 
5 Ait) ae, Ge 1026, 1187 
eve a Be 
8 764, 787, 933, ‘O08 ie 1107, 
1116, 1159, 1169 

8,19 ebeOs 
1 () thee ali, paneer nere end Bea 
LUO RA Repco a ehh else 
LZ wo 152 20 
13 560, 789, 1205 
13h eo ceeee 5. ADS 
14 524, 528, 634, 648, 783 
15 226, 474, 589, 805 
16 . 204, 1182 
17 : ey er pk 
18 ee 164, 477, 500, Gl bis, 585 
19 478, Cloaliss: 1139 
20 559, 576, 792, 807 
21 ; Sane oe 
22 peg Lan oo 
23 “375, 626, 742, 881, 1152 bis 
OL er ae te, ee i abe roa se 


1348 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Col. 
SL Rees eee seer eno renee cs es 547 
PORE ee ere te seine) M7. 
oe Pela DoS;OzolULE 
i 3 727, 728, 758 bis, 960 
OF eRe Appr OPE 
ee! he eg a ge . . . 854, 890 
Seale Er Ee LOOT ake, 1188 
ae is : 508, 690, 692, 742, 968 
3:14 411, 605, 413 
oslo ha . . 499 
Balb ; 440, 560, 690, 946, 1133 
HEE tie 2 oye 727, 729, 957 
3:18 393, 807, 887, 920 
3:18 ff 757 
Oo eRe ce here 550, 1140 
3:24 : . 498 
B35 ; 355, 1217 
cS Hee Swat 
Ae Bt 407, 638 bis, 1086, 1090, 1140 
4:5 ory. SUS O25 Ss) 
4:6 269, 396, 439, 880, 1045, 
1090, 1208 
Ost Sg RM) lL erg 699, 846 
AsOR ee, hea lew. 355, 547 
4:10 are, ee, ee 
7 PA ad APS, 2 Sr ee 172, 630, 772, 994 
oil TRA it A Pee he ae Dc , «244, 257 
4:14 21 72:bis,-255 
a Limam Son, aay me: 172, 257,608 
A165 9 tees 8 a ee 600, 1204 
AS] tg eS. ie oe 343, 983 
ALS ven dele se, t hope ee ee 685 
1 Thessalonians 
GES. : . 173,780, 796 
Ls 498, 503, 779 bis, 780 
125 . 566, 731 ter, 1045 
Uber par 787 
less. ane ies cere a oe 
1! Poe re a DE Eye 779, 795, 1032; 
1045, 1177 
1:10 : 475, 778, 1107 
222 LO hn 
PASS . 598 
2:4 _ 485, 1085, 1108, 1139 
Dees ae D0; 968 
2:8 164, 198, 206, D2 babs aus. 
1162, 1215 
20 oe 593, 1003, 1075 
2210) Wl PbS 7545s 10s 2 
2212 787, 997, 1002, 1072 
2°15) Cae ee 545, 560, 791 
2A oa 
EA RST ei, Ble wel bel #5: 
2:16 he ee 0 
2ol Gay. nce 559, 665, 778 


AOA AAP RARER RPEPRRAEERAARAEAAKRRWWWWWWWWW 


WwWwww hd bd 


Or Ot Or Or Or 


OVO Or Our our 


ISs erie 407, 1151, 1152 bis 
1Q..tte aa eee . 587, 1188 
LEG Aicie.. Fae ee eae GPA 
DAN ple L066 
ous nabs _ 186 n., 686, 1059 
Dies 458, 988 ter, 991, 106 
1088, 1169 

Ge tet 579, 1036, 1139 
Set wkd lee J OUST 6 
SS he 188, 879, 973, 1010 bis 
SO a ae. Cae et rLG 
10 297, 629, 647, 1002, 1072 
11 ; 827, 785, 1092 
LUST ae 854, 943 
11, 12 i rOLG 
Les Pees a ae 397, 940, 1181 
vLe eur AL 439, 560, 739, 766, 1046 
WP AM wig TR VL E- Bee) tite: 
ro Ae Fay ; 400, 518, 698, 1059 
i ee eb Tike heels 
Ras ee ce WM Ee! 
‘6: ae 233, 338, 629, 1059, 1078 
rf apenas : : 605 bis 
8 Loe BELA 
79 - 686, 997, 1003, 1071, 1072, 1097 
10 U14. 
10f.. 1066 
alae 1060 
12 79! 
is a) ss 
j i PE Cee oul | 355, OL¢ 
ESD pee eros 
Lely 778 
keh: 589, 783 
17 357, 528, 628, 638 
7) 550 
31 225, 267 
RT aos MERA er. | 998 
SDA duc See, ane ee 496, 497 
tae . 497, 931 bis, 1200 
Ley . .. 497, 498 
NKUE Uae v 534, 628, 638, 833, 1017, 
1027 

11 293, 675, 692 
12 319 
Le 171, 647 
14 625 
15 309 bis, 431, 573, 692, 
933, 996 

dae sooty 
16-22 . 890 
19 218, 318 
oP 251s 
23 940, 1003 
25 619 
DES, sO log eee ae 484, 1085 


Ol Oe et 


WWWWWWWHWWWOWNNHNNNNNNNNNNDND 


www www 


fe ee 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 1349 


2 Thessalonians ete ere 22467490777, F106 

BY 4 POLO CO0G Serle gona. ye ae 485) 776 
Ary. 287, OS MeOSUtt LOmeniG ll Leer ste nt oe 1055, 1103 
By ae DUE Lome ee. Mec kc blo L127, 1128 
CE ee ce 1D ee eet, 2 ate 629, 782 
ol Aa Sm ee a es : TO) wee DOMES Pa 5 Baye 
cdl) OSE oe ae 334, 485, S18 tn lig Oppo fe a (657, 699, vara 
lel dew yie he MeO ee ee Lega. tely, 776 
ee eee 50,051: Ls 18 261, 478 
alg Reon ors "sls 19 oO20 
A 261, 582, 895, 964, 1033, 1:20 OBS 
1072, 1140, 1189 222 582, 629 

3 . 497 bis, 856, 933, 1023, 1173 2:3 . 642 
aie 1A ee eee 120221208. 2248 : 423 
4 234, 311, 562,10384, 1105. 2:6 ; “490, 573, 631, 770 
sy, |e peer ; Meee 10) a Ta sae 242, 401 
6 409, 411° 2:3" 273, 431, 489, 886, 919 
7 err O2. “woe Does i : Me ate 
8 Misl2. e252 510 
10 499,500 3:1 . 508 
EZR a AR. DoaL tame 189 
PUY ees. te 339, 366, 501, Doe, to. ou 61S a1 ti 2 
A er eer iT 2 A ees ee SiGpl liz 
is) hoe ae oe _ 485, Sl6Rl045) 5367, 664, 1172 
Tiere ee 041) 9431092 337) &. acon 
“Wa Nadel See 5a wy IDLO pie 580, 1172 
Ske O56, UG lei 2.9 925. 13a 9ss 2a kee es 811 
4 Perel oflo. ce Sete’. 729, “880, 983 
te hoe Be OO aie 6S Ogee iy 242, 295, 401, 422, 428, 
DeaLGs, . . 940 534, 546, 551, 713, 793, 954, 
6 _ 336, 560, 1047, 1172, L2AV7 1109, 1199 
(Oo 880 4:1 . . . 499, 518, 668 
(at MROG4 9450" al 518, 785, 1121, 1201 
78 1008, LOTS Y 4°49 4? eee Pare 1022, 1129 
Ok Rey a SEES mee ooo) 4.56 o EP OLR LL, 
LO Pere As | 3. 699, 950, 1012, 1028, AtS yale ste 2, 535, 547, 1128 
POLO LOL fe) 4 LO seek ees cee OUD 

711 564,617 Baie my? Pieeel, VAL Loe Oe eee ee treet OT O 
412 meee 401047, 84:14) 4 eee 508, 6118545890 
2 AR 1102, 1121 Ae 153i ee nee ge Se ee a OO 
cA A eee 317, 309, 529, 698,944, 5:1 1218 
POAT ML CON Do Sie Sree eee 112 

Pt sae Pees te lite, (O74Et 8 eee re: _ 215, 1103 
PLO gears fees - 309, B20; 940, Po Age B35 eae ee 302, 547, 565, 623 
Sein Rie oy aye 405. 685, Blowel Ol Orta nee me OO! 516, 691, 1012 
ee ee oe 218, 277, 488, 516, 666 

1 Timothy B10 stern ke: Mes the. 

oa ph, a a ee eae Jitiy til Wee ee ene ae PRP. 
73 DOL aU sm Toe eee: 232, 272, 273, 477, 617, 
73-5 . . 4389 618, 638, 1040, 1103 bis, 
74 152,782 Lae 
76 pS eG Esaki laa he ee ae 
a7 B25, 726, "37, 1045, 1176 Lia ee a eee as ee 284, 511, 654 
78 . d41, 34, Haan Ocels0le 0: LS Ve yo 0 PPA 
SO Mien eset 185, 539, 699 e190 ene 251, 603, 640, 1025, 1188 
i iy eS Be A a A Peete O22) Mess ce eee OSL 


1350 A CRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1 Tim. 
Daan . 854, 890 bis 
Hee 779, 789 
5224 235, 620 
Oro: 508 
Son ee 609, 1011, 1169 
O4. 167, 267, 405 
OtONe 66, 483, 486, 518, 582 
Cie ae herent. Bey ees 
Carn ec ee es 324, 871, 889 
Gel OP Bates, 2 halts cere vires 542, 617 
Gal ob SMe ered cog wee Cake 476, 1186 
GaL2 Be ee ere ae emcee 478 
G23 PU reed Renae Cee se 603 
6:15 . 495, 523, 660, 691, 785 
Gil tera Fee ak Se we ne 
6:17 . 163, 493, 496, ik 783, 908 
G28 ee ule" ees 163, 204 
G30 tec a eee 186, 261, 810, 856 
O22 axis Gye ee Pentre 715 
2 Timothy 

BAG FR Pe es nko 87 Bl, aa 796 
bs Pages Re te | 8! Ue a Mee ee a 963 
Te ole aes are eck . aoe 

litGa, 7) tie eee 483, 718, 72 
L2G fl Zi ese og oe hc eee Ke 
TS et ee ean cae ake 472, 529 
13 Sf eos 2 os bet eee 1107 
Ved ieee oo els eee 485 
Lil2 eee es eee 166, 594, 658, Liss 
720, 726, 1102 
Lt. 3 ee a arr rah re: CLigiog 
ben C yey re ee .. OLS eaoG 
1:15 2A, 235, 269, 472, 484, 
497, 772 
1:16 : 235, 367, 485 
1:16, 18 - 309, 326, 354, 939, 
940, 1214 
Leica S Ae eke eae hie OOD 
| ia hes 277, 299, 488, 665, 733 
2 me. ee 583, 698, 856 
DRESS Mt ae ey Se ek CU ey ey ee 58) 
Dida Sipe eee 850, 1019 bis, 1027 
De Si eos eb eee . 481, 1041 
Qe AZO) dor ae Cigna eee 1008 
AME Tae eae ae Oe St 1119 
Zitid She diet se 164, 605, 944, 947, 
1162, 1163 
2515. gee, aeee pees acs pe ee ee 856 
2116 oa) Ue eee Bere 316 
22162265 ae en ee ae ee 890 
LE al ee ee a 285 
BS LBP rel facta yale eee ae 620, 908 
BALD) Sart Wn ae ah. One 262, 1154 
22a) oa eee ee 1183 
2IZL we oie Pee ee 597 


PPR EE EE HEHE PEP PP KPWWWWWWwnwnwwwhs» 


WWWWWNNNNNNNNNN KR BBR Re eee 


. 1385, 309 bis, 327, 565, 983, 
ig 996, 1044, 1214 


Cet Pec Peay Spl es heen re at) 
Oe) b6 Se, Orem. 67 4 Ou © 


148, 155 


CWoan eet Po Pee ee at ss ot 


Paar 8 vay? 708 
See eg 721 


ore: 2 6 6 Oe sO 6 A. ele eae ae 


Oy 6) 6) 7 0 Ree aes) re 2 ne 


_ 172, 184, 255, 547, 858, 361 
- . 172, 535, 549, 1127 

_ 186, 221, 235, 255, 614 

_ . 419, 949, 955 

779, 854, 939, 940 

212, 818 

. 1204 

ne 20385 

235, 255, 621 


Ce a oe eee 


tH ner ech hs? 

Anohs S7 74, 06281169 
_ 273, 422, 692, 1200 
955 

472 

eens ey 

- 1036, 1038, 1103 
oan 66 

203, 762, 943, 985 
480, 690, 811 
. 652, 1087 
691, 944 

: . 811, 780 
"272, 537, 653, 656 
eer 
82, 786, 787 

518, 618, 632 
483 


ane Or Oe me ee: 


a) Ome OA a> ace 
oe?) el eta.” ie). o Lel 26 0 ts ee he 
oe) ce) 7e- Tel) @ hae, 8 TR nee en eee 
O56) e) ES9 OL Cee eee, © 
0) ae as ee ey ee 


716 


te 


NNNNNNHP RR H Ee 


WwW dS bw 


OPRWNNR KOON OS Cr 


OONN 


oO 


| 
=, 


ay 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


. 224, 707,779 
509, 537, 764, 812 

. 265 bis 

me 6S7 

tt 72 O85 

112 bis, 255, 260, 1217 
awit 011 


Philemon 


S 215 

624, 1200 

201, 710 

a 713, 718 

399, 416, 846 

631, 919 

. . 886 

BBO, 763, 994 
et oe O99 
491, 632, 663, 670 

Nit eres 

2 - 623, 685, 846, 1199 
_ 310, 509, 784, 939 bis, 
940 ie 

638 

DP PY? 

elie Us 


Hebrews 


545, 546 
429 

. 432 

408, 480, 671, 775 


| 496 bis, 586, 651, 781, 792, 


845, 860, 1099 

aCe 422 

218, 420, 532, 615, 663, 667, 
710 bis, 733 bis, 966 

420 

ee Tis 

. 626, 1202 

ce 465 

483, 528 

. . 2384, 792 

212, 279, 298, 350, 613, 996 
F ‘ : 583, 1107 
a5 e432 

710, 828, 1023, 1129 

151 


_ 234, 299, 411, 736, 742, 781, 


1001, 1146, 1219 
484, 485, 602, 616 

,. 218,748 

| 4) 1078 bis. 1153 

473, 485, 632, 1041, 1123 


2:10 


NNNWNWNWN Wb bw 
jt 
TZ 


COW Wb 


WWwWWwWWwWW Ww 


PERWWWWWW WwW 
pd 
“I 


pm 
OO 


Or 
—_ 
a, 


1351 


. 530, 565, 583 bis, 861, 
887, 1039, 1084, 1086, 
1114, 1128 
. 718, 1179 
863 
Pet 16 
323, 361, 375, 460, 906 
2412-509, 687,705 
582, 1052, 1060 bis, 1070 
_ . 1146, 1149, 1200 
474, 486, 530, 658, 887, 
920, 1072 
. 721, 722, 963, 1128 
505, 722, 785, 955 
Bee O61 

244, 511, 615, 661, 667, 722, 
733, 967 
TAZ 
_ 874, 878, 1119 
413, 789, 792 
722 
tie vay 
_ 916, 968, 1000, 1024 
330, 496, 504, 872, 996, 
1073 bis, 1169 


. 221 n., 608, 744, 745, 974, 975 


1027, 1154 

oe a 4), 

233, 583, 6138, 917 

Bai ep Spence’ 

877, 1032, 1082 

7) 11085, L183 

rae 814, 908 n., 996 
oe O20, 005,007.) ot 
132, 778, 968, 1000, 1004, 
1129, 1140, 1154, 1202 
Peel O24 

575, 653 

. 618, 800 

. 474, 1058 

SOLOS 

541 

tae oe CU! 

278, 504, 580, 633, 667 

- 625, 1153 

530 

poate ten 57400 | 

315, 486, 630, 762 

316, 485, 541 

. 618 

_ 393, 762, 968, 1154 

eo OS 

: 63) a 050,598 
720, 721, 1027, 1115, 1129, 
1140, Tigre 1201 

485 


1352 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW 


Heb. 
5sll yo ee 05235) LU(OSL0SL 
OFZ 233, 375, 482, 490, 584, 740, 
903, 1038, 1039, 1061, 1076, 1082 
5213 Le OST RLO 
5:14 497, 514, 580, 584, 757, 
789, 902, 910, 1108, 
1117, 1122 
Go ey aes eta ek TA Pils oe ae ec 
SRA oper eh LEE 407 
G22 hue ese Ra ae ay) 
6:3 1027, 1154 
6:4 .' 473 
6:41. 449, 507 
6:5 . ATA 
O30s2 539, 613 
Goiae 584, 603, 708 
Gols : . 640, 11384 
G29 oe eee CIS Shr o0S uae 
Gz10 © S202 506,°716;, 660, 99s. LOO 
1060, 1080, 1082, 1090 
6:11 Sit 
6:12 SE Le, 
6:13 475, 1159 
6:13, 16 eo 607 
6:14 _ 192, 551, 1004, 1024 bis, 


MINNIS NNNNNN NO NNN QDOOD 


~J 


1); 1150 bis 


17 148, 654, 763 
(3 pe nat OP a7 Reno mes 
19 258, 259, 274, 298, 418, 715 
ly ee ee GI TO ete 
2 A ie Slzn ule 
Hae. Fe) eee ea te! 
4 258, 292, 399, 418, 

vane 1177 
5 . 843, 371 bis, 412, 705, 


1076, 1129, 1154 


‘6,9, 11:18, 16) 20, 25. OG 
:7. . 218, 277, 409, 654, 752, 763 
TOR ir eee TS 
:8 2 6 103 aaa 
:9 . 208, 967, 990, 1086, 1091, 1093 
‘11 604, 1015, 1027, 1095, 1151, 

1162, 1164 
:11, 13,15. _ 748 
12 1023, 1129 
13 _ 580, 721 
14 _ . 719, 1034 
15 279, 659, 663 
16 158 bis 
18 2763 
20 733, 963 
20 f. 435, 967 
20-22 e710 
20, 23 695 
21 _. . 884,819 
23 _ 613, 1061, 1085, 1119 


TESTAMENT 


7:24 . 401, 656, 789, 1039, 
1070; 1122 

HD tee. ce eee oR OU 
7:26 667, 710, 1086, 1181 
elo te eee 
(ea wero nou | 
T2289. Rs con gee eee LO ee amet 
SL) 2. fe a eee OU Ovieaes Cree 
8:2 . . » dT, 408, 715 bis 
8:3 928, 955, 956, 961, 989 
8:4 ed i719 Ff 
S247... em aL sy 
8:5 233, 399, 874, 932, 949, 1214 
8:6 218, 728, 733 bis, 801, 
967, 1220 

rede pes ee ee ea : ieee 20S 
LE ae Mee Bo, iam. ye 255, 473, 475 
8:9) « Hy aS ated) 1123 
8:10 . . . 440, 479, 1135 
Sail . 361, 746, 906, 1215 
SoZ ae 200 
S213, AA a ee eee 895, 1073 
9:1 Se 
oe 232, 714 
Osv its . 660 
as eres ees le A Ups eg t 
Q:45 ce 253, 348 
Ob nee ty 154, 409, 517, 550, 629, 632, 
647, 792, 1058 

9:6 . ey Pals 
0:6, fs > (Ag eae ee eee TESS 
9:6-8, 15, 19 1131 
OT) sae ae 441, 505, 637, 715, 769, 
776, 955 

Gest ars es _ 700, 1036, 1039, 1040; 
1049, 1078 

O59 wk) Pe pee en 
9:10 ~ = - 2017413 
O21) _ 399, 412, 416, 705, 1139 
Ge i2 . 272, 339, 809, 861, 1114 
9:14 Stats) 
OFS 501, 604 
9:16 969 
9:17 604, 963, 971, 1159, 
1169, 1173 

9:19 214, 254, 686 
9:19, 21 212 
0-207 elo 
0:23 et eee ee 218, 615, 667, 686 
9:24 ee ye! 
9:25 ea eae ne 
9:26 604, 887, 920, 963, 965 bis, 
1026, 1085 

9:27 . 733, 963, 967, 1058 
0228 a YosG oaks Fa 
tO: [oe 187, 392, 439, 550, 716, 1135 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Heb. 
10:2 . . 778, 963 bis. 965 bis, 1015, 
1026, 1102, 1175 
PAE sor) to hss ee Mee cry ee, cet (A 
LOM he ee ee O00 08S 
TOSS meme ot veges ef ees OOO OY 
10:10 719, 891 
DU Mee) eee area at ea OL de: O51. 
TES Oey Seg eae aoe oe 451, 495 
10:14 891, Sop Lit, 1116 
LOLS e OO9, 979, 1074 
LOSLH 4: . 4389 
10:15, 26 . 1074 
LOS1OR- le me 440.2 130 
10:22 211, 225, 340, 362, 485, 
486, 1217 
10:24 Me eee ees HOLL 
O25 1 124"552,,710, 730.018, 
967, 1123 
10:26 612 
LOT 26 Rion sot dA 
10:28 251, 566, 604 
10:29 434, 511, 859 
10:31 1. 1059 
10302 ne ee 410,475 
10:33 : . 487, 705, 1153 
10:34 ‘218, 1035, 1036, 1038, 
1041, 1103 
LO aoo 728 
10:36 nee: ONS 
10537 395, 733, 978 
Meee een seer 4075 D 1H 
ied wee oe en at ys 254.1138 
Neo ee ea wee et so, L139 
Lee. ee 425, 9O9 01871003, 1036, 
1049, 1070, 1072, 1090 
11:4 667, 724, 1038, 1085 
11:5 365, 371 
11:6 234 
£137 334, 1173 
11:9 593 
iG 262 
111 eames G16: 686, 793 
Pie? 524, "704, ((Usy 777, 1129, 
1140, 1181 
bes . 533, 833, (hey) 
i hd BS : eee ed Oot 
Lath 5 887, 921, 923, 1015, 1062 
thie 54; Me LSS 
Le LG ie 399, 416, 508 
11:16, 35, 40 eee LS 
1h a ee "359, 760, 885 
L725 895 
POR eae: ¢ Ree ee a ee 1034 
1 he Fe On ae 818 
Lps20 ; 788 
HEA § ; , 178, 827, 979, 1145 


1353 


2d in Mui ie erm gaa 260, 812 
DIE TN MST ae ae oe 833 
24 1086 
25 ee Pere ga vae 
26 : 480, 500, : 575 , 594, 1202 
27 833, 1113, 1121 
28 eae 148 bis, 189 
29 ‘476, 5638, 565, 582 bis, 
652, 800 

Oo LMehs gas a ses Wn tolt,529 
2O2 ; 210, 420, 934, 1126 
Jao 477, 509, 606 
134 476, 748 
=30 1138 
736 . «49 
37 534, 590 
BE Ley Aeron See, 833 
a Lee eeeenL Ors 42(), 425 , 524, 542, 
562 2, 583, 653, 810, 931, 1154 

Lt iene : : 432 
a reek OF 
i2 ane. 154, 502, 512, 574, 575, 1106 
:3 524, 635, 1107, PPA 
74 368, 645, 975 
2 508, 509 
:6 . . 966, 1184 
“¥) _ 738, 794, 1159 
:8 ; . 420 
Uae f 480, 582, 546, PAZ 
ELS ho 4o ed MET AP nae . 664 
ap AU hi ee te te ieee 625, 1109 
ahh 448, 497, Fale 519, 
625, 1109 

+1 2a eeGee Seveweainn bie: ses eee RO LoD 
Ln. . 1200 
13 penta l 
14. 425, 648, 871 
14f.,24. . <a 422 bis 
lone : 496, 774, 800, 934, 995 
16 . 190, 308, 573 
iby _ 319, 360, 611, 941, 
1129, 1154 

Meira : 262, 536, 1118 
18; 22 Poe WaaneoLew ios 
19 261, 818, 1094, 1171 
20 508, 581 
yal 168, 221 
22 536, 760 
23 792 
24 : ane. 218, 615, 667 
25 ‘ 430, 472, 791, 810, 922, 
933, 996, 1160 

27 See easy Oe 766 bis, 1140 
Bou . 9384, 955 bis, 956, 989 
i220 400, 472, 475, 509 bis, 551, 


860, 1102, 1120 


Heb 
Testes ee ROUO 
154) . 207, 930, 946, 1165, 1175 
13 Goee ie ; AWE 334, 819, 871 
TEND ere tere 514, 949, 955 
1938 ‘ i ny e200 doen 
13:9 . 1095, 1162, 1166 
Vee tf) pera whit)’. 
13*1i 718, 719, 953 
tenia. ; . 425, 1154 
AR 108, 203, 268, 399, 524, 541 
13716 Spo eee Le 
TESLy, 374, 634, S7tied LLG ts: 
1128, 1140, 1214 
13718 , 407, 678, 1035 
13:19 219; 545, 664 
i RU) 777, 778, 784 
Depo | tan wee ee 327, 940 
Ton eee 583, 845 
Tae22 ft 407 
Loweo 664, 910, 1041, 1103, 
1110, 1123 
Loe 24 oe eerie aah 548, 578, 766 

James 

LS Lite, . 329, 394, 944, 1093 
Le tye cua 524, 772 
133, eee ed es eco Ge 
ee) AR Ae eee tare : 518, 1023 
As Kye ee eee 149, 478, 801, 895 
PRE ee Ls 1035 
eevee ty peers ra 580 
pee oe ee 837 
ER gt iyi i 516, 579, 1034 
Us Ties he dass o Uace sao tis Cee a 1186 
Uhh erie Gia cu ee Dae 
Ealy, _ 153, 233, 418, 421, 501, 655, 
Tl2; 1200 
Les Aah 742, 1071 
iW AY La x - 319, 308, 329, 360, 429, 
658 bis, 908, 941, 1008, 1052, 
1071, 1072, 1076 
LZ awe? eee d: eee 2 216 
Le225 Ps aks Paced et oleae 947, 1162 
1223 530, 698 
1224: 731, 732, S44, 897, 1177 
Leb aye eee in oer aU RESO 
1:26 231, 272, 1038, 1085 
i FTN, .. « 124 
122 (aes Sits 700, 1059, “1078, 1219 
221 : mo 408, 503 
od i es en 124, 169 
Diy Olt ae 762 
Ye ees 6 : 314, 329, 340, 1216 
24," 20h ees oeesgki 7S 
PES ; 480, 587, 716, 763, 917 


Or Or Or Or Or 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


6 408, 510, 763 
74 762, 776 
Sele ; fi ees 
10 : 956, 957, 959, 897, 898 
11 1012, 1166 
13 162, 512 
14 ae so5a078 
15 . 406, 412, 655, 1121 
16 562 
19 404 
£07, EAR 
20 aie (eetey 273, “464, 878 
22 .. 001, 477, 529, 1041 
24 ee pea lLOLL 
Zo 4 521, 526, 966, 1128 
LC eyes a oedee oe ee Aeon re 
2 . 488, 698, 1076 
3 Ai ae 1S 
eA mm LA _ 290, 709, 1129 
Ber ene A eee 291 3omron 
6 . » (200, 399 
ii 533, 534, 776, 902 
8 an 124, 413 
Ord: 473, 590, 785 
10 RAT AG ee ee 319, 920, 1220 
11 2 653;°786 
12 ¢ 417, 1189 
is + foo L045 
14 OU Sik te 
15 et i ecstnt | 
i ae 8 age ee 273, “424, 1152 bis 
2 cae LOy 
ot. 805 bis, 966, 1071, 1091 
ANS OS Dee 411 
5 : 2626 
iOS heres or a feet O23 
(RAs ee Aa : . 948 
Sbcstics ct ce Seen 355, 538, 1214 
SD eae bees) 2-14) 561, 856 
id gh MLS, 
ee ; _ 778, 1107 
13 _ 289, 299, 398, 348, 474, 696, 
770, 799, 11938, 1217 

14 on ee 728, 735, 740, 767, 
961, 1158 

15 «ee 574, 697, -708, 1060, 
1069, 1070 

16°. wecse eae aoe ee 710 
bel car & . .. 764 bis, 1106 
1 : 299, 391, 428, 480, 763, 854, 
949, 1106, 1116 

Zils cee 1S eee . 801 
ZA Andes gars eee ee 405, 898 
Or cts Sty eke eet eee eer A 8)!) 
Bate) sot Bh roe aateeches 337; 579 
G7 9 Lk ee eee ‘pity 


a 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


201, 652, 856 

394, 621 

we 450 

828, 427, 471, 475, 484, 
622, 853 

. 430, 515, 740, 1023 
ae 124, 328 

_ 208, 325, 360, 375, 
908, 1019 

392, 531 bis, 802, 1094 
348, 799 


1 Peter 


127 bis, 793, 854, 940 
(14, 115,°183,:7100 

: ; 273, 535 
: 272, 769, 775, 783, 794 
. 881, 941, 949, ‘978, 1119 
ie Pear 724, 954 
sees 654, 763, 778, 1107 
127, 224, 531, 715, 1096, 
1138 bis, 1139, 1172, 1212 
597, 719, 721, 778 

563 


| 594,’ 735 bis 740, 781, 1176 


195, 778, 1029, 1034 
314, 602, 777 
. . 497, 782 
127, 297, 779 
656, 774, 777 

533 


272, 412, 


~ 192,-1035 
.. 424 
: 338, 401, 941 

392, 772, 800, 802 

418, 718 

a ae at l4 

‘ Se sil akO) 907, 
: 910, 1117, 1138, 1139, 1163 
518, 728 bis, 1084 

; Mea LOos 
; 497, 721, 789, 946, 1134 
LMA P- 

ree LAO 

: 343, 400, 700 bis, 779, 1078 
: ube 
a eee 946, 947, 1161 
500, 699, 704 


ee) 


WNNNNW bd 


Co WO Ww DH WD DH WD WH WD WH 


PP RwWWwWWwWWwWwWWWWWW 


NOAA PALALALALARABR ALA RBH 
QO 


LOM Me En ae eet ga Kg 411 
ALO HE fycnetle’> «age ane wer 40 
PAGS 633, 784 
21-24 . 954 
24 561, 723 
245) 787 
8L9 yg 127, 324, 516, 638, 779, 946, 
984, 1026, 1217 

HS Tod tae WP pes 127, 498 bis, 779, 947, 
949, 1161 

4 . 200, 2/2, 274, 12, 779 
6 hl picks ube kar ae 479 
TOO 1072 
FAG RAG 946 
Oo bes 470, 487 
8 f. 945 
Oi gees We. 3 _ 208, 573 bis, 699 
10 1061, 1171 
ie 2 OOL 
12 aos eee L LOG 
13 ; 127, 374, 878, 1118 
13 AE : LOL 
14 127, 327, 478 683, 1021, 
1023, 1027 

14, 17 L025 
15 eet Ase 
16 ce YE PAL 
17 127, 218, 1021, 1039, 1084 
Lome: 523, 618 bes, 757, 1114 
18-22 432 
19 f. eS of ies 
2 399, 416, 560, ane 705, 779 
oA 714 
22? WPM ate re ek ee 792 
Liga see pee 518, 816 
1 ee eh ae 348, 479, 1070, 1071 
SO) bats 51. L2¢; 304-900" g02? 
1062, 1076 

5. i Se “ah veel oS 
6 ; 699, 792, 1031 
, me, 622, 789 
Ste 946 
9 638 
11 . 3896 
2 532/626 
13 AD ae Oo ae 967 
14 . 002,767 ,-7 777, 779, 785 
15 cine ere ies 204. 
16 seve lca es 
V7, : 395, 512, 1061, 1076 
18 F 357, 763, 871 
LO AmE SR oe BO Ti) Piatt 
Slee C9 ae canara: 587, 779, 857, 878 
Di Ven tees eas Dp 


| 355, 498, 1217 


car dats bre aid ake Oh ae eee OO 


1 Peter 
Lage oye te ee a nan 5 12325850580 
Thi Ce. Woh 212, 539, 560, 946 
Been _ 740, 795, 1040, 1044, 1085 
5:9 502 , 505, 523, 541, 542, 687, 
949, 955 
5:10 . . 195, 606, 778, 1126 
5:12 173, 415, 583, 593, 846, 949, 
1036, 1039 
Deo 169 
2 Peter 
| Be Lea ears 530, LE eae 
ph bey ANB : yd oO 
1 #3 127, 940 
1:2-7 432 - 
ice 101, 127, 533, 778 
1:4 : wa) 219, 610; T35 
Lop, : 126, 460, 487, 686, 705 bis 
1:5-7 1184, 1200 
1:8 , eae 
Lee 5 og 127, 423, 542, 720, 962, 1169 
1:10 Pan 1S LAUSo 
ery 127 bis, 401, 785 bis, 786 
1212 483, 656, 1129, 1154 
1:14 : Boe Tf 
1315 127, 333, 356 
1 bik . 1191 
1:16 ee BS 
PAZ. _ 290, 438, 636, 709, 842, 1135 
iis . 778, 864, 1097 
1:19 vO ISS, B63 ate 
1320 51k 518, 699, 772, 1039 
Ral rf ee (ole MOD 
Pe . 127, 613, 1134, 1203 
pines 297, 440, 474, 551, 724 
ip AS 1012, 1160 
pag Pass De eet gs Sach de) as, eee 
Do ie aie be nee Lee 275, 348, 672 
226 ; 251, 498, 539 
Bey. ot sae ae 212, 783 
2 Sue 126, 484, 470, 597 
2:10 LZ LLae 
211 205, 665 
le 473, 721 
2:12-15 [Ue 1125 
2°13 S55. 3874, “485, 529, 560, 878 
2:14 162, 185, 497, 516 
ya Fs) SPA 
PANG 7 
AEs Ay 186, 704 
2:19 533, 534 
PAS 218 
2.20 Ree 341, ‘476, “785, 786, 881 
aod 127, 219, 597, 887, 909, 920, 


1014, 1039, 1058, 1084, 1094 


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwWwWwwhds 


COUNBOUARWNHONABRWWNHEH 


NNWNNNNNNNNNNNWNDDND EF BF BHR eR 


LOE ORE NO WO) 


bo bo bo 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


bo 


394, 502, 767, 807 

701, 714 

eee ee hoe G 
503, 762, 779, 785, 1086, 1107 
Pole HSS 

775, 1039 

Ne WEALD 

Ane 653, 717, 880, 978 

320, 582, 795, 794, 1035, 1134 
: ; 201, 547 

pote Wveueese 

UIs ALES 

Ble 52 oem oe ee: 
Ts Sos Get eee - 705, 741, 1131 
537, 542 

480 

eee aT 

5 ee Laue 
. 518 bis, 993 


a 
. me . . . 
oOo 


rH OMDAMRWWNNHEED 
: oa) 


1 John 


713, 724, 791, 896 
901 

Gg T7 

611, 713, 724 
eepoel vs: 

406, 678, 907 

. 579, 699, 1033 


| 
Ww, 


4 ED: 
~J 


406 
“424, “441, 618, 685, 1185, 1199 
TOU; 700, 850, 1079 


er. 


_ 713, 879 

. 879, 1183 

845 

.. 694 

. . 788, 963 

. . 573,769, 794 

753, 906, 922, 923, 

1015, 1086 

80 

_ . 758, 845, 1166 
1035, 1094, 1164, 1205 
ee FEY, 
. 400, 416, 479, 538, 704, 
718, 777 

_ 845 

_ 230, 339, 437, 1217 

. 473, 1147 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


1 John 

SLE ee Rane: oc hie fakes 135, 741, 999 
STL 2a 5 Lorn 
ait: ae macs, gue _ 233 bis, 736 
ts a 0 eet Oke ee Ae ti er ity, 
SOUOeeene: 6 Sehr tones & .» 880 
Sie. cae eee Be : - 699, 880 bis 
TELE (yee eo Be O00 1 OSE 
Sree "404, 1164, 1173, 1174 
aoe be Rc 1192, 1203 
38:11, 23 aa 699, 1079 
5a A ; 425, 647, 652, 968, 1176 
Sake 532, 965 
od. . 586, 1041 
o715 Sn Ss 
Sal Oney ar ial Be 632, 1033, 1079 
SLU MMMM. AG ene Loe nese 871 
roe 7: Sa ae a ere Lee 699 
eed Rte neces. pte 512, 667 
eRe a ope ke seas HZ 
oe ¥ 850 
es 850 
a SP 442, 679, v16 
HO aS Bee pe LOZ 
4:2 “480, 1103, iio: EL25 
4:3 546, 724, 962, 964, 1149, 1169 
Cy cr ee OU, Oot 
cts) Le a ee ent er 794, 845 
ADS I ee ee ae 584, 777, 845 
COM LOL nae ie, yet ti 699 
ATO T 845 
ea ULES ANA 8 RRC ett cnr . . 1009 
ot ee ae eee 401, 519, 599 
PICA NEE, (Pea) eee ee Ce ae 894 
SPEEA ata ce se es 768 
LAOS EP) Ma Aa ee ae 611, 699 
ACG D4 2 RY ae ee 758 
4:19 A eae Gan 549 
SVAN Seem cae 699, 992, 1079 
raed sa ane 439, 700 
Dae FD h 400, 699, 1034, 1079 
5:3, 4,9, 11, etc. 704 
Teme LL . . 993 
Nira a at Sea ST ee , 258, 409, 698 
Dt Owe. DGo,.050, 6D7; 659, 1166 
DE ee citten ie: mY eee] 
ELE 4 rae 393, 964, 1034, 1049 
oO: 

a: 

be 

a 

or 


Or Or Or Or 


HAL REL tee . . 699 
Wor _ 226, 963, 1159, 1169 
11 400, 1033, 1034 
12 e164 
13. 360, 401, 418, 699, 778, 845, 

846, 983, 993, 1034 
iV et Se Ee Og ” 805, 1033 
Pai eee 482, 805, 1010 
1k > nS ee 392, 477 
AGE 3 "sce Oe 234 


1357 


5:18 ere aneeO. (OG. EL LT 
5:20 201, 325, 652, 703, 707, 763, 
776, 984 
5321 476, 689, 856 
2 John 
t » 213,050, (13, 1116 
2 . . . 441, 1199 
4 ReOLD, 902, 1041 
5 339, 1140 bis 
Gare 699, 992 
Ot arer te ae cet wea 0S 
fe . 480, 1036, 1041, 1103, 1107, 
1123 bis 
att ae . 403 
LOPLI Reena : 792, 1093, 1160 
Lee onrer he etre ae 368, 625, 846, 919 
Loc an eee een eta ae Sn en, 273 
3 John 
DAG SAT ca Faced tad Seed u Se ol 619 
3 968 
Ce er ee 277, 663, 685, 699, 704, 
992, 1042 
ak rare rir cA ees : 861, 1121 
eerie es pte lode boo 
U's Ai ca roe ree . 235, 269, 846 
10 +e ec See . 1166, 1185, 1189 
L233 Lek sone ee 635 
15°.5c. 0d e ee ee es 582 
CPO Rye) he Tce 625 
Jude 
Ee fi aes CF 501, 588, 767 
PACES RRS erry EP Nas Oy Grier ae Pac 125 
VEG! Mee es Ci ese Poe Se 940 
ie er re te et Ae Ort er 3c 1106 
+ 127, 265, 341, 613, 776, 786, 
1107, 1214 
Bache. Wee 125, 1032, 1035, 1129 
14 ted BR 125, 263,486, 748, 1032 
QO A ey a, Mev tes araa ee 125, 282, 529 
LOM SNe fee tere stow at ver 473 
LL Et hese ren ct alee. oie 510 
i PP tede epee BUR aes) BOR 704 
LS ic eater 272 
1 ADR Were SC aReE ote gaat 125, 589 
VRPT 2s erento he eee 716 
Mi Berean: ier. PRS 439, 474 
LS PAa cee ae eee 603 
DA): Se Te sabe ae _ 280, 670 bis 
PEPE TEN Sly LEP aOR > 11538 
Dales inde Gal Abs aed cela ls 696 
DPAPEY AE Pee Pr: RON ETI ene 342 
HD aah ee Wega ata 505, 644, 1200 


1358 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


foot fed fk 


bo bo 


fo 


NONWWMNNWMNNWNYNNYNNYNNNNNNNNNNNNNNR KH 


Revelation 

Lh eye, 258, 349, 780, 793 
oS) Alt ie, Dat ed Oey sore Les 
4 135, 270, 394, 414, 459, 574, 
764, 877, 1202 

4,8 cs 734, fO0L 71h 
Ba) 136 ter, 202, 414, 458, 764, 
777, 779 

Deere ar aoa Pee!) 
TE a che re eons 4/5, 1150 
ol eer CE ee 3 lam 414, 769, 785 
ET Salar IP arta gotta Ie 504, 785 
TOMES LANs se Lee cane 645 
SB Be Fe teeny 5 218, 257, 263 
12 MMOL 
313 216, 218, 219, 257, 258, 274, 
485, 530 

15 a, ; 414, 1104 
16 266, 414 bis, 1135 
17 669, 762, 769 bis, 
ti Goo 

18 Zale 205 
19°) ee eee Ae oe ee ee 
2 (nen, aera Olea be 
of Ciena ee 203, Bie. O74, 289 
iDitee Perey aLOONS acre ie 1214 
2,9 Penta) * ... 440 
Paes athe aie ay ate - ee POG a 
4 tet BUDS OOLS 1035 
sed ae 3009, 33F;, 1010, 1218 
Dilla eee F 538, 539, 1025 
Oot So RS ae ee ck 
Ne SS Ns 7 A Nae 24 aes 
CGA by Goran 8S READY ook’ 341, 414, 437 
Ney tea Be. 218, 775 
Oe chde P eieatss aut ac ae ee 1039 
Ee ae eet mee . 498 
11 599, 1175 
1 Lelayay Arey 
ils , 969 


_ 172, 235, 255, 614, 712 

+, 474, 482, 519, 1106 
aire ceecur A anes 
534, 536, 590, 610 


17 . 208, 270, 441, 519 bis 
18 ae 263, 441 
19 ; a a7 RO 
20 _ 136, 315, 414, 1216 
22 . 203, 593, 1010 
23 {fe a eee eT 
DAs 5. 6 eames 232, 392, 406, 654, 
775, 866 bis 

25 43, Wee ee _ . 720, 975. bis 
[06 * ree 136, 414, 416, 437, 
683, 1130 

28. 43.) Ge eee 901 


3: 
3: 
se 
5) 


H= OO CO CO Www Ww wi wd 


AMNIIPERAARAAAD AAD? )? 


OR WWRRK KE OMAN 


O? D> OS? G2? G2? Ot Ot St Ot Ot Or OV Or Ot 


I 

Oe otes Oi tes Roan 

PAs. tasce eee 203, 213, 437, 984 
6 

8 


fe Oa 884, 890, 921, 960 
16 : a9, epee ee En! 
Sb ee 470, 740, 901, 1045 

. 475, 483, 485, 589, 809, 

819, 1213 

ae pas 265, 762 
Rp 94, 136, 420, 722, 1213 
. Lob, 307, 311, 394, 873, 
934, 992, 1039 bis 1214 
esa Ade ATV ata, cn ae 
136, 243, 414 bis, 459, 
655, 760, 1104 

oe. EE 

ee: "759, 765, 777 

886, 923, 1004, 1097 

. . 184; 857 

204, ‘487, 751, 769, 777, 785 
202, 216, 232, 483, 807, 
1036, 1220 

: ee 18k 8 

ae 707, 601 bis, 895 

P . . 414, 459, 586, 1130 
1 oe 136: 307, 328, 396, 412, 1042, 
10a: 1193, Ae 

oe lets 

5 aU E 

211, 272, 530 

eee OAL 

266 bes, 274, 396, 485, 1042 
: 412, yeas: 

216, 300, “BOS, 640, 644 

ATh Eerie par PA Ue Ae 
300, “412, 414, 644, 675, 793 
324, 348, 601, 872, 972 

«ee SOULS 

427, 466 ter, 758 

565 

427 


~~ 


2 
2 
3 
5 


| 
or 


Ot HR GK GO De 
BE 


- © 


‘erty... sot dei a eee RG 


yee al as 
_ 782, 835, 1001, 1088, 
1089 bis, 1090 

320, 412, 414, 712 


Gree, Seti 
Th a oe Wee (S97 SOS ee ncol 
8 


274, 713 


Oi hee Se Me So ace 


_ 231, 288 bis, 502, 644 
_ 427, 758, 1182 
. 794 

pert abl 
_ 603, 714, 758 
367 

368 


. $01, 511 
452, 590, 635 


OWMWWOWMDHOHWONNTIININNIITSININOORDAOSD 
— 


OOO OOOH OH OO OO OH 
—" 


WNNHHEHODTIARMARNDY 


SS 


oe) 


_" 
= 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


; 201, 213, 409, 802, 992, 1213 


203, 268 

338, 483 

. 266, 752 

- 683, 722, 864, 1118 
609, 975 


1 136, 413, 441, 722, 816, 1135 


oe ASO 

ae 319, 339, 366, 644 
_ 427, 758, 787, 794, 1182 
. 349, 899, 902 bis 

E 752, 1175 

: SS se 170, 262 
; - 204, 958, 973, 1146 
782 876, 984. 

; Sig he§29 

a 510, 899 bis, 901 
350, 412, 502 , 653, 779 
ape te. "953. 458, 598 
341, 349, 350, 1220 


_ 135, 391, 487, 537, 674, 1193 


: 231, 864, 910, 1116 bis, 
1118, 1123 
. 752, 992, 1159 bis, 1169 
5 LO 
te § 992 
324, 709, 870, 873, 889 
339 
; SS a 
. 104, ABS, 653, 1202 
270, 405, 410 
eso 
255, 266, 412, 414, 604, 760 
: 580 
DA TE: 
203, 998 
: . . 485, 892 
; 155, 414, 828, 1135 
Petes 
, 853 dis 
tk} 
; .| 1034 
_ 474, 799, 847, 1215 


1559 


4 410, 412, 704, 786 
5 1017, 1026 
OME Ree” ae at OTA. 
A eR eee tre eho A BOO 
8 Ba APE TEA 
ME ee: wade 4: 315, 515, 599 
a0 5 men LD 
Ome . 565; 1220 
12 307, 328 
13 . « _ 002, 709 
14 185, 270, 410 
15 . . 412 bis 
17; 309, 337, 414, 734, 801, 

834, 901, 1217 
18 E 414, 757, 1076 
19 Seals 
1 485 
Hs ‘ eee 
4 : 224, 315, 857, 878, 1219 
elt Fe . 849, 413 
"Ale Raae 203, 392, B79, 820, 985 
6, 14 : Me Vas 4 VETS: 
(oo 1066, 1093 
9 399, 777 
10 136, 262 
11 224, 584 
12 ~dotn liga 
13 Bae coo Aas 
14 “407, 502, 672, 775 
15 169 
LP ON is Sete ta pee oS | 
Sy ad Picaetend Sune Lek © SR Me 
pd 210 
7 334, 496, 818 
74,8 476 
:8 ee 
=O . 590, 787 
sly . 892, 1203 
12 992 
13 Fnths ands 
14 256, 258, 713 
15 . . 984 
16 401, 787, 984 
Wit a8 ss eo tee 1 984, 1169 
LEAR AR eS Sere. bos 283 bis 
Led hilt es Se acai eis 320, 760 
SLO Vals 4h i Ue eee 1155 
73 672 
74 : ae “O58, 969 
76 , 474, 565, 799, 892, 1215 
Lanier is 17, 18 ee 7: 
ee 414, 788 
:8 see (et 
79 565, 601 
:10 317, 680 
©t2 414 


1360 


Rev. 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


_ , 201, 518, 597, 992 
135, 136, 391, 414, 530, 
658, 1135 

590 

.. 265 

. . 253, 410 

469, 517, 575, 642 

. 1106 

iocriay- 

B41, 475, 529, 598, 881 
461, 464, 465 

395, 930, 934 

Pee PAK 

_ . 485, 560, 620 

. 339, 342, 352, 1220 
232, 342 
414 

A gree G 
478, 485, 998, 1001, 1088, 
1089, 1090 

214, 375, 598, 903 


se, @) wv, 6, 


"156, 485 


eee 

_ 334, 719, 819, 1216 
Ft 688.0728 
234, 747, 750, 764 
311, 1214 bis 

1 590 

872, 975 

234, 604 

_. 892 

- 260, 269, 843, 1200 
. 337, 599, 1218 
317, 580, 716 

i ue he 

. 498, 1193 

Ah ee 

192, 280, 670 

441 

oh gee SG 

_ _ 848, 873, 1165 
_ 485, 653, 710, 771, 1193 
ATA 

Maer ater 

461, 464, 786 


ae Jas eezbe 
20 ; 341, 349, 1220 
24 689 
SL ftsy ae) eee . 8206 
ie ee Lec 
es 337, 902 
74 283 
:5 459 
oy) 1212 
Saas 485 
ao pa Wg 262 
LOae 949 
pit 1213 
12 414 
13 135, 211, 364, 874, “485, Hoo 
14 J 252 S407 4T2 5486 
15 . 508, 680, 960, 1001 
16 . 660 
LZ 269, 949 
20 414 
al 260, 269, 599 
i 265, 892 
Py 414, 714 
ae 528 
Oy Dies, Sh tee seae O75 
4% 833, 834 
Oi c2! Ses ecole i223 
VEZ oe Oe oe _ 349, 714, 1213 
15 D3 teehee . 1008, 1012 
1 RR a Se ee) 304, 413 
2 acs 539 
OU Leon. Reamer 611 
4 262 
5 . 480 
6 337, 785 
8 712, 1118 
9 . 77 
ila “150, 280, 670 
iets ; > eee 
UB ' O54, 494, 791 bis 
14 412 
14, 19 s) 262 
716 263, 405, 732, 967 
e17 268, 672, 714 
ei LSraae 201 
thea Cn 8) 253 
NID -® vaya eae 
:20 Nh ee, LOS eee 
pial 282, 460, 555, 556, 568, 571, 

673, 675, 746 
25 541 
a) Rt a yk 
pre Po. fio, List 
Ne “258, 300 bis, 311, 745, 1214 
ett eae : iN > SN 166, ‘ipa 
Ge Rey Me eg lk! Fa! 


OOP RWWWNHH 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


DOPCe ere rae et, 214 
BODO Ml, nisbyies RAng oan 932, 1203 
ECT WO amen cena Sea 947 
30 ga aaa ae 429, 777 


1 RG. i aaa 399, 762 


Ce MH a Se ek Dee a a ee oe a er | 


‘ot eae Ca Mee en! Oh ob are OE Le 


(b) OLD TESTAMENT 


Genesis 

EN, oleae) he ad Ie Pai ye 
CLA A aire ot ae 574, 595 
VES fc, My ee gon Re eee OS0) 
ES ee te 1002, 1067, 1086 
NE Oca ethsdee tie ls ens: "s 639 
UIs AA ES i tO 889 
PINS TA Ue een Poets iets 673 
Ae arr ots AV aS tee 973 
Li baoh «. vceeres Ao he eae 325 
19, 30 ntl ee 1074 
1b aM coli srete. ofr st am 746 
ee SO Ss Cae real ae . 1024 
WEA tae cle Ned 5 eG 
2 WAG eee Saal em eee Loe LLG 
9 Sold pA. Pee er ee 916 
a 0 aps * Ook Da: Sarl ecu 967 
LORRY ca thease Ferns : 1067 
JAI ‘< 1002 
emt ack teh fe 1s - 1061 
ANY (54 98 yet ae a casket ea 1187 
PEPE ree ice. Sse nei na 1042 
rel Reine <r AO eee rae 1042 
Sh RS ge Aa ae 1074 
MES ely EO Re get Ses i a 1042 
AO i 2 ee 696 
UD ae ae a SU arene 973 
He ae Oe A oe eee 1027, 
WES PR a rs a nel 1042 
2), Os Se oa ore ae 1067 
ALE Ln Pe AD OS See Ger ee 1073 
GUO en oe A CSE er 959 
IPAS © 5 ae INA ee 481 
Dk BOR a os Se ae 263 
Pipes ees veh ky 888 
SAE tan etrse or) oP Sl sh Ue: 5 916 
DED Perea ete en GF BD! 
1S ae gee 973 
2D atte ae oe a ee 696 
ay) Sei a 745 
DO Ge nat cea ce 907 
oo hs ee 907 
SUP Nee a ae 907 
PAOD he Deg ee ee eer 1067 
IVA ads So ENO SAA ea rete 661 
DUM OEM ee tees od 696 


OOoOnrImow WwW wb 


Exodus 
Re Shee fon a OU 
Ue RUE ee eM tae 973, 1003 
See Al erate oe he 690, 
OE aby wee eee ee 436, 899, 
Leviticus 
Numbers 


et ee. Ca ee 0 ese) ee 0 Oo re: 


c= 762 <0) U6, pO eo 8s ers 


1362 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Numb. 
T1529 See MA eee re 938, 940 
L422 to eas ee . 1003 
L418). - See ee Cem. 880 
14530 eee cae has eet ene 1024 
DOTS Pa ace basco eee ee ny 1003 
DD Wha he atet Bene Pea oan eee tine 903 
Deuteronomy 
OPO 1 A eka eaien teal onr. 263 
relat ee PEROT Pi haes cy ree eT 361, 649 
ha Eee ha Calera tiny rae tot. 8s. ¥ 1017 
Oat Fe saa is es eens 364 
OETA PE Reese eae ee ec ees ie 637 
2 it SE tae Tocrtars Tle kre | 888 
10 S15 We tate eee eee eee 649 
PS i met hee PRRPEM eee nt a By 809 
PINS ST Le tris Mo ee ah! ce A 669 
ra tad WR Te nN er AAs 2 rn 95 
28 DANA oe Seen nT a cee nec 937 
25 20 wes teat Geen ean 889 
QO "18 T 50 ee ks meet aes 738 
SONIA. Oe terete any 649 
Wp AY Ear apie lar ey tre Bach 669 
So ees ie ee wees, ae 1163 
SOT LO~ eer ee oe eet omnes 98 
Joshua 
Be Lg Cee ae ear wt eee er 1042 
OFT, oe ©, Brake 2 Sear ee aes 437 
10210 Were ee ten ee 507 
LL Area eee ce oe ee 218 
LenS ee ee cen st hte an ears ee 531 
25 LB No LeT ater etre ove ne rca ae 174 
Judges 
set a 888 
3:20 2965 
6:11 1070 
as ES 918 
6:18 97, 822 
rate tL 906 
8:33 1086 
OG te S01 
9:29 940 
11:9 1017 
11:10 890 
16:20 G27 
Ruth 
Leoue 932 
2:10 1090 
Biol. 1070 
1 Samuel (1 Kings) 
Uo T cee ue a a ae ee 1 
4:1 . 1042 


AY our oa Sy Fe beg 1061 
LLL Se Pets aoe, eee 1042 
L223 05 ssa eee ee 1067 
LA S45 tal ee ee ieee ae 1024 
La oe, ee eee 1060 
LIBAN Ne ey ee ea ae 973 
A fe PY Fan tei oy) Vn eb 680 
LSS1GT eee eae eee 680 
QOL) Seer a penne ee ee ee 256 
2 Samuel (2 Kings) 
6:20 ee Loe ek eens ee 739 
LO31 1 teiw apotheosis Sea. OD 878 
14315 (Oe: 
LESS le elke, Ome eee 649 
FI ee ee tae hr 940 
1 (3) Kings 
US ts. cap nephel ce eee ee 964 
4:19 254 
SoS ol deh ab) tere ee 1067 
S39) let clwepen ie uedns ae ene 670 
10:21 1165 
1218 1120 
LSSLO9. 5 oh cee ee 1078 
TAS Gye ee 341 
iKeyesy 1067 
Le20 1002 
L220, 21 5, C8 os ae 465 
LSE mo! ea oe en ee ee 819 
18512 ee ee 880 
ZUSS Ag ick: od cee oe Se ee 1072 
2 (4) Kings 
Bile Ea cry hybe 736 
8:13 1001 
So LAO et eae ee 729 
13° 218 ee Coe fee 260 
1S 133 95 
1 Chronicles 
4:9 633 
DEOL b,c alae enn eee 643 
17 Gag: sc.) 2, eee ee 729 
he: A eg ets re aes a 588 
2820S) oo oa eo 588 
2 Chronicles 
3: 1s S28 33 ce eee . 98 
OST ip oicu lt a ee ee 1067 
L5216- 0 fae A 891 
182346. ) of se eee 906 
2522" Le (Se Se ee eee aes 966, 1062 
BS een de) 1090 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Nehemiah 
iL Ost Pe eteaer Cre 628 
SUE, Real ie ee eo Ride ha ie oes ool 
Esther 
4:14 964, 1033 
i US ais ere Dou en ee 938 
Job 
Sea Cer ey erie ey s 198 
RPA oes Serta Piha ae 977 
14:13 1003 
21:24 276 
Dehge 38 1010 
24-12 691 
oo 916 
30:24 1003 
Bye Leas eee 938 
Psalms 
Soyer. 1001 
14:1, 3 <OL 
L507 1212 
16:8 367 
16:10 502 
al 29, 476 
Seed 367 
Bye PAl Sil 
ae weet, ETE: 1061 
40:6 127, 738 
48:9 = 166 
51:6 - 193, 463, 986 bis 
oo 197 
G2°2 198 
GRA ene negara e 1061 
69 (68): 23 : 174 
(6 So ee nt ae 903 
17:18 1086 
OOF taht oe ce ts 1068 
JUD ee font Ot temas 1067 
2 Be As ed 1000 
AY 18159 fy bile Path iia 1024 
11) he Setar cree ere ene, 972 
LOSE LDS i ee tee. oss 437 
108:4 1070 
109:8 939 
LO 314 
Te We 655 
PEST LORS eer ni, kes eace c ahs 1004 
118222 Cees ed rere 718 
(£17) 113223 411 
TLS e205 ae ok Bal? ces 704 
Pi 22 aa eee clot nt St, 973 
PEL) Scene Re ee es oth rah Oey 973 
1 ORE ES Tn Sve Ries Py ry eae 940 
1A Ban eg iy Oa SE Le eee 1070 
TOY aly orn hy es teh a 637 


Proverbs 
bP oa yr ha a 973 
Ci ae oak a 890 
1S hn oe at ee lee a 871 
LAM eee aie eter ey ae 268 
AOA Sh alt as See eee 292, 750 
Z20cLo OO L 
Ecclesiastes 
1obG 1062 
2:16 460 
pd 97 
ob 1067 
The Song of Solomon 
fete Sa epee a, oa 739 
Isaiah 
1:4 487 
Tele 819 
1:16 807 
bss al 765 
oe) Ta 646 
Buss SOLLGs 
SPl4 PeLOO2 
BG 2, RE 
Ok aah y! 
eA <a . . 644 
6:10 Be) a 204, 367, 844, 988 
8:14 907 
9:16 ee L042 
10:20 903, 907 
10:20, 27 Fo La 
11:9 . 929, 1174 
14:15 591 
17:8 Ae 
22:11 637, 643 
24:10 ¢ L061 
26:20 ion 
28: 20 OL 
30. 24: 929 
SO cL 103 
uss 267 
40:4 595 
AO Si sou. ee Poe sk 837 
42:8 101 
AZ 258 tl ercet yey e386 101 
48:16 235 
ET ai ide 1067 
AO RS vac thas etvatcat co cr erie 507 
Oe ll ee ee a ee etme a 853 
62 O Shee ieee ee ee ee 1062 
OO? Lge. ee errs Ge ee ye eee 213 
OSS LAG iene eet eam ge saree 907 
POs Ly Baa ae i ce oe eee ae oe 
3 ae ee ey) Beas ; 255 


1364. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Jeremiah Daniel 
Leone Pad Sts re em oes AIS): M022) Fs aot ee Cee eee ee ie Le 
Lea OA payt Aities Pelee seers 9292) SIV EPC UCE. 7c he ees ie ee 973 
DO ton ee gic iret Temes ake Tone AL Get et ets hala eee : 647 
Ze LOT. ae yeh a ee ie an aye Or re 1067) WAS SOM eer cee ioeear ce ones ae eae 900 
DL RO Oe be eea tratp es Madi aceon OG, O14 Ser: os eee ee 512 
Apt 1a Rane a Pee emt AR a! 7D ey 13) eRe EL er a Sic: 199 
SM ler Rote ete hah ey ace tir 916° SADT D=/o8 22 2s, mee eee 415 
£21 G wee. tes er remit ne tes 337 
Oy 20 faunal ch wuckeeat Feet 33D Hosea 
Gis ier tet aks 928,929, 1016, L1G1. | 204, 2d ier ae ereene Ait 
780) ce aia he ea inl a a ALT SoZ eres ate ie, aie coe Ree 411 
LEAD SAO Ore Taek cnt tas 1061s 8 FEL ie ncaa ees 475 
Ae aa ae eee ey ee Rng tay 309 
Wee WRG Seopa th Ae ie th I spe 1073 Joel 
LAL ee Obie ca tents a cates ALG 4 Ol owe. aes oe se ae beiee Ine tenes 1148 
T7226 Pew Be etree et 644 are 
ASS Shee acne eee tere ae eer 287 1:1 494 
LES eee ae et ence nacre 932 4-7 : 
“it fe 424 
1S Ute, ces ee ae eh see eee 932 5:97 642 
Dey ALG) Fa a Mops ere ees 484 9:19 ye i pin get sao ale eee 799 986 
PH pid eT eA te eae a eye 5: 1183 ; iene 0 etre 
Zo akes ACER eee. be ee ae ees 1174 Jonah 
DA OCA ca see aa re ae ee ind a! ue ie g eee 539 
a 7 o Socials Stall ue < yic ae aa Hebakicde 
DA ae see care eee Sn ae 733 
Ezekiel Haggai 
11223 (Pee eye eee (Dee eed te pt 671 
ea = Pad cee Uses oe eee ee a3 7 ets 
17224 ek eae 476. 2:2 741 
EL MT oe Ve. 759 if ee 265 
BETA ne ne ek 1024, 1150 8:14 265 
31. Sab e gto ee ne 1024,1159 11:6 c At BE ie 599 
30700 seen cate tee eee ee ee 213 Malachi 
BS21L0 Win cue Reet ane een aes 11503 233 Bar, 24 Bouse. ee eee 889 
APOCRYPHA 
1 Esdras Esther 
LS80: ws ave es cece aks el ee ae TS5 Sawa OSS 0. so ee eer ar eC ancnne 938 
1240 eae eee are 1074 
7 Mee Pee ey tyres. 1 ri, 2 1072 Wisdom 
34.9 ice. Seale eee ke ae ee ee (P2759 A ee ere ey ee ue 225 
A645 63 J. sta aie ae bare eee T2222 12519 | See ee eee abe 
DiOT tars age ee LOG Ge 1339 a eee ee 999 
O732 heey cuca cae 5 oie ar at 722 
83545 ce ais ee ee are ee 1072 Sirach 
Prol) to Sirachs jes cee 604 
2 Esdras Gosh x © ceca a ie See eee 341 
GiB. wed ek Urea ee mec ee 10587 910% 26 10-9, ee eee aaa 274, 276 
6:20 co. center eee 64322593") 0.4 nta eee eae ee 268 
Wats Soper ura Pod GSBP SLI 2: Veale. ce eee ee 313 
AZ oad Briva: eh skeen oO eee L070 NSS i271) ren 5: ccs concer 1070 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Baruch SAN) A IGE | ok ARN 1120 
Me ee ee aks By. Pete cs LS CLOSE ee ones lee gt 1043 
BERRI em ok ets ct ote Lele cette Sb CeO Abs LO neti DeePE Tro eo ck yest 1163 
EMP Ae Po Al Fessecebe sy Occ eentcian CNG CR SRS) acd Ed oe en 618 
LO me ee a ek vate eer 729 
f LEST cod MSIE fp Men OR lg Bs Nae 260 
Tobit hah: Aiea Gen ere eee ate 28 
ho CoE emer ak ect aka ake aU Agee Ny hilly Be 1075 
OeaIee hate eck ee aks 585 (ERLE UNCON LS RE ek eng 28 
5:15 Ce aoa Re en AN Ge hay, 318 
(a A ean eae ee eM ER OA NW asit yet 192 bis 
ikea BO VSS Bes Spee en vee 1070, 1074 er) ee ee eg a 183, 370 
Pea USNS Oise ie, + itt oriea = 1H Ue ee a Paks Ao Oe 1 
Ve? ins Same oo) aoe hee PAULA Gi ae ss eT Tee 
LAs ein ness Conta en, fal (pve 
Judith Tox7 oo eke SA Se oes 370 
LOTUS Coe Se Ooh illeg Bee eae 979 
4: HESS ¢ cul Py ies les Old © sal a mS 1070 3 Maccabees 
COGS 2 RI aaa rm ee Sa. A=] tem Vr hea ety 1141 
SSCS |g RI a ee LO AT er Om eae tent enc ee 900 
abel MRA Pek ke Haiccs done oe 979 
nS) ye Ae aos eee aa 308 
4 Maccabees 
1 opt Pa ee TSN, RE a Zor 
1 Maccabees Ppa! Pane UN. bo, cc Ae 157 
prea Mean, can Sorc ae ce pte mee UL site eee Ms Weg tae Pe oes RMU 1 Lb 938 
EMESY no lhg Bp ies Dipset ae ani aa CODeg e124 Fa Says he ae ee Pe he er 104 
DAWES og Se eee se Se ae 200 Te 16215 Oe ence ee ere es wd 104 
NEN SE ot ae ers Slee Riad incaere BOO Mei 7 SOU C2 LS seein eee a se 1062 
ee LO Mee med eee See ce ghost 415 bis 
tle gl UE SC tn aces 1214 
MG re 1090 6.4 Enoch eee 
ee ee ce Th or bas he oan ed 260 Fie « oh ON ae maha Sniaaairn ere ora No eS 
Ets Ee Derk ee ee oe ee RS 
LODO Beara iret ek 1070, 1074, 1075 Psalms of Solomon 
S32 1OG Saas s oe pee ee 654 
DUM aces hese aS TP ONT ee OEE Pea Pn a ical 654 
JERS GEO Agi Ce Ree 159 
eek Wemercere eet sek Share Hee ee il 1141 Susanna O 
Ls MERE eerie hair ok ays eh fig! Ms 974 54 741 
TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS 
Reuben Gad 
Teal OMEN Weer eh CE OS OC RCE ea a as ac 654 
SEE leg See OE Aaa ae 946 Tecenh 
1 fect) Ante, Pon ne Sek by con Pdi toe 664 
Levi 
Halls 4.8 wo MA SA 972 Benjamin 
{ICN OR er Liha ho cep ON oh 673 
Judah Naphtali 
9:1 gS Ceci. na Cea LPLVEMMES SAS te Sh ccc e ct a ka .0 kt 5 Greens « 946 


1366 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(c) INSCRIPTIONS 


Audollent 

Defixionum tabellae, ed. Au- 
dollent (Paris, 1904) 

No. 238, 29 


Benndorf-Niemann 
Reisen in Lykien und Karien 
129 N. 102 . 


BGH 
Bulletin de correspondance 
hellénique 
1901, p. 416 (lead tablet at 
Amorgus) 
1903, p. 235 


CIG 
Corpus inscriptionum Grae- 
carum 
5834 . 
C. Insc. Lat. (C I L) 
Corpus inscriptionum Lati- 
narum 


v, 8733 


Deissmann 
Light from the Anc. East, 
p. 7d 
““Limestone Block from the 
Temple of Herod at Jerusa- 
lem” 


SS OS oP (ere Thy Ore SE 


Ce Me Ar AC tes eC he AC eT 


On) 6 Te 6) "en 62 \' 67 ae 


a Oy ‘a: Ce et wie 


Delphian Inscription 
Inscriptions recueillies a 
Delphes (Wescher et Fou- 
cart) 


e¢>..e) se “eo [ey 6! (0: 5"'e) Ver 6") ee 6 


Heberdey-Wilhelm 
Reisen in Kalikien 
ila 


Inscr. of Magn. 
Die Inschriften von Magnesia 
am Miéander (von O. Kern) 
Lo i208 


6. 0 FO Veo S a @ = 0) 8 en 6.7 © 


Inscription of Thera 
Hermes 
1901, p. 445 


IG 
Inscriptiones Graecae 
XL, 2 O29) ene a re oe 1189 
JIN 240,513 sae eee rei 
5, G47: le ee ieee ee 849 
5, O00 Ne vce ee one 669 
SOFA accel eee 959 
BELO USN ode ee epee aera 579 
IMA 
Inscriptiones Maris Aegaei 
iii, 174. 1129 
O20 SF [0 9) heen Ce ne 622 
JHS 


Journal of Hellenic Studies 
(Hellenic Society) 


SIX; 1405". oe on. eh ete Ce ene 535 
QO ie. Bet ee Bis MGCL tar or gti oe aS 
ZOD So Dee toate ae nee eee 

1902; p. 349 eee 728 

Sexier 902 7300 en eae 1061 

Kaibel 

Epigrammata Graeca 

18785 55.5260 "oe re 274 

p. 184 592 

Letronne (Letr.) 

Recueil des inscriptions 
grecques et latines de 
VEgypte, ed. Letronne 
(1842) 

No. 70, 79, 92 Oe, Se eee 
149.5 sy tcy aie te eee 
Al) es .s Gh. sal etak ate One 521 

Michel 

Recueil d’inscriptions 
grecques, ed. C. Michel 
(Brussels, 1900) 

No. 370 in ye 2 ILOGD 
694 . 622, 1024 

OGIS 


Orientis Graeci inscriptiones 
selectae, ed. Dittenberger 
(Leipzig, 1903-5) 

No. 41. 


>. et «2 ee eh 16) 68 ea eee 


ee «A 16, ~ag 9 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


ASAD ile cca sc parte’: 406 
ZAG ey im a woe 
PA eS Bt De ae ee ae 225 
tel 216 
ib eh PAU Ue Re Sie ne Bis 
HL GeL (elses cnt kee”, 193 
ae Owe Nha ee Ries, 7a) oe 193 
vB Ge SNR an Por Fa 218 
DOs SLU tag eae eee eee 204 
Dboweb sl pe eee ek Ce 204 
GUS eae meee eeteee es oF 9) 9.00 te 204 
PAS 
Papers of American School 
at Athens 
hb 0a ie Ee a ea YR 
ie SEIS 6 se ani ce i cao RR 172 
Pergamon Inscr. 
Die Inschriften von Perga- 
mon von M. Frinkel 
it TE oye 510 UN aa 849 
MAGE OA ett OS en ae 959 
is) Sa) bp aeana a ho ae eee e 1093 
Uy, Bee ote! “ie ep ee es eae 1093 
Perrot 
Exploration arch. de la Ga- 
latie 
06 24S Ee, ae SOC 702 
Petersen-Luschan 
Reisen im _ siidwestlichen 
Keinasien 
PROP AVUL TN Oe Pee sla eee 5 599 
TOUTING LOO Prat ateer oe ts oat ts 869 
LAN Lo ots emails ors 959 


1367 


Pontica 
Studia Pontica (Anderson- 
Cumont-Gregoire) 


(7) PAPYRI AND OSTRACA 


A. P. (P. Amh. and Amh. Pap.) 
Amherst Papyri, part ii (1901) 


POM CU Are eS on dc. 120 
Leer ee a de 75s 154 
03) 52, OS eee ae a a 470 
Wt Sra eae 527 
ist oe ee Oe 1134, 1137 
SSL LAYER res Fe - MO Te 
slit ye ee 944, 1093 


Lita Cmneens uae, ile, 931 
Priene 
Inschriften von (herausg. von 
I’. Hiller von Gaertringen) 
EOC Meare eae garfees=te he: 582 
GUE NU aie Dec acl Rk 595 
AMSA OW Ps Tierteae op See Oy ee ee 615 
Ramsay, C. and B. 
Cities and Bishopries of Phry- 
gia, by W. M. Ramsay, 2 
vols. (Oxford, 1895, 1897) 
lig o02 We ot Awa AL 1018 
OLi SOL eo0De BIO 2, ban 928 
DLO ROE See? athe eae 972 
GOL UNG S204 )aeteens ees 648 
DAUR HM Veal cme, a 668 
Syll. 
Sylloge inscriptionum grae- 
carum, ed. Dittenberger 
INO7020;,4) 200 Seer eee Neng 2 he 160 
O25,102 BeetE me tte 375 
Viereck 
Sermo Graecus quo senatus 
populusque Romanus... 
usi sunt, by P. Viereck 
(Gottingen, 1888) 
Dio Ree or are Meter) She: 958 
Waddington 
Inscr. de la Syrie 
OAS Em eee een is kee ame 837 
2014 as E Oy Homie en ere 595 
OG 28 Rela hate ee Sere ge sree 1009 
LI COs Shane ee eG 414 
L302 pore cena a) Le OO 
Le lect A dey ee at 928 


BoeMa(PBeMs) 
British Museum Papyri, ed. 
F. G. Kenyon (London, 

1893, 1898) 


1368 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Vol. i. Nos. 1-138 

BAL NEE IRs SE 939, 994 
23 Bk = ee: Ieee 997 
S72, tube hes ed a ake eee 1033 
42. . . 299, 546, 618, 875, 909, 
1081, 1145 

60 Bare Seer aa 529 
(eae A sa eons Ty) 728 
BA ONE Bee Oe tec 1120 

Vol. ii. Nos. 1389 ff. 

190 Soh Wo ae et eee 728 
233) ks Te ee ee 1010 
DSO Wis. Wen are a eae 318, 737 
BO LACT Abel aet che area 959 
Goods ts eae ee en 745 
BOG) 2. Lee eee eee ees 745 
SOOA eee Cale tek, a a ae 1122 
AT Mee ee be ened 869 
SOAs re ee Se cadre 979, 1074 
1178 Povo. toes ee 907 


B20: (B2GsU,) 
Berliner Griechische Urkunden 


Vol. i. Nos. 1-361 (1895) 

Leki pseir ele sta egtod be cts eee ee §22 
16 Ee eee ae aor 691 
7 are ARN RR UPA Gy 470 
VAR GLEN GPO C EE sa Th oye) 611, 1000 
BOr ee Ass HE Se ote tee 1061 
AB a ence, Ao tec eee aie 531 
AG iShete fe sh 1068 
48 Sy as eel eee 933, 994 
RO ae hie n area eee 689, 691 
LILO Ass sontets oh von nae ic enemies 213 
113 Ae ae. ee 509 
L140c2 Fee Sea ee eee 962 
136) al. eee ee one 900 
146 0 sige on ed boc een 478 
164 Gaya eee 997, 1061 
LOS Fess tessa eee ee 691 
17 Qe ae, Se ee 942 
ISS Sees ets a eee 691, 857 
IE YARAR are pr TST) 874 
220 2 eo eee hee eee 991, 1069 
B20 Etat) ca eee a 660 
CAD oe as pan ae ge 
DST tan ect eae 833, 848, 1124 
207? 23. eee 900 


303.4 ate oer ae ne 928 
O20) Neeeea as 318, 410, 1010 
OAL og ae ieee cae eine 691 
B50); si iar tear ae eee ee 318 
Vol. ii. Nos. 362-696 (1898) 

INOS S03) Wpecnse ae eeeies nena 692 
BSO*. Ptwha: he ee eee 487 
BOO tig od! Meera eed ke me eee 592 
OSS. caer et Soke al eee 665 
423 . . 188, 419, 464, 514, 592, 
833, 834, 835, 846, 1132, 1151 

OL: See Me A ne Ce 972 
530 190, 963, 1147, 1181 
AAG he ice: heen eet 406 
A456: <2 loSiag aoe as 746 
BOL. Co Sheets eons s eee 993 
54S eo ee neater cee 475 
546 oes wen ee 1009 
SOG i phat arent aon 361, 907, 1129 
COTS Gace het enee 730, 972 
O23" fe ie, eae ee ee 671 
GG40E Ge Briere rare eee 631 
660) oS ee ee 1068 

Vol. i. Nos. 697-1012 (1903) 
No. 7/05, ote eee 806 
190 so, ee ee 516 
raf E: Scene Meee ST cyt ee 874 
S16 chee a ee 1210 
$220. eee 737, 989 
S24 o>. saree aye Seat 933 
S00) Got e icgeel ee 1068, 1082 
845 6 fot 5 ae ees 461 
R46 Coo Sia ee 178, 414 
oY MERE Re irs) ess 990 
903. FR ee a ee eee Soe 
O25 | tu che ecek cane ee 5 We 
948. ie vie eee 734, 737 
956 straw te cen eee aS 1188 
970). aes eee 5138, 589, 1182 
998 Wank Sande gh eee 614 
100232 erg fuera eee 414 
Vol. iv. Nos. 1013 ff. 

Nowml0Olb eee eee 901 
1031, 3 298 ee eae . 997 
LOM ae ase weia2 


1079 . . 287, 488, 577, 582, 615, 
692, 933 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Ch. P. 
Greek Papyri from the Cairo 
Museum, ed. E. J. Good- 
speed (Chicago, 1902) 


IN Opa aren hele caren oll ethiel eaves 817 
A he, ag Mie teas. No 692 

C.P.R. and P. E.R. 

Corpus papyrorum Raineri, 
ed. C. Wessely (Vienna, 
1895) 

IN Oc ar Mar ieee etre Tape cBla i « 690 
iA yy Pr, Se See 654 
bY aoe Sr AT ide hres gee 962 
DATE ee ee eat SoS 892, 978 
Ue era ae 1002, 1068 
Desi Eee tee Gee oss dr asn's 959 

Deissmann 

Ostracon, Thebes, 32-3 A.D. 828 

Eudoxus 

Papyrus of the Astronomer 
Eudoxus, ed. Blass 692 

F. P. (Fay. P. and P. Fay.) 

Fayaim Towns and_ their 
Papyri (1900) 

Ere UNE yd OE 2 ie nee 817 
Pa ae epee 933, 994 
ieee eee 622, 987 
LO 27 Geran ae Salo aie 595 
iPALY oe oa Je ee, ere 861 
OS, aR ie ae 495 
Lele hs Es ee eee 959 
IRE oe yy at A eRe 1176 

G. 

An Alexandrian Erotic Frag- 
ment, and other Greek 
Papyri, chiefly Ptolemaic 
(1896) 

ln (elt lew Te hae) ep eer ee ae 945 

G.H 


Greek Papyri, series II (1897) 


Nollbsetn sete me 82, 786 
DS SReyven ae iG oP Niet 745, 746 
cite See ote tee 614, 806 
ee eee Camara AP A 976 


1369 


Hon ee Petibeand tub. bP.) 
Hibeh Papyri (all iii/B.c.) 


(1906) 
ING SoReMM Pe Beate Felts Pak ca iets 589 
eet Torcdis Coe e als lathe 406 
AA AD Maar sheer. Veh oulaec sees 974 
DOU se OS tes testecur ak one 986 
Sa) ged team FI ee tarda 851 
i Senet iets eine, Areata IN 1010 
K. P. 
Papyri from Karanis, ed. E. 
J. Goodspeed (Chicago, 
1900) 
INO carseat cat eaceed Fase 458, 481, 595 
L. P. 
Papyri Graeci Musei anti- 
quarii publici Lugduni-Ba- 
tavi, ed. C. Leemans (1843) 
ODIs Ae it ee we Jae G00 
Daemons Pa ear ae 518 bis, 939, 1062 
Wik weet aR eds 274, 516, 983 
M. P. 


Papyri from Magdola, in B C 
H 1902 ff., Jouget’s ed. 


(1912) 

No. 16 and 20 584 

N. P. 

Geneva Papyri, ed. J. Nicole, 

2 vols. (1896, 1900) 

INGA CAPER ao ier sce ce en cree 993 
LOR ae Le Le San ae ae 1061 
Li figt Gave ae aren siane re a 995 
LO Tees eee oe me ae 844 
PLN OR Ret at ec CaP tyes tac tae 692 
DOr Ae WE eta ues ne eae 464 
Le Py nee CEmTRRET bn ook 535 
AO Sees hee Wo eee 1108 
LUA in ton ate Cone 527 
DO See ah he ere, 728 
Oia ere oct tata oie 252, 745 
OU Cera rs ae 252, 745 


O. P. (P. Oxy. and Oxy. P.) 
Oxyrhynchus Papyri 


Vol. 1. Nos. 1-207 (1898) 
NOR Oat tiniest etic ar ear os tiat 977 
Oa te heme omer nea, Ie Ala 1069 


1370 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


No. 


No. 


87. . , 195, 577, 632, 867, 1040 


SR AE Ne aoe 6 ne Meats 578, 963 
AS AG. (22,02 oor cement 635 
Blk chi Alle arth ete e are 990 
TOA SUE. te tel aoe 484 
S6 Mirae eh le teers eee 1068 
OD A ee eees ee nee 656 
LOD toe ee ete: eae 1010 
L127 44 imeeee nero re 533 
I see ee el Oy i fon 888 
VERA ee eee en 723 
LIS See ret ei ee 989 
119 Siac e mer, arene 70, 572, 1174 
IDO alc tes ees eas 414 
|) ie Say er et One 284, 993 
L280 oe ant eee ea 931 
Vol. ii. Nos. 208-400 (1899) 
237 , 2 4 7518, 9838; 991) 1048; 
1069 bis 
DAO SERRE giete: 1. suse ee 939 
DO MO ait a ile eee 1150 
250 Wie, eho eee ame 745 
PAS UME Bae a pst pets om 690 
PNET eg OOO 


275 . . 513, 537, 631, 846, 963, 
1002, 1129, 1131, 1132, 1139 


PA) oy oh ej Beh 3051 
294. 600, 686, 909, 1081 
205 lat oh bee eee 807 
900::"- teas Aaya ae 682 


413 Od re Se ee 932 
ATL Ae roe ee 1137 
ATT se ee ne 470, 471 
ATR ae Sto Seglt eee 900 
Cy Ee eee anal pen ke 844, 900 
ASA Are ee eee 474 
ASG Eo eee 548 
401% i) ae oie a ae 1137 
AOD erst Sh ete ee 469 
404 Lfiiee. e aaae 749 
496)" oie hog oe ee 1018 
508 sa ee 502, 575, 767 
526. . . . 922, 939, 1002,1014 
VAM N te tbe $3 139, 900 
530. fs. 4 863;.92001014aa 118 
521 wists ete eae 1210 


Vol. iv. Nos. 654-839 (1904) 
NOs G54. 5 oot eee 834 
LLB SL Oe Mates canteen 939 
LLG aes eee 668 
1 2A coc eal ee 589 
(21a ee eee 877 
20 as ve eee 522, 1016 
VE PO EARC Rees NS « & 522 
143; yond "sae ae 999, 1024 
744. . . 7¢1,220, 509, 535, 993 
C4550 6S eee ee . 686 


Par. P. (P. Par.) 


886°" 5 APSA Soe eeees GORRGTS 
905 oh SA e) ea ae eT 
J) 8 At eee (FL 
1107.2 oe 7G 
Lies: | Sig epee a 


1120 . 1091 
1122 ee ee ee ES 
1125 . 949, 967, 1085, 1154 


L127 0" eee? ee 
TIS Sees 2 eee 
11837 3 ee) 
Se oose Lue 
L152 ao ec 


LLoSe 869 
UBB eo Rp oy rr 1066 
VI O25. oo eee 550 - 
LLG en one 1145 


-Paris Papyri, in Notices et 


Extraits, xviii, part 2, ed. 
Brunet de Presle (1865) 


Nos Bheskt ene ea ee ee 1108 
10 030, 028,08 eee 576, 585 
es hon he ee 410 
1Stee A 4 eae 1009, 1180 
22 pelt <> een ee 590 
26. . 532, 574, 939, 972, 1031, 

1043, 1141 
DS 5 - apts Beat see 590 
35°37 2, 517 
36 ate ee 614 
37, 4 645 


A ee “oe, eee a OLS 
49. . . . 995, 989, 1087, 1169 
51. . . 414, 508, 536, 682, 867 


60 ter fae ee 774 
62 suck: ace eae 1009 
63 ayes, ieee 587, 590, 938 


Ok 42 ots eae ore ee 727 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Wetted re ata 190, 640 
P. Fi. 

Florence Papyri, ed. Vitelli 
(Lincei Academy: fase. 1., 
Milan, 1905) 

No. 2 991, 1069, 1071 
624 


P. Goodspeed (P. Goodsp.) 


No.4 (2). 682/877, 1022, 1119, 1129 

P. Grenf. 

IN O200 (aac ee ee, a BY 
ThatS See ER ce Ee ae 484, 687 
FU Saat a oer Ae eae 1080 

P. Heid. 

Heidelberg Papyri (mainly 
LXX), ed. G. A. Deiss- 
mann (1905) 

Ne eR MEME Mae aVuaiee Fork deck on <5 406 
Pap. L. 

Dieterich, Abraxas, 195, 9 789 
P. Lond 

Kenyon, Greek P. in British 
Museum: 5 2°. ° 274 

abbey DA ca ten ae 837 
P. P. 

Flinders Petrie Papyri, ed. 

J. P. Mahaffy (in Proc. 
Royal Irish Academy, Cun- 
ningham Memoirs, viii, 
1891) 

inhahel iS oes ae Oe eee 690 
Te LOL Nes hones We 287 
ya es ae Nip Ta ee 944 
5 6p | Pate CP be RAD ry 595 
re RCE IGS a ee te ae a 672 
Gee ear umitiee ae yee. ces 726 
Opie ad ghia s Taine eae See Es 414 

Rein. P. 

Papyrus Th. Reinach (Paris, 
1905) 

AIL) Cy maa 2 oes a ee 922, 1014 


1371 


R. L. 
Revenue Laws of Ptolemy 
Philadelphia (Oxford, 1896) 


(G5) (PAU eS a ee ee 726 
Sabet ey Swi co le eed Rea So 586 
Rhein. Mus. 
Rheinisches Museum fiir Phi- 
lologie 
baistee StINt hy Ayia ry mee eRe ego 1182 


Dou bathe Ossett. re and Lb.) 
Tebtunis Papyri (University of 
California Publications, Part IT) 


IN Oaths, Sears ue sear ctno- oo 752, 983 
TOG Ee er taken a oure cots 165 
OR re te, Sate hae 689, 976 
Seri ad ee ee a eee ete 633 
LAs Wee ee. at . 1134 
LO ate ca hele 590, 594 
LOjsi oe terre ie cai 148 
CA Fn Cotes, falls 279, 669 
2OMee at eo cas ne 406 
Debian GheN eek Pas. 2 © Ay . 1010 
Bo opua wal eee ON. ester l1lo 
OO) Get eee kt oe, 808, 811 
S01 ae, Aen, 613 
40 $44 rhs wed one 162, 168, 654 
CA ee ae oe, + ee 588 
RN Ry eA cd RAL) ig 1134 
AS Folmatthe aoe” 91, 595 
ALS wie care ean cad Mente 689 
BO ae aes estate nd is ane 861 
DS TRE ie tee, Ser arse. 406, 1009 
5) 8 Is ese Ne UP AR) AAP a Re 945 
(OR NS oe ea ea ree 669 
104 ee eee ee, 265 MMS Y) 
105) hee 516, 669, 752 
ZOO wie reece eee aa 
BES ht hape eh et ee . . . 1010 
ALA vgs). 1s. Gee, 834, 932, 986 
421 . 682, 748, 762, 1126 

Tears 

Turin Papyri, ed. Peyron 

(1826) 

NGigl? sare ee caer cae 491 
(Corer ee ae et tie 148 

Wess. P. 


Papyrorum scripturae Grae- 
cae Specimen 
i 109291175 


1372 


Wilcken 
Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung 
A SOAS Mea ie Rae 152 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Griechische Ostraka 


(e) GREEK LITERATURE 


i. CLASSICAL 


Homer (? x/vili B.C.) 


Midd 11ST AGP ee coe eee 958 
1.262 Pa desk eee ee 1160 
LOS iil ve cee a ee 590 
W280. nee eee ee eee ee 1016 
1V¥; 4.10 $5. eee ae 1170 
IV, DUL AR) a oe 755 
+p WE OA La Mey ee Pi a A 981 
S111, eLO0 Peete eee 610 
XV1, G0 lear. tee ee 1170 
XVill,4l 52 see ee ee 1170 
XX, 6130 Bee a ee 1016 
XX 0 cert eee kewl ae eee 972 
XH S49 © ce ane 674 
XXIV /OS chee en ae 590 

Odyssey iv, 684... . 1136, 1172 

XX, (OZ or. er eee 1053 
Hesiod (? viii/B.c.) 
Fragment ai, 0. ieee eee 981 
ZEschylus (v/B.c.) 
PromeVinct. 268 f.7 ane 1038 
DOO irons. hae 538 
Persac OS1- 5. Go wee ae 673 
Sophocles (v/B.c.) 
Oedipus Coloneus 155 . . .. 994 
ol? 2. 2) eres 
Sloat. 878 
Oedipus Tyrannus 1141 737 
1146 878 
Philoctetes:100 °. > 3 aes eae 1069 
SOO Mee ce mee 932 
Electra:817 <<) Sas peaen eee 1161 
1078 © Gen neee tee eee 1094 
Ajax: L180) 5 Sie a eee eee 856 


1A se Be cee eee 266 
L253." 4-° cle are ee 152 
1027) ° 3. eee eee 631 
Euripides (v/B.c.) 
Alcestis 386.0" e245. 2 ee 837, 846 
a7]: 9) 1 eee 660 
Bacchides*1065%, -s5).0 eee 563 
Hectbs 401) 2 eee eee 1161 
Iphig. in Taur. 962 f. 746 
1359 cat eeee 392 
Medea..627 3. 4esen eee 629 
B22 5.6% sc ee eee eve 875 
Aristophanes (v/B.c.) 
Aves 1237s. 4:50 ue ee (er 
12024.% 1s. eee eons 674, 744 
1300 Mi. eh) a eerie ens t12 
Rani72 15 sie ce eee 375 
Vespi215) oidecke ocd ee 733 
Herodotus (v/B.c.) 
1, 21042 2ke9, Oe ede eer ee 1069 
Us 27 oink 7) cena eee eee 860 
WV; t44 os x kee eee eee 722 
VOB. 92h 2, ewe Go eee ae 783 
W165 10 sn ee ae 1110 
V1j68,75-74\0 heute ae ee 1110 
Vill (0 ioe) eee ee 644 
L214 sag tc atk OT 837 
Thucydides (v/s.c.) 
ho] ER oss whe cre eT LA. ry Oe 5 899 
1 12,12 ad ee eee 706 
Lel22%s as ale eee 1188 
DIS Tw ee eee 1163 
pale: 9 ree eae ee ET i 631 
11,°A.5; sl Se teen eee eee ua 
1, 2,01, op ee 783 
111.936, 2) freee eee 435 
1V; D403 Abie auee Leaps cneanne 860 
Wy O38. 240. Se ee 645 
V;°50, 3.) 205) has, eee eee 1163 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 37s 


Isocrates (iv/B.C.) i. KOINH 
LV AN cesta, Sea tOcmrereearvais”: <°\ (6 961 Theocritus (iii/s.c.) 
; SMEAR © cents "Gls SUNS Sieg ee ie ai ae 1001 
Xenophon (iv/B.c.) i 14 aa 
ANADASIS 1) 2 Olcrst tse, s,s 185 
Da eee a Aristeas (iii/ii B.c. 
pT eed 1 He ih 955 7 34 974 
Veen cote heirs irons 588 EOI AW RT a 
aig biee eAY ee 631 ; ve 
a vi Cis sa eas 620 Demetrius (iii/B.c.) 
Gyrus disse Aes TOTO maevelOGs eye bay te ts 1017 
erp be 55, Caan aes a 1048 
Behe Niel a Sar ee 472 Herondas (iii/B.c.) 
NEMO rOURee ees a LOZ SIV GO mere mer ane ess, 660 
heii dy Pao ae ae ee 747 
Pe REE WED. A tana 517 Polybius (ii/s.c.) 
lil, 2,14. ...... LOSS Pa iliy: LO, iememecneas Mer, ab 607 
IER gig he RS SS ee eee mae BOS TEL T: Oe Mets rey Kr 973 
; aa eT Y oh) Gt Pine pen eee 298 
Plato (iv/B.c.) KV Ly Cee RecN, le ons 577 
OO LOC LAr oO ek pt sr st Gk en) peta AED 0.0.01 BLL os 2 ee Ae ee 527 
PIG AMP A Race sien oh OO 
= ‘ Peet eae ce Diodorus (i/B.c.) 

A oh aa Ee aa : 1:75 OP ae eo ones ad. 1031 
VET A et At tees g ee 897 , 77.3 1007 
SCHON Peel Op ranean, ai cap ste 410% 857 a ot 3 Bie esas Wa eee ite 961 
TOGA es wo te we ae he St 665 es 37. Side ie) ne cote Wa 1007 

an i ta Be xiv hare ee a 961, 989 
meee ot RLV CL crear he eres ee. Senate OSG 
ReDUGR od be hee ot. .k 933 eA 995 
ge) a ee - 1060 KVL CINE ee etn Crs ee ES 278 
Cy RR UU ES Bee ee aie Cee ee 228 
SOc) ome ree ett 766 ‘ 
Sy! 6 eee 779 eee Strabo (i/B.c.) ee 
Pouim(omenl ec pemre lar 149 PS ic eae tame na 
BRACE MS eeteee Boh a! RL Ghia Pyne Wye ek Hy 
89 D oy i, Ue re 975 XIV, oe 8, ©) 65 Fe). @7 e. Ger, 6c (e@ 
en ES ee Te ame ace teen atae car t 837 
ST eke a ae 1172 
5 Ls Cee ern te cn 630 Philo (i/a.D.) 
1 LOG Osea een: eo eee ee ae 974 
ZEschines (iv/B.C.) i 112, os Sk Ne ey ered Caio is 973 
MOTs PieYCs 60 ony Ao ee 1069 
Flavius Josephus (i/A.D.) 
Aristotle (iv/B.c.) Antiquyve sane: omic eit 2 
Rihetoils 0 eaeew acer ware... 432 Vil sO ee en ee er 267 
Ky Aoi cae nee 1124 
fEneas (iv/B.Cc.) ; XH gece pe ee ec 973 


Oe pa s Wed ae ee ae ee 595 SVAN) oaede cae  deteta wee Los 


1374. A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Beloit 41 62a eae eee ee 253 
Vi Uj53- ieee eee Mei Cake: 
ee ph eine is ey sas 253 
Vip 2, Lv oe eee can eee me 

Apion iv, 21 aa ears ee 900 

VAG Fists 20 ce ee, eee 259 


Dionysius Thrax (i/A.D.) 
7, 34, 372, 492, 1101, 1146 bes, 1188 


Plutarch (i/A.pD.) 


Dp: 256 Dien naar eee bel060 
1 fBO25B ne ee RO 
i: 604: Cline Abia sie a eee 


Quest; Conviv, 120, ene ee 
Cons ad UxGrl Ge. en 


[Barnabas] (i/A.D.) 


PA ce Wrnere eri cen Py, Ia 1124 
CE mere Orv heg Ch oh fin, © 773 
Gel [iS ee hare bolteger oat ean 1141 


Clement of Rome (i/A.D.) 


WCorsiye2 ls Oe ee wee ey 
14531 = «ee Oe OA 
i'8:257 48 a SOMOS 
lit 1222 Se ee eee 


Dio Chrysostom (i/A.D.) 
XXXIV, 74S Oe ee 0G 


Marcus Aurelius (ii/A.p.) 
AA Ode a eet te oe 595 


Justin Martyr (ii/a.p.) 


ADOL.1,°16," 6 eueete  eee 839 
Cohort. 6 1(p.3253.,43) = eee 


Arrian (ii/A.p.) 


Epictetus i; 9): 1502 3 es eee | 
1 ld 232 . 585 
Ty Oe 999 
1,17, 14_ ee 736 


1, 1881 eee 1017 


ii,02°04 eae 933 
it; 23 eas, eee 937 


TV; ° hj4 ee ee eee cs 
ivi, 60 eee eee OCT 
1V;-0;-9 2a oe ae 999 
iv, 4,cLL i ees 
ivy 5, 8-0y ee ee OS 
iv, 10,18 . . 1092, 1095 
iv, 10°27 ee eden S07 
iv, 10,34 . . . 963, 1169 
1vetLO° 05 eae eee 1169 


Ascensio Isaiae (ii/A.D.) _ 
PE LD Baltes ae Picea ee oe 


Clement of Alexandria (11/A.p.) 
Paidagorus Hil 2 ie eS 


Hermas (ii/A.pD) 


V8 20 Le he er eae 1148 
i, 3) 205 2 a: cae ee LO 

TV; CL Us eer ee ee GF 
Vill); O° 05 sar eee ee 348 
Sims vVial bh hoe ee 611 
Vill), 4 eee Se fet!) 

Vili, 5, Le cuca uk agente. 
1X50 cd Cote ane ee 880 
ixe]2: Ase eee 1022 
Mand: iv} 5. 42% ae Us 
Viell 2a') oa ered eee LOLO 

V1.9) 1157 eee 278 


Epistle to Diognetus (ii/A.pD.) 


DA Sh 5.5. ils. Od eee 631 
1 OP RT Relea a era ao) 533 
Irenaeus (1i/A.D.) 

OO FR oy. vec! aera ee 198 
OS4 A Week ee snes eee ane 984 


‘[Clement] (iii/A.D.) 
Hfomilies1¢ G75 Giese een 
LSS" 8, are te ee rl a 
1 OY ene ao, Uae los 
ix; A ¢ 2 Soe ees 
<1) 32 See . 929 
SVL Cees eee 


XIX; 20s eal ee 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Pausanias (ii/A.D.) 


LOD Owe Poder re Re ca ts 1017 
Ignatius (i1/A.D.) 

Pipa cOeOMA0Sis 58a sealek s 1020 

Ep. to Ephesians 10:2... . 946 

Epato Polycarp ocaee 2. eo vn 5 1020 
Lucian (11/A.D.) 

RIOSAN OCT oc 2 emetic ib ve vee bd “ie 974° 

Theophilus (ii/A.pD.) 

Ad Autolycum 2, 34 . . 994 
Lh Oe Lg ote as . 1022 
Origen (ili/A.D.) 
ROOTED Tete ete. 219 
(Solira Celsussvil 09 fe] ene OD 
Heliodorus (ili/A.p.) 
fa OLAUW CS) 02) Wid Ae Sy en ees eg 595 


Acta Christophori (ili/A.p. ?) 


OS mee emg re ree: y AU 
Acta Barnabae (iii/A.p. ?) 

LO Seer cee, 2 Mets si 72, 1002 
Eusebius (iv/A.D.) 
Hecleliistenvie xk yjtLie 13. 3 '! 88 
MLO yi hetin easy fe #25 
NATL O70 esr gk chun te 672 
Epiphanius (iv/A.p.) 
VERTED Oe Wel Geos wee ets 673 
Theodoret (iv/A.D.) 

LVL peerreeaeaas re whee ore 1069 


ii, 13 A 137 


1375 


Gregory of Nyssa (iv/A.D.) 


LiPo pele Macrae fe relent te 137 
Proklus (v/A.D.) 
In rem publ. u1, 225, 22 . 1036 
John Philoponus (v/A.D.) 
TUG HELELU OU eo Te tst Gl ss 1007 
Dee Soler nc Wier 1011 
Achilles Tatius (v/A.p.) 
TW 7 ao ek eee ee 923 
rigs 0 ode Ae rel Ree A ee 996 
LWeslOp LO Mmeerc “chor eeen 961 
Callinicus (v/A.D.) 
Vita Hypatii 57, 12,113, 11 . 1040 
Priscian (v/A.D.) 
Dib Vie de: Castes ean te ee. 492 


UO pad OR rere rear 725 
N. T. Apocrypha 
Gospel:of Petty shite 6... 673 
Acta Thomae (Radermacher, 
NelaGr sp. 12s} 7. . 932 
Acta Pauli et Theclae . . . 29, 993 
Martyritimo Hails le care 594 
Quaest. Barthol., pp. 24, 30. . 1189 
Apocalypsis Anastasiae 
On 1S sapemnce eae ants oss setae 412 
Acta S. Theogn. 
OZR fet merce oe oe ees es 622 
Diogenes of Oinoanda 
Hregii aly uly om case ce onto: ae 1169 


Theo 


Progymn. 128,12 . . . 1093, 1097 


1376 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Usener Hippiatrici 
Legende der hl. Pelagia sh a © idige) Ger i tpe dae seats fea 
19a eee 860, 888 p80 ee ee 
DOI tostiie vis o> puemketaee haoall Cauley aes 1001 


ii, MODERN 


Pallis 
BOS AZO ee een San Ate duction mane 989 
388, Sua ee eeeten an 1102 John?) {6-8).° sto 2 eens 138 
The very numerous illustrations of 
Vettius the vernacular modern Greek idiom 
tA LL Meet maeet eieeste a eens 1017 ~— (ef. p. 481) are not referred to authors. 
(f) LATIN 
Cicero (i/B.c.) Pliny (i/A.D.) 
Pro -Archia Ogee moc ee 108; Nato Hist.sv;15).01 ee 
Att: Bib a ot Boner es . . 933, 994 


Cato Maj:23,00 sees eee US 





ADDENDA TO THE SECOND EDITION 


Page xxiv, line 11. Field’s book is now published as Notes on 
the Translation of the N. T. (1899). 

Page xxx. Among numerous other works that should be noted 
is A. Meillet’s Apercu de la Langue Grecque (1913). So on 
p. Xxxv some notice should have been made of the Greek 
Grammar by Prof. E. A. Sonnenschein, of Birmingham, and 
of his other writings. Note also W. Larfield, Griechische Epi- 
graphik (2. Aufg., 1913); O. Hoffmann and P. Girtchen, 
Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, Bd. IV, Heft 
4, Abt. 2 (1913), with grammar and index to the whole group; 
M. N. Tod, “The Progress of Greek Epigraphy”’ (Journal of 
Hell. Studies, Jan., 1915). 

Page 64, line 16. Add “a speaker” after “render.” 

Page 138, line 1. Add “ends”’ after ‘‘ usually.” 


Page 143. ‘In fact the study of language shows that man is not 
only a social animal, but an etymologizing animal as well.” 
F. H. Lee, ‘‘Etymological Tendencies of the Romans” (The 
Classical Weekly, Jan. 17, 1914, p. 90). 

Page 151. On words in -vcxos, —ioxn like raéioxn (Gal. 4:22) see 
W. Petersen’s ‘‘The Greek Diminutive Suffix -—IDKO-, 
—I>KH-—” (1913). He makes zacdicxy (p. 195) mean “girlie” 
(n mats). | 

Page 172, note 6. Add: It should be noted that ‘Epyds is the short 
form of any name that contains this name-element, like 

_ ‘Epyddwpos, ‘Epyoxparns, “Epuapxos, ‘“Eppydodidos, ‘Epyoyerns. In 
many cases the original unabridged name can only be guessed 
at. Cf. Fick-Bechtel, pp. 113, 182. ; 

Page 180. On pp. 19-26 of the Washington Manuscript of the 
Four Gospels (Part I) by Sanders, there is a good discussion 
of the spelling, grammatical forms, and scribal errors of this 
interesting document. See also The Freer Gospels by E. J. 

1377 


1378 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Goodspeed (1914) in which monograph W is carefully com- 
pared with Westcott and Hort’s text. 

Page 180. Of the inscriptions on the tombs in Phrygia, Ramsay 
says that the Greek was bad, even that of ‘persons of high 
rank in their cities” (Expos. T., Jan. 17, 1915, p. 174). 

Page 202. Onw and ov see olay dv BovAndoduer O. P. 1126, 9 (A.D./v). 

Page 266. Note apo[tpas] recoapes O. P. 1126, 6 (a.d./v). 

Page 304. Add this from Westphall: “The noun is a verb at 
rest, and the verb is a noun in motion.” 

Page 306 (6). The ending —p in Alou, eéXwue iS apparently a 
new Greek formation. Cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 346 
(Brugmann-Thumb, pp. 314, 396). 

Page 326, line 16. It should have been noted that the middle 
optative uses only the suffix -— (rWeiunv, dotro), as originally 
did the active dual and plural (oratuev, riBetre). 

Page 379. Thumb’s revision of Brugmann’s Giriech. Gr. (4. Aufl.) 
has for syntax pp. 414-672. | 

Page 414. The sudden change from accusative with edov to nom. 
so common in the Apocalypse is found in Ezek. 3:18, idov 
ouvnv — Kal Pwv7. 

Page 417. Note the careful balancing of words in 1 Cor. 14:20. 
In 14:26 note the asyndeton and repetition of éve. 

Page 424 (2), line 7. Add “Mt. 23:28” as another example of 
yev in the fifth place and ‘‘ Ro. 7:25” in sixth place. 

Page 424 (2), line 12. Add “Mt. 22:28” as another example of 
ovv in the fourth place. 

Page 472. See Ezek. 2:6 for pu) doBnO9s aitols and 3:9 for py 
poPnOys am’ abtav. 

Page 490. An example of tvxév=‘perhaps,’ appears in Epictetus, 
Ench. i, § 4. 

Page 537, line 15 from bottom. Add vids after povoyer7s. 

Page 539. A good instance of the ethical dative appears in Gal. 
6:11 duty (‘mark you’). 

Page 560, line 6. With émBdadrdeu él iudriov (Lu. 5:36) compare 
emuBadr4a él iuatiw (Mt. 9:16). 

Page 561. I gave no example of eic— followed by é&. I note one 
in Rey. 11:11 rvedua fwhs eicf{ev & airots, the reading of 
A 18. 28** 36. 79. 95. But CP 1. 7. 12. 17. 388 have simply 
avrots, While & B al* give eis airots, and 49. 91. 96 have 


ADDENDA TO THE SECOND EDITION 1379 


é’ avrols. W. H. doubtfully print é atrots in brackets. 
The variation shows how éy is giving way before eis. 

Page 576. The force of 476 in composition as meaning ‘in full’ 
comes out finely in Lu. 16:25 dru aré\aBes Ta ayabd cov ey TH 
(wh gov. , 

Page 580. fe “‘be-tween,”’ note Beowulf, lines 859, 1298, 1686, 
1957, b? saem tweonum. 

Page 587, line 4. Add: év wd rv quep@v (Lu. 5:17; 8:22; 20:1). 

Page 594. On eis like a dative, note rijs dedouevys eis c€ (Ezek. 3:3). 

Page 599. On the partitive use of ék in the kxowyn see Raderma- 
cher’s review of Lietzmann’s “ Griechische Papyri”’ (Zeitschrift 
f. d. désterr. Gymn., 1914, III. Heft, Separatabdruck, p. 8): 
‘Die Praposition é£ ist in der Koine der tiblichste Ersatz des 
partitiven Genitivs.”’ 

Page 607, line 10 from bottom. With xara rod rvebuatos compare 
4 TOD TvebuaTos BAacdnuia in Mt. 12:31. 

Page 608. The distributive use of both ava and xara occurs in 
1 Cor. 14:27. 

Page 609. For xara with acc. in sense of ‘like’ (standard), note 
Gal. 4:28 xara ’Ioadk. 

Page 619. Cf. Job 1:5 for three examples of zrepi. 

Page 644. Mécov as preposition appears in Epictetus, Bk. II, ch. 
xxll, § 10, Bade kai cod kal rod ratdiov pécov aypidiov (Sharp, 
Enict. and N. T., p. 94). 

Page 657. On éyoueva as possible preposition see Ezek. 1:15, 19. 

Page 669. As examples of the true superlative in —raros, note 
Naumrpotat|n] wore O. P. 1100 (A.p. 206), and & tots r&v voudv 
gavepwrarots (ib.). Cf. also O. P. 1102, 4 f. (a.p. 146). 

Page 686, line 2 from bottom. After cai airvots add Mk. 1:19. 

Page 702. On the use of ratrns without article in Acts 24:21, 
see the magical incantation in O. P. 1152, 4f. (a.p./v—vi) 
Bone nuty Kal TovTw olka. 

Page 720, line 9. In 1 Cor. 15:10 the neuter gender is to be 
noted. 

Page 724, line 7 from bottom. In Lu. 7:43 é7c 6 there is ellipsis 
of the verb. 

- Page 753. Sharp, in his Hpictetus and the N. T. (1914), which is 

full of suggestive parallels between the idiom of Epictetus and 

that of the N. T., quotes (p. 13) Bk. I, ch. xxii, § 36, eidas 


1380 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


axpiBas TO ToD IINatwvos, dT Taca Wuxi) akovoa oTEpETaL THs adn- 
Geias, ‘knowing accurately the teaching of Plato that no 
soul is willingly deprived of the truth,’ a striking parallel to 
as — od in the sense of ‘‘no one.’’? He quotes also from the 
Rylands Papyri, vol. II, a papyrus dated 1383 a.p., the uy — 


mas idiom, m1) ExovTas TAY TpaY"a Tpos EME. 
Page 760. Note airy 7 ‘Iepovoadny in Tzek. 5:5. 
Page 811. See example of redundant middle in Hos. 3:2, éu- 


cOwodpnv EuavT@. 


Page 812. Ramsay notes eicéOorro on a tomb in Phrygia and adds 
that the middle voice was loved in Phrygia (Hxpos. T., Jan., 
1915, p. 174). 


Page 823. The aorist is a sort of flashlight picture, the imperfect 
a time exposure. Iterative action is like the repetition in 
moving pictures. 

Perhaps a word more should be said as to the point of 
view of. the speaker or writer. The same action can be 
viewed as punctiliar or linear. The same writer may look 
at it now one way, now the other. Different writers often 
vary in the presentation of the same action. 

Prof. C. W. Peppler, of Trinity College, Durham, N. C., 
contributes this note: “‘”Ecxov, ‘I got,’ is the only aorist that 
is always ingressive. Hence efxov, ‘I had,’ has to do duty as 
both imperfect and aorist.”’ 


Page 844. In The Expositor (May and June, 1915), Rev. Frank 
Eakin, of Allegheny, has a very interesting discussion of 
“The Greek Aorist’? or more exactly ‘An Investigation 
into the Usage of the Greek Aorist in the New Testament, 
and its Proper Translation into English.” By astudy of 800 
aorist indicatives in the Gospel of John he shows that Wey- 
mouth uses other tenses than the simple past in English in 
21 per cent, Moffatt in 22, the A. V. in 18, and the R. V. in 
8. He argues that modern knowledge as seen in Weymouth 
and Moffatt, is freeing itself from the bondage of Winer’s 
mistaken conception of the Greek aorist which was followed 
by the Revisers. Nothing is now clearer than that the Greek 
aorist indicative cannot be made to square regularly with the 
English past. It more commonly does so in narrative than 
elsewhere, but no ironclad rule can be laid down. Mr. Eakin 
concludes that the aorist is ‘‘to be regarded as what it essen- 





ADDENDA TO THE SECOND EDITION 1381 


tially is — an indefinite tense — except when it is seen to derive 
definition from the context.” 


Page 880. With Jo. 18:27 6 wovets roincov taxevov Compare Toier 
a@ movets (Epictetus IV. 9. 18). 


Page 889. A good example of the linear future appears in Gal. 


6:16 crovxncovew. 


Page 895. Moulton (Ezp., April, 1901, p. 280) quotes Plato, 
Apol. 28C dco & Tpoia rereNevTHKact, a reference to the Greek 
Bible (Homer). 


Page 907. Note ty’ duev einpyernuevoc O. P. 1117, 18 (a.p. 178). 


Page 910. Note aorist and perfect participles in 6 rv brdécx[eow] 
do’s Kal 6 THY cbvopy eidAndws O. P. 1117, 6 f. (A.D. 178). 


Page 927. Prof. Sonnenschein’s more developed theory of the 
subjunctive is to be seen in his little volume on The Unity 
of the Latin Subjunctive (1910). He plausibly argues that 
originally the subj. and opt. were identical in meaning like 
the first and second aorist tenses and “‘only gradually differ- 
entiated in Greek through a long process of development.”’ 
He makes the subj. (p. 54) stand midway between the ind. 
and the imper. 


Page 929. Sonnenschein (Cl. Rev., April, 1902, pp. 165-169) 
suggests “the interrogative imperative” or “‘the interroga- 
tive prohibition” as the explanation of the origin of the use 
of ov uw with the subjunctive and even for od uy with the 
future indicative by analogy or because of the future indica- 
tive of command. But R. Whitelaw replies (Cl. Rev., June, 
1902, p. 277) that the notion of a prohibitive wu» with future 
indicative is untenable. On the whole one must admit that 
the origin of the ot uy construction is unsolved. 


Page 932. Note dpa pi) duedjons O. P. 1158, 9 (A.D./iii). 

Page 935. On the history of the subj. and opt. see further F. 
Slotty, Der Gebrauch des Konj. und Opt. in den griech. Dia- 
lekten (1915). 


Page 958. Note o6 dy jv in Ezek. 1:12, 20, and as av cuveredéoOnoav 
in Job.1:5. 

Page 959. Note xafos av ein in Exzek. 1:16. 

Page 964. See declarative éiére (=6rr) in Ezek. 5:13 émvyvoon 
didre éyes Kbpuos AeAdAKa. Cf. also 6:10, 138. Dr. James Mof- 
fatt (The Expositor, Feb., 1915, p. 187, ‘Professor Robert- 


1382 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


son’s N. T. Grammar”’) says: “The use of é:é7c for 67. may 
be illustrated from Polybius, where the former seems to be 
used after a preceding vowel to avoid hiatus; a similar prac- 
tice may explain the interchange of ws and 671, and of rnXixos 
and 7Xikos.”’ 


Page 968. For xaws at the beginning of a sentence (1 Tim. 1:8) 
see kabws évererdaunv co Oxy. P. 1299, 9-10. 


Page 994. J. Rendel Harris in a review of Moffatt’s “New Trans- 
lation of the N. T.” (The Expositor, Dec., 1914, p. 537) 
commends his rendering of Eph. 3:17 (the inf. xatocxjoat) 
and of Jo. 17:21 ff. and Col. 2:2 (iva) as wishes, and adds: 
‘These new renderings are a great improvement, even if for 
the present grammarians are ignorant of them and the class- 
ical scholars acknowledge them not.” 


Page 1018. In Lu. 16:31 we have the first and third class con- 
ditions side by side. 


Page 1043. But yu) yevo.ro and the inf. does occur often enough 
in the LXX, as in Gen. 44:7, 17; Josh. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Ki. 
213 ea CORO AL Oe ae 


Page 1069. In the Papyrus de Magdola 11 three examples of 
mapa 70 and the inf. occur: wapa 76 evar (line 5), rapa 7d pm? 
divacba (line 7), mapa 76 efvae (line 15). 


Page 1137. About negatives with the participle Robison (Syn- 
tax of the Participle in the Apostolic Fathers, 1913, p. 39) 
says that in the Apostolic Fathers wy with its compounds 
occurs 168 times, while od with its compounds is found 29 
times. He adds that about 51% per cent of the participles 
have negatives, an increase in comparison with classical 
Greek ‘‘and shows the growth of the feeling that a participle 
is equivalent to a subordinate clause.’”? But Robison still 
endeavours to preserve the purely subjective meaning of yy 
with the participle like the classic idiom. 


Page 1145. Add Lu. 14:26 é1 ve xai as a good illustration of par- 
ticles bunched together. 


Page 1154. Gildersleeve, Am. J. of Ph., 1912, p. 240, calls rou 
“the confidential particle” and roivuy “doubly so.” ‘Tou is 
an appeal for human sympathy, as ov is a resigned submis- 
sion to the merciless rerum natura.” 


Page 1179. The use of re kai in pairs is well illustrated in Jas. 3:7. 


ADDENDA TO THE SECOND EDITION 1383 


Page 1183. The adversative use of xai occurs in Ezek. 3:18, 19, 
20. 


Page 1186. In 1 Cor. 14:20, 22 note the use of a\d\a — 6¢ side by 
side where the main contrast is presented by 6€ and the 
minor one by aAna. 


Page 1200. The zeugma in Rey. 1:12 Brerew tiv dwvav appears 
in Ezek. 3:13 idov dwriv rrepbywr. 
Page 1206. An example of hendiadys occurs in Jas. 4:2, dovevere 


kal (nAovTE. 
decor Zo0r AOU: elke 122°. .-. 002)” 
Pavei287; Add “Mk. 9:7... . 506.” 
Page 1292. Add “7:2... 546.” 
Page 1849. Add “2 Mace. 6:21... 184.” 





ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 


Page 37. In the Expos. T. for Dec., 1916, the late J. H. Moulton 
accepts the suggestion of Hrozny and EK. Meyer that the 
Hittite language is a member of the Indo-European family 
as is true of the Tokharian. 

Page 107, lines 16,17. Add “Mt. 13:25” & 76 xadebdev; ‘Lu. 
12:15” & 7@ Tepiocevev. 

Page 109, line 9 ab imo. To ixavoy rovety (Mk. 15:15). Mr. J. F. 
Springer, of New York, furnishes me several citations of this 
Latin idiom in Greek for 350 years, so that Mark’s use of it 
was neither at the beginning of the use nor when it was 
dying out. The examples appear in Polybius, Hzstorie 32. 
3 (7). 138 (cited in J. Schweighéuser) and in Diogenes Laér- 
tius, De Vitis, etc., 4. 50 (cited by Liddell and Scott); Her- 
mas, Pastor Sim. 6. 5. 5; Appian, Bell. Pun., p. 68; Arrian, 
Exped. Alex. 5, p. 370. Evidently Mark’s idiom was current 
for centuries. 

Page 115. Mr. H. Scott has counted the entire number of the 
words in the text of W. H. for Matthew as 18,302; for Luke 
19,461; for Acts 18,296. 

Page 118, line 10 ab amo.. To Mk. 3:11 add “6:56; 8:35.” 


Page 119, line 5. Mr. Scott gives this table for ody in Synoptics: 


Mark Marr. LUKE TOTAL 
In Narrative or Editorial. . . . . 0 [16] 1 2 3 5 
In Speeches 
without parallels ...... 0 23 13 36 
not used in the parallels . . . 0 20 8 28 
occurs also in parallels... . 4 11 saul 22 
pth awe ener 6 Sc, 4 56 31 91 


Page 122, line 8. Luke has & 76 c. inf. 42 times in all (Gospel 34, 
Acts 8). Aorist 8 in Gospel, 1 in Acts; pres. 26 in Gospel, 7 
in Acts. So Scott’s count from Geden. 

1 Matthew has 4=with Mark and 7 with Luke. Luke 7=are with Mat- 


thew only. See Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, p. 360. 
1385 


1386 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Pages 127-31. On Paul’s Style in Preaching see able and dis- 
criminating article by M. Jones in The Hzpositor for Oct. 
and Nov., 1917. 

Page 150 f. ‘On the Origin of the Indo-European Stem-Suffixes” 
see articles by Prof. Walter Petersen in Am. J. of Ph. for 
April and July, 1916. A full survey of the material. 

Page 161f. E. W. Burlingame discusses ‘The Compound Nega- 
tive Prefix an-a in Greek and Indic” in the July, 1918, Am. 
hole 

Page 190f. Prof. Walter Petersen calls attention to the fact 
that, so long as ay (‘if’) and modal av were distinguished in 
vowel quantity, there was little confusion. When they be- 
came alike in quantity, the syncretism in usage came. Mr. 
Scott furnishes this table: 


éav for av (see Geden, p. 237) with 




















TOTAL 

os daos d7rou doTis | OoaKts ov | nvika Kao 
Mt. 13 6 3 et 21 
Mk. 6 1 4 if iy 
Lu. Me 2. 
Ac. 2 2 
Jo. 1 1 
1e10: Pe L 3 
3 Jo. 1 1 
Rev. 2 1 3) 
Jas. 1 1 
27 9 q 2 1 — — — 46 
1 Cor. 2 1 53 1 (é 
2 Cor. ne 1 1 2 
Gal. 2, 1 a 
Col. i} 1 2 
5) —- — 3 3 if i iL 14 
Total on 9 7 5 4 1 1 1 60 


Page 205, line 18. For example icxvi. 

Pages 208, 984. For xav=xai note these examples: Ovx [é] 67\wods 
Mou Kav meplt THs OAoKAnpias. Oxy. P. XII. (iv/a.p.) 1598, 1. 5. 
Kay pov, adedpe, mavra brepbeuevos avtiypawov por (2b., 1. 7). Kav 
Loabiov olvov pot dodérproov (1b., 1. 16). 

Page 224, line 5. Cf. Lightfoot’s note on Phil. 2:23 concerning 
apidw. Papyri examples are common. Cf, édiopxotyr. Th. 








ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1387 


Pee Oelieeb Ge t0-sse70 epaupiovy Lb. P.» 119; 13-17, \B.c. 
105-1; rod éderiwod Oxy. P. XII, 1482, 1. 12 (ii/a.p.). 

Pages 232, 267. Note about ’Edawy Fay. P. 112, ll. 14, 15 
(99 A.D.) émiyvobe ef éoxadyn w Tijs Avovvarddos adv. CE. also 
nom. iBiwy, gen. iBiwvos (Ibis-shrine) Tb. P. 62, 1. 23; 64, 
ll. 10, 11; 82, 1. 48. So (Siwy (gen.) in phrase iBiwy tpodh Th. 
polar Opti O51 o28  o2eboos (allii/8.C:); 

Page 233, line 8. Per contra Mr. Scott notes his inability to find 
an aorist indic. with és éav (av) in the N. T. Cf. Mt. 16:19. 
See Moulton’s comment on p. 317 of the German Ed. of his 
Proleg. 

Page 256 (c). On the accent of the vocative see Jannaris, Hist. 
PEE INS PA OU 


Page 256 (c). Cf. 76 Owud (Jo. 20:27). 
Page 264, end of (a). See yivac in 1 Cor. 7:16. 


Page 266. An instance of ravres (acc.) appears in robs & txy 
wavres Fay. P. 115, 1. 11, a.p. 101. 


Pages 279, 516. For zepucods as a positive see Mt. 5:47; Jo. 
TOMO 2 Gor os. 

Page 292 (h), line 10. Note dd rod d(e)i(va) in P. Par. 574, 
]. 1244 (ili/a.D.). 

Page 299, 4 (a). The use of écxatws exev (Mk. 5:23) appears, 
Mr. Springer reports, in Dzod. Siculus (i/B.c.), Bibl. His- 
torica, 10. 3. 4. Cited by Toiller'in note to éoxarws éxew in 
Thomas Magister (Blancardi’s edition, about 1757). Both 
Sallier and Toiller cite Artemidorus, Oneirocritica (1i/A.D.) 
3. 60 (61) as using it. Phrynichus (grammarian) also gives it 
(ii/a.D.), Hcloge Nominum Atticorum ad éoxatws exer. There 
is also an example from Galen of doubtful genuineness ro7s 
écxarws Exovow and a genuine one in Vita Porphyrit 99 by 
Marcus Diaconus. 

Page 308. The form yv& imperative occurs in B. M. CXXI, 613 
(iii/A.D.). Mayser (p. 327) says: “Die Endung —& findet 
sich nur noch in tode. (=%o6., von etvar) und tof (von ofda).” 

Page 309, line 19. Against Blass’s scepticism concerning éwoa 
note &eyév por ’Ardd\Awy bre ovdéy por EOwoev Oxy. P. 1066, 
ll. 11, 12 (iii/a.p.). Rev. W. H. Davis furnishes mpodacas 
from Hesychius: mpodeacas Hesychio condonandum, quem 
etiam ovvOjcas admisisse certum est. Vide Lobeck, Phryn., 
p. 723. 


1388 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Page 311, line 2 ab imo. Note deiéu.=didov in Oxy. P. 1185, 1. 12 


(A.D. 200) dv 6€ kal otvoy airf, KovdtXovs ait@ dele. 


Pages 325, 360. Mr. Scott offers the following table on the use 
of the perfect subjunctive in the N. T.: 



































LN WOTe éay iva 
Book eras Eergryest (Friar Ve eet ia.) i 2 ha ene a LOUATI 
€l6@,| Perfect — Perfect €idQ, Perfect 
etc. | Part. eld, ete. Participle etc. Participle 
Mk. 2:10 1 
Mt. Ay; ag =t4926 : 1 
Lu. .. | 14:8 we ey. am 2 
Jo. Le es 3:27; 6:65 16:24; 17:9, 28 5 
1507 ma me 2:29 “e yaa 1:4 3 
Ppa Keys a 12 1 
Jas 5:15 (active) 1 
— 1 ! 3 4 oS 14 
Cores flail; lees ae 2:12 1:10 4 
2 Cor. a a 1:9 (active);9:3 2 
Eph. Gao a 1 
Lelimn, =a ell BS SS 1 
—};— 2 — 3 3 8 
Total! | eae 320 eae 7 8 29 
6 nS 





Periphrastic: 12 (all passive, except Jas. 5:15; 2 Cor. 1:9). 
«16, etc. 10. 


Page 334, line 19. For azexpivaro-form see also Mk. 14:61; Mt. 
Ziel 2) O80 3 Aen oe 


Page 335 f. Examples of —-ocav-forms occur in éfayooay Oxy. P. 
1007, 1. 29 (Gen. 3:16, vellum leaf of Gen. 2 and 3, iii/A.D.) 
and in a fragment of Xenophon’s Hellenica in Oxy. P. 226, 
1. 16 G//il A.D.) érerdudocar. 

Page 337, line 16. For the —es-form note as éreupés wor Oxy. P. 
1489, 1. 4 (ili/a.D.); adjxes and ofdes Oxy. P. 1067, ll. 5, 
20 (ili/A.D.); dédwxes Oxy. P. 903, 1. 30 (iv/a.v.). It is not 
quite so rare in the papyri as Mayser thought. 

Page 348, line 12. T. Nicklin (Cl. Rev., Aug., Sept., 1918, p. 115) 
says re néa: “One would like to know if any other instances 
can be adduced, and to have some fresh consideration of the 
evidence.” It so happens that I have just come across 





ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1389 


ovvaéas in vol. XII, Oxy. P. 1414, 1. 21 (a.p. 270-5). I have 
learned to be chary about saying that the xow/ does not 
show this form or that. <A fresh papyrus may turn up and 
prove me false. So we shall have to admit the #£a-form. 


Pages 348, 1215. The form j£a (from jxw) occurs in Oxy. P. 933, 
]. 13 @i/a.p.). Note also the infinitive dayar Oxy. P. 1297, 
1. 10; werA#rAOac (note augment) P. Tor. i. 5. 27; érevéyxar B. 
G. U. 250. 8 (all iv/a.p.). 


Page 360, 7, line 9. Mr. Scott counts 6 perf. imperatives out of 
1623 imperatives and 22 perf. subjs. out of 1872 subjs. in the 
N. T. An undoubted perfect imperative occurs in Oxy. P. 
1409, 1. 21 (a.p. 298) torw. 


Pages 360 (cf. 109), 361, 375, 480, 809, 818, 902, 1108, 1110, 
1122. In these references to the idiom éye pe rapytnuévor 
(Lu. 14:18, 19) it is not meant that this is what is usually 
called the periphrastic perfect, but only that it furnishes a 
kind of analogy to the modern Greek perfect and the modern 
English. The syntax of the Greek idiom is, of course, plain 
enough, the predicate participle agreeing in case with the 
object of éxw as in Mk. 3:1; 8:17; Lu. 19:20. 


Pages 362, line 5, 375. The complete list of active periphrastic 
periects 1s Acts 5:25; 21:33; 25:10; 1 Cor. 15:19; Heb. 
7:20, 23. A periphrastic perfect passive infinitive occurs in 
Acts 19:36. 


Page 363. Note jxovxévar, Oxy. P. 237, 1. 23 (a.v. 186). 


Page 375, line 15abimo. Mr. Scott counts 32 present passive and 
6 active perfects in the periphrastic form. 


Page 390. On “The Predicating Sentence” see able paper by 
Prof. A. J. Carnoy in Trans. of Am. Ph. Ass., 1917, pp. 73-83. 


Pages 392, 1058. Re subject infinitive Votaw finds 289 anarthrous 
infs. with 39 verbs as predicates. Scott notes that de? has 
122 infs., yivoua 36 (82 Lu.), é&eorw 31 (Syns. and Acts 29), 
kadov (éoriv) 21, ebxotwrepovy (Syn.) 13. Of verbs peculiar to 
authors Mk. has 2, Mt. 4, Lu. (Gospel and Acts) 14, Heb. 3, 
Paul 3, Jas. 1. For further details see Viteau, i. 151-2. 
There are 23 subject ro infs. (12 pres., 11 aor.) confined to 
Mt. 2, Mk. 4, Paul 16, Heb. 1. 


Page 394, line 6. For ef 6€ un Mk. has 2 exx. (parallels in Mt. 
and Lu. ei 6é unye), Jo. (Gospel) 2, Rev. 2=6.. For ef 6é wyye Mt. 


1390 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


shows 2 exx., Lu. 5, 2 Cor. 1=8. Mr. Scott observes that 
éay 5¢ wy (or pyye) 1S not in the N. T. 

Page 394, line 14 ab imo. If 667w is correct in 2 Cor. 9:7 Mr. 
Scott affirms that it is the only instance of uy and 3d sing. 
aor. imp. by Paul. 

Page 395, line 10. For omitted éouéy add “Jo. 17:11, 22; Gal. 
DAS 

Page 404, 3. Mr. Scott notes that of the 174 N. T. examples of 
dxXos, Sing. and plural, 118 are in the singular. Of these 63 
are in an oblique. case, 55 in nom. sing. Of these 55 there 
are 44 with singular verb and 11 with plural verb. When 
dxdos is subsequently referred to in narrative or by some 
speaker, the reference is always in the plural, whether verb 
or pronoun airots, etc., except Rev. 7:9 where proximity is 
probably the cause of the sing. That also is the only passage 
where the relative is used. 

Of the 31 exx. of w\fGo0s only one (Ac. 5:14) is in the 
plural; 12 are in oblique cases; 14 have nom. with sing. verb. 
Only 4 (Mk. 3:8; Lu. 2:13; 19:37; 23:1) have plural verbs. 
Where further reference is made (7 times), the verb is 
always plural (xara obveow, p. 412). 

As to Xads out of 141 exx. 123 are in oblique cases. Of 24 
with sing. nom. only two (Ac. 3:11; Rev. 18:4) have plural 
verb and there are only four plural noms. Where repeated 
reference occurs, the reference is in the plural except Lu. 
207 Ore ivOm ese 

Mr. Springer finds numerous examples in LXX (Ex. 19:8, 
9; Lev. 9:5; Dt. 22:18, 19, etc.) where a collective noun is 
sReS with tails: and with a plural verb as in Mk. 5:24; 
Aci3:95,10; 


Page 404, line 2 abimo. Add ‘1 Thess. 2:20.” 

Page 408, line 8 ab imo. Add amo avarodjs (Rev. 21:18). 

Page 414. Add “Ro. 12:6-8” for examples of acc. and nom. in 
apposition (after etre). 

Page 424 (2), line 6. For yé in fourth place add ‘‘ Lu. 22:22.” 


Page 460 (f). Mr. J. F. Springer furnishes the following note 
which is pertinent: 
Mk. 13:19, écovrar ai jucpar éxetvar OAs. This expression 
is abundantly supported whether we regard ai juépar éxetvac 
as subject or as the nominative of time. 





ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1391 


I 
As Subject 


Kal €oTw buy y vdE mpodvdaky, Kal  juepa epyov (LXX Meh. 
4:22 (16) ); 4 vdé! exeivn ein oxdros (LX X Job 3:4); obxt oxdros 
) nuepa TOU Kupiov Kal ob das; Kal yvdbos oik Exwy Hheyyos airy; 


(LXX Am. 5:20); e&aNeupis cov 7 juépa éxeivn (LX X Mi. 7:11). 


IT 
As Expression of Time 


POG w Ober Oe15- 2:1 
Esth. 4:11; 9:27 
dea ea 2st ay hay fs 
Mi. 7:14 
Uy a) BSE Re 
Jr. 11:5; 89 (62):20; 43 (36):2: 51 (44):6 
Bae leloweds 2°60) 1126 


Theodotion: Dn. 9:7, 15 (ef. L:XX). 

Examples of the formula, as 7 jyeépa airy, are: LXX 1 Ki. 
2s, oi 5.24, Ol; Neh. 9:10. 

The plural écovrac in Mk. 13:19 may be explained, he sup- 
poses, as due to its position near at ju. é. 


Page 464 (d). Add ¢apicate rupdé (Mt. 23:26). With zarip Sixare 
in Jo. 17:25 compare xipié you matnp B. G. U. 423, 1. 11 
GT /AALD.). 

Page 466 (b). Cf. “you” (ace. form) used as nom. like ‘“‘ye.”’ 

Page 475, line 6. Koparety ris xe.pos occurs in the Gospels five 
times. Mr. Scott notes Hermas, Vis. 3. 8. 3 4 xpatodoa ras 
xetpas and Lightfoot’s translation ‘‘the woman with the 
strong hand.” Cf. Mt. 28:9 rods wédas. 

Page 476, line 6. Mr. Scott reports that rpocxvvew occurs 60 times 
in the N. T., 30 with dative, 14 with acc., 16 other construc- 
tions. 

Page 477, line 6 abimo. Add oddds and read 12:47 f. in next 
line. 

Page 480, line 25. For vovetvy with acc. and inf. see Mt. 5:32; 
Mise lel af oc. 54 Jo. 6° 10> Ac? 17:26* Rev. 13213. 


1 ¥ vt is reading of B and S!, 4 jyéoa of AS*2C. The example is suitable 
with either. 


1392 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Pages 487, line 7 ab imo, 518, 3. For xpeiav éxw absolutely see 
Mk. 2:25, with ablative see Mt. 6:8, with 7od and inf. see 
Heb. 5:12, with inf. see Mt. 3:14, with iva Jo. 2:25. 

Page 504, line 14 ab imo. Mk. 14:64 is probably the origin of 
évoxos Javarov in Mt. 26:66, but the idiom is still unusual. 


Pages 514, 1132. Mr. Springer notes unnecessary genitive abso- 
lutes (like Mk. 6:22) in Thucydides 1. 114; Xenophon, Cyr. 
1. 4,20; LXX (Numb>627- Dtrlbs10 sie ev ce 
9:2, etc.); (Aratus of Soli) Eratosthenes, Catasterismz 40. 
Page 522, line 10. Add “Mk. 6:21=Mt. 14:6” to yevecious. 


Page 527 (d), line 5. Prof. Robert Law, of Knox College, Toron- 
to, sends me this example of ypdovw ixavG in Plato, Leges 678 D. 


Page 530 (f), line 4 from end. It should be noted, Mr. Scott 
reminds me, that duow is also used, with acc. of person 
(Lu. 7:31) or thing (Mk. 4:30), while to whom or to what 
the acc. is likened is put in the instrumental (assoc.). In 
the passive, as usual, the acc. becomes the nom. and the 
instrumental is retained (Mt. 13:24). 


Page 535. The syncretism of the dative forms (locative, instru- 
mental, true dative) is ably and clearly discussed by Prof. 
Walter Petersen under the caption ‘‘Syncretism in the Indo- 
European Dative” (Am. J. of Ph., xxxvii and xxxix, 2, Jan. 
and April, 1918). With great pains and skill he shows how 
the psychology of the cases apnears in the process of blend- 
ing. He supports the thesis that the dative is not a purely 
local case in origin and is not a purely grammatical case, 
but syncretistic. Originally a case without ending, which 
“secondarily received its endings by association with local 
cases, and that these local cases then in turn thrust upon 
the dative certain meanings like that of direction which 
were foreign to it.” It was originally a suffixless case of in- 
direct object and borrowed its endings from certain local 
cases. 

Page 537, line 10. Note dudv and atrots in Phil. 1:28. 

Page 560, line 10. Before 1 Pet. 5:7 add “Lu. 19:35.” 

Page 566 (6). The preposition is not always repeated, even when 
words intervene as in Mk. 2:21 76 kawodv tod radaod; Lu. 
9:8; Ac. 26:18. Mr. Springer notes same idiom in Const. 
ADNi2D) 

Page 570, line 9. Add ‘Mt. 27:48” \aBav ordyyov rANoas Te déous. 





ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1393 


Page 572. Note local sense in dyrls rod paprupiov opposite the 
martyr’s shrine Oxy. P. 941, 1. 3 (vi/a.p.). 

Page 573. The papyri show many examples of the substitutionary 
use of avri. Cf. avti rv Epywv apytpuv Oxy. P. 1409, 1. 20 
(A.D. 278). So ddtyov avril mdelovos Oxy. P. 1450, 1. 17 (aD. 
249-50). 

Page 596, 7. Mr. Springer notes examples in LXX (2 Ki. 14:4); 
N. T. (Mk. 1:10; Mt. 26:10; Lu. 6:20, etc.) and later writ- 
ings (Didache 1:4; Hermas, Vis. 4. 3. 1) of eis where ézi 
would have been used in the earlier Greek. In the modern 
Greek eis is very common in such constructions. 

Page 601, middle. ‘Three cases.” So Lu. 12:14, 42, 44. 

Page 604, 6, line 6. The reading of Text. Rec. in Mk. 2:4 é¢’ @ 
istco0 Wile 7 2); 

Page 606, 3. Sharp (Epictetus and the N. T., p. 104) quotes 
Epict. IV, x, 20 ras yetpas xatadidAjoa for weakened sense 
of xara—, just ‘‘kiss.”’ 

Page 607, middle. Mr. Scott supplies some examples for the phrase 
exe Te kata twos Mt. 5:23; Mk. 11:25; Rev. 2:4, 14, 20. 
Page 623, line 1. For xal rpds (adverb) =and more see Oxy. P. 

A488, 1. 18 (i1/ili A.D.). 

Pages 625, middle, 626, line 9. For pds atrév rather than ai7d 
with verbs of speaking to, Mr. Scott gives this table based 
on Hawkins’ Hore Syn., ed. 2, p. 45. 


> ’ 
amexpiOn, 


Boox el7rov Nadety | Aeyerv | Edy ca OTHERS TOTAL 
Mk. 1 3 A 
Mt. Ae ee — 
Lu 71 9 15 1 2 durrew 1 99 
Ac 29 9 5 4 4 1 52 
Jo. 10 8 1 if 19 
Heb. 1 fi 2 
Paul ile Boel 2 
Total vat 20 33 5 7 2 178 


Page 632, middle. The use of trép and es with the same words is 
interesting in Fay. P. 77, 1. 3 elpyacrar trép ywuatixav epywv 
(A.D. 147) and Fay. P. 78, 1. 4 elpyaorar eis ywuarixa epya 
(A.D. 147). 

Page 643, 21, line 6. As prep. éws occurs 86 times, as con}. 62. 


1394 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Page 643, line 12 ab imo. Of the seven examples of éws zoére 
Mr. Scott observes that five Mt. 17:17 and =) have the 
future, leaving Jo. 10:24; Rev. 6:10 with pres. ind. 

Page 653, line 10 ab imo. It is, of course, possible that zoos or 
xpovos may be supplied in some of these examples. In that 
case they would come under (0), p. 652. 

Page 661 (d). With xadov... 4 in Mt. 18:9 cf. kadov... 7 in 
Tonge Gaae 

Page 671 (a). On the use of eis=mparos in Mk. 14:10 see dis- 
cussion concerning primacy of Judas Iscariot (6 eis Tay dw- 
dexa Mk. 14:10) by A. Sloman, Jour. of Theol. Studies, Oct., 
1916; A. Wright, Jour. of Theol. Studies, Oct., 1916, and 
The Interpreter, April, 1917; A. T. Robertson, The Expositor, 
April, 1917; J. Rendel Harris, The Expositor, July, 1917. 
Harris notes that 6 eis Tv ayiwy ayyé\wv in Enoch xx does 
not mean 6 7pa&Tos. 


Page 688, line 3 ab amo. NADL read ceavroy instead of éavrdv 
in Mk. 12:38. 

Pages 695, 696. Mr. Scott furnishes some very informing data 
concerning the use of the demonstratives 6 and és. 


6, ol pev... 6, ob d€ 


bev 6€ OTHERS 
Boox = |—--_ |—-, S| >A | Toran 
6 ol 6 ot G@\Xor 6€ | EteEpor SE 
Mt 16:14 16:14 16:14 3 
Jo (pe , 71g 2 
14:4 14:4 
Ae Lii54 1262 6 
28:24 = 28:24 
7221 fiat 
Heb. W225 7:24 6 
: 12210 123210 
Corse ¢ (hae : 
Gal. 4:22 4:22 0 2 
Eph 4:11 rods tovs 11 ter 4 
Ph. a ao se 1:16 2 
Total 2 10 5 7 2 1 27 
Kal Tuves 
Ac. a 17218 17:18 ¥. etl 








Hebrews ter oi pév . . . 6 6 are oppositive: the rest partitive. 





e e 




















ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 


1395 


TOTAL 


6, P S€, ol, ai S€ of before-mentioned persons (from Geden) 
W. H. text 
PARTICIPLE FINITE VERB 
BOOK 
Pres Aor. Perfect TOTAL | Pres.| Imp. |) Aor. | Torar 
Mk. lt L216 12 3 8 21 32 
Mt.! 35 35 4 4 26 34 
Lu. 2 14 16 1 J Dr 57 
2 60 1 63 8 17 98 123 
Ac. € é 55 16 PA 
Jo. oe : 1 y 10 12 
[81] 1 1 ik 1 
a 1 — i! 1 1 tL 13 
Total 4 68 1 TL 9 Zo 120 tow 
os pev... 0s 5€, etc. 
bev 6€ OTHERS 
Boox 
Singular | Plural | Singular] Plural | @\)os de | érepos 5€ 6 ol 
Mk. 4:4 il om 1 ado ter aa 7, 
Mt. 5 1] 9 adda ter ae 1 
Kal ETepov 
Lu. 2 ul 3 
8 2 10 1 6 3 1 
Ac. 27:44 27:44 
ite 23 23 
1 Co Le ty Dee) Ae an 
el kody a abies .. {12:8 (6)|12:8 (2) 
2 Cor PAIN G3 2:16 : he 
o dé 
Ro. 3 mf 2 . 14:2 
2 Tim Zea) 2:20 
5 3 3 2 6 2 1 
Total 13 fi 13 5 12 4 a 


Line 6, 1 Cor. 12:8. Read a\rw dé (6 times) érépw dé (bis). 


Tm Mt22? 5 bscpeve. 


ds 6€ Is completed by of 5& Aourol . . . 
1 Mt. includes 26:57, 67; 28:17 on p. 694. 


1396 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Page 696. The use of relative és and demonstrative és in the 
same sentence appears in Oxy. P. 1189, ll. 6-7 (a.p. 117) 
émictoAas dvo ds eéypava jv pev col jv 6€ LaBeltyw xrrA. So in 
ll. 11-16 we see demonstrative and article ryv yey... tHV € 
els tov kTA. Mr. Springer notes xai és (dem.) in Xenophon, 
Cyropedia 2. 2. 7; 2. 2. 30; 3. 2. 18; 4. 1. 11. So Agathias 
scholasticus (vi/A.D.) has kat 6s Historie 2. 9; 4. 18 and 
Menander Protector (vi/a.p.) EHacerpta e Menandri Histo- 
ria, 30. 

Page 700, line 2 ab imo. Add “Mt. 12:45” (2d); Ac. 2:40 where 
ovros is last, and Mk. 9:38 where there are two adjectives. 
In Ac. 1:25 there are two nouns. 

Page 701, line 6.. Mr. Scott gives these examples of otvos in geni- 
tive absolute Mt. 11:7; Lu. 21:28; Ac. 19:36; 28:9; Heb. 
9:6; 2 Pet. 3:11. An instance of ot7vos joined to an adverb 
appears in Ac. 15:8. In Rev. 19:9 the translation is ‘‘these 
are,” but in 21:5 and 22:6 “‘these words are.”’ In Ac. 17:6 
Moffatt translates ‘‘these upsetters.’? See Rev. 7:13. 

Page 702, line 1. Add ‘Jo. 4:54.” 

Page 709, line 10. Mr. Scott offers this table, showing pI or is 
and Acts compared with John: 


éxetvos With articular noun éxetvos aS pronoun 
Mark? 4. >. eee 16 3 

[16] a 3 
Matbhews a oer 50 4 
Luke’. 26 ei ee 29 4 
Acts io) aie ae 18 4 
Johns ik tone 18 ae 
IJ Ohnee) eee a 7 

131 77 =208 


Page 730, line 5. With Mk. 2:16 see dr: cf. dua ri in Mt. 9:11. 
Mr. Springer notes that é7.=‘why’ in a direct question in 
Barnabas, Ep. 8:5 ére 6€ 76 éproy émi 76 EbNOV; Bre % Bacidrela 
‘Inood emi gbdNov x7d.; 10:1; ote roid; Aristophanes, Ranae 
198; Gospel of Nic., Pass I, A. 14..3. The use of 87 in a 
direct question seems clearly established by these examples. 
He finds ér in indirect questions in Hom., Od. T. 464; 
Lucian, De Asino, 32; Aristophanes, Plutus, 965; Xenophon 
the Ephesian, De Anth. et Habr. 4. 2. 


Page 738, line 2 ab imo. Moffatt translates ri in Mk. 2:24 by 
“what” and Scott argues ide as favouring “what,” 





ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1397 


Page 739, line 4. Add “LXX” to Ac. 4:25; 7:26. 


Page 759f. Prof. Eakin (The Greek Article in First and Second 
Century Papyri, Am. J. of Ph., July, 1916) shows that in 
the papyri, as the N. T., the article is frequently absent in 
titular expressions. He finds the same obscurity and uncer- 
tainty about the use of the article with proper names in the 
papyri as in classic Greek. He gives numerous examples of 
the anaphoric use (the aforesaid and the use of the article 
before the genitive of the father’s or mother’s name is very 
frequent as Deissmann showed, cf. p. 767). But Prof. 
Miller (Am. J. of Ph., July, 1916, Article before Genitives of 
Father’s Name) shows that in official language in the papyri 
the article only appeared (as in classic Greek, Gildersleeve’s 
Synt. of Cl. Gk., § 580) before the genitive when the name 
of son or daughter is in the genitive (or ablative), and even 
this use vanished from the second century A.p. onward. 
But the vernacular idiom has the article in nominative as in 
Mt. 10:2. 


Page 760. On ’Inoods with article see von Soden, p. 1406. 
Page 762, line 11 ab imo. For full construction see Mt. 12:35. 


Page 764 (c). In Col. 1:7f. note és éorw and 6 kal éndAwoas as 
parallel clauses. 


Page 770, bottom. Mr. Scott gives this note: 6... ot7os or otros 6. 
ovros (and cases) stands last (296 times), three times as often 
as it stands first (98 times). The position of otros (and cases) 
varies in the same phrase without any apparent reason, e.g., 
Ac. 23:17, 18; Mt. 26:31-34. 

’Exetvos first 40 times, last 104 times. 


Page 773, line 5 ab imo. Mr. Scott remarks that of ravres is sub- 
ject of verb in 3d person in Phil. 2:21, apparently of verb in 
Potepercomine tec@ore0:l(; 15:51; Hoh. 4:18) etc. -and of 
yoepenOleine Jowell JO. 2:21; leet Oo: pel Cor, la16 
— apposition to the pronoun implied in the ending of the 
verb. See Jo. 1:16; 1 Cor. 12:18; Jas. 3:2. 


Page 773, bottom. For 6 mas see Jo. 5:22; 16:13; Rev. 13:12. 
Page 774. “Ondos. Add “Lu. 11:36 (bis).” 


Page 774, line 4 abimo. Mr. Scott notes that dxXos rodt’s occurs 
22 times in N. T. and dyAor zoddot 7 (Mt. 5, Lu. 2). "Oxdos 
txavos occurs in Mk. 10:46; Lu. 7:12, and thrice in Acts. 


1398 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Page 779, 2, line 6. It should be understood that this is the 
usual Attic idiom. See further Col. 1:8 ray tua ayarnv. In 
Phil. 1:25 note riv budv mpoxorny, but 7o Kxabxnua buoy in 
1eZ01 


Page 783, line 5ff. Observe that all these examples are preposi- 
tional adjuncts. 


Page 785, line 7. Add “Lu. 6:47” 6 épxdmevos xrh. 


Page 788, line 21. Mr. Scott thinks we may over-refine on the 
use and non-use of the article with proper names, and cites 
the variations in Mk. 9:2; Mt. 17:1; Lu. 9:28 in the men- 
tion of Peter, James, and John as in point. 


Page 791 (c). Prof. Eakin (Am. J. of Ph., July, 1916) shows that 
in the papyri ‘‘anarthrous prepositional phrases” are com- 
mon as in the N. T. Many of the identical phrases are fre- 
quent like xara katpov, év oikia, & xXEpaly, KTH. 


Page 807, line 3 ab imo. Mr. Springer cites examples of middle 
voice (duAdocouar=‘observe’) from LXX (Ex. 12:25; 13:10; 
Lu. °18:4,753 18226771923: 19219 SD Gee: A eee 
3 Ki. 8:25; 1 Macc. 8:26; Aquila’s translation Dt. 11:22 
(ii/A.D.). He finds active in sense of ‘observe’ in Gen. 
18:19; 26:5; Ex. 15226; 719° 5037 levels 302223 Galo Go 
62 Leasor0: 

Page 839, line 8 ab amo. Mr. Scott makes out 859 present im- 
peratives and 760 aorist imperatives in the N. T. It is 
Paul’s usage that makes this situation, 323 presents and 99 
aorists. 


Page 847. Note the change of tense in Jo. 11:13-15. 


Page 848 (c). Mr. Scott counts 459 present subjunctives, 1409 
aorists, 22 perfects=1890 subjunctives in N. T. Readers of 
this grammar have learned to be grateful to Mr. H. Scott for 
his statistical knowledge of N. T. syntax so freely furnished. 
Here follow some of his most valuable tables: ' 








1399 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 





























































































































GLGIGSL 98 96 06 74 I G “e Zi © O€ 8 i; GG [®3O.L 
GE IST ¢c OL yay ae at = = V <a I 4 wees 8 
potictns Te | ae Se) |S | Sees ee ae ene See nS 
See 
T I GT ; . ; : ‘ULE G 
rer it ig Sura 
¢ e Aon 132 1ZiZ : se eT. a6 os ci a a ss ™ ue "109 
(aE As 0 8'F 9:OL]6 te fs ee ‘s (F) FIOT ae re GI:9 ‘as T “0” 
I I OL:e ~~ i ae oe ai ae he we <— ne ae if TRO 
Z I =e OL:IT I ag Sf aa os e ee aes ae LZ 109) Z 
6 G SI:8 LE91 L, * i ra ae ins AS Eo TT ¢ (‘suls T) ol € “10D I 
Z z ae E:Z ere]: Me se ae af ve oe ae ae ULZ 
suis¢ sat ko 
‘dood Food peed cz ; ULI 
€Z [89 _ 8 0% apes I —— — ss = a T Tl € 9 
Il {6 FO CMC) -) G 4 ie x de sf - * oF as (S)IT‘EF| “99H 
I I I SEA ae ee \ 3% “fe oe a08 See a ous ae 00 Z 
e e ® 9:2 Z — Dus =< ne nua re ae on are a ra "19d T 
z z an z 348 we Ae roe ais ae ee ae = iM as ‘ser 
(@) { qi9A OU 
he 0% Cl 62 ‘ie 7s o- e 6 ee eee ee ee ct) 7s 6:12 oe ia ee "AOY 
OG ISI FI Ls G | 6&:81I re mi a ne sale LG GT G9 les G ‘of 
3902VaA0g 
FI 18 € Si 9 ai ; ; © 0 FEL G ‘OV 
—= — odasg 
ZOT(GOT SREY ha, Ee 09 oa [SE) 2 Bs Th eG ee | ERO Sa Ge | Se ee ee ae ee eee 
6g |9€ Jari 61 €s| 79:6 S16 IL°GG 6:3G . : JOE TT OL G¥E:9 \ = 9 TT 
GL ISS Lik ished LI| 86:€T om a —} 21:96| VG:9G -€€-E>S ne 6 5 FL + OP: LEG G QIN 
ane Vaeweyerye . . ={ 
te beet 8 6 ST} 6:ST VI-F1 GI-FI 9¢: 7 LES 9 VI PI'S -LE-9 9€: GT € AI 
od BEE 1 - : 
= 2 inl no pau PG : Pais unl 13 faoo0 faou fsmu nee Race [emnjg IST aLapv Sav oA 
<2 S 3 Mood 
co AYUOLYASSV HALLYVOOUYALNI AYOLVLYUOH 








INFGNAdaAGNI— AAILONOLans LSTaov 


1400 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


“WSIIOW SV P9JUNOD QC: ‘NT PL0u kt yHI7T ST: ‘og ‘mazdy syst10B sv vA} 








MPA Cad PACT AUER 8 ale Ea a bake 94 |& i] G I i Lie ier € OL Geer raE . ood Bk oh 91 | 9F S | 609 | woz 
av 





























































































































JT 42 S190.00 [ 92 ape T aon kv x 
CLC) pa freee fc RL Maan ve el Ome [am Pace mms (anaes Pak aed Ama at Mls We one eee Ea hee ie cite, UE ae 
: : = 2 LL 
- mde che < J : - - : ¢ “UT Z 
: : : , 5 3 wT | 
ZG . ee oe . . . i . TZ ‘yd 
; Se Wi : ; : ; : ; Uy 
“Al oe I II a (exe) 
O1 eis I I : te 8 ‘Ud 
ain AU a : I ; Cul § x ; reg ee ge ‘OY 
T 
Heed hes ‘g ; re : Ganie lune role at Te 
Cr 9 a ee ad 0g 1007'S 
TZ shee ‘ z ¢ 8 ZS Tonal PE | ODT 
6 20a S “f Sw I 9 Mee 
Cee kan Sees al Pe Ba nee ea Ma il peecceed B= ry MSN Pt] an ee cae ea a eee 
ODS | ieee] SUL es | Se Ee ey ire | ee a et CL Se ee ee ee ee ee ce 
re hae j "39d Z 
ET ; I I TL +-|-9a 1 
91 : ; Sw I 6 : ; I ¢ ‘sur 
Tg ¥ ee if Came | : I pee 61 ‘qoH 
_ da av 
og : : ee ae # - = ; 97 ‘AOY 
av 514000 
EAE CS Re as Sa aca amen i a anal Pe recta orm, Soars ees on) Nees eee SE ee Gina pen ber ee Skee | 8c 
6 rt ats I ‘or 
Me ; ; = OFZ 
£2 ; E : iA 6 ZI ‘or T 
BOT eae Z % Cy T FII ‘or 
OG<1 7 rae I ¢ I ety € Pees Curoreslsr sy OV 
nou unl av 
Sais: | Gs eles | 0 TS ee BL aL ee | a ae | ee Oc me on Cen Sere 
ZOE LOL ee I sR a T I I ¢ 12 e: 9 € 116g nT 
Av 
6ST | 9 c if if eg I I Se i ZI Lael ef IN 
[I Tt [9T] 
Oe AS a I 1 ee eae | eon pal 61 eeOipoe rs tg IN 
3 av aD a0? SOL ILOU 
= pe ‘ a $1400 | AD SO | SO us AOL | AOL | so10N | SMU} SH an? Sit 19) 19 | Smu ln ln | smuo | va1 | soog 
nas $0.09 $1400 | dae ec “ | ao19 ps ed : 13 pe ssa : un y ‘ z 
fe 











INAGNadad — AAILONOAfans Lsraov 


1401 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 











IV.LO J, 


Z I 7 i G F Pie eG Le ect I é 
I I G I eit dee ee | ee a emeree ae 
it 
I 
: a 
I a I 
Z I I 
TOL 
a : 
I y I 
& ; 
i Ta) laee 
L cas i ie PSE eh Sd ay fo NAEP a Leh cD ed eet oo ee 
I I j e € 9 I I 
7 Olam = 
I € I 
no , go ay ADLQ- | go | ap ap [b] ap 
sidXanl EY sidXv sidXvp Stay $m? RYoor) RYoor) pee a10 ML ee SM 





‘S}SHIO’ SB poJUNOd ZE: FS “YIN =SS=ET “AN ‘P49 


























TVAOdWAL (7400) INAGNAdAG — AAILONOALdaAs LSTaOV 














ol 
co 








aplo 








TBO], 





ALL 


“ULL if 
‘ydq 
‘TOD 
‘Ud 
OF 
Tex) 
"IOD T 
*LOC) iL 
at Ave 





Ash 


‘Pd G 
‘sup 
"AOY 
or 
Oy 





SG 


“IN 
“TIN 


xoog 








1402 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 





"p SB popUNoD 8:9 “YT 4% 



































6SF| €F | § T |¢ |T | T | $€|oLe T Veeco L Lonel be] & |201 cio TT) ¢ 66T ce s 8é [®}O,.L 
G 
6LT| ST | € ‘EsetGa LL Ba OP Lite & ; al T Vee (0 Liaec C ss T 68 T Z dk ned 
Some ; 
DSC Seer) oo Tal afl] ae | 966 T v % =a ae ad Fo) € |OL Le leek OT G € IG 
(i 
atou kal 
OG 4 Sa: 6 | 86:31 SG i ; v cE: TT ss OT “Q9H 
ul 
z mle z a 2 : , ZT =: E ‘oq T 
"qn 
9 2 9 “|e : ; 1 s ‘sep 
SLAG GEAcOL ; Leis : : TL Ve ‘AOY 
c sams -|z : a : z p ; 3 or € 
¢ = “16 : : a C , OFZ 
93 |G G | GS Lag 6 ra L ; x G ‘Or T 
Bigs ie tel ees = 2, ie | E19el ih et [9:8] 
98 | 7 Vor tae Letic LG i , LV ‘ , 14 Aa] 
G “a “16 : eee) ea ¢ ae - . oy 
Ir | 6 PREA Pests MLO Sa foo T T 91S ag g OT S i se nT 
opal be LONG ve v6 G |-T 21 v:9} SI-L T T “TIN 
6 | F F-bes (F)9S:F| °° 9 p oe eel = OF te j “IN 
OQ g aR aD | P| Solanus avLO0 g So se aou| “| 482) @P |4R) ap M03 Fl ae ie SILO weed rie Pd Wheaties Gelians cad 
Ow = S14D.00 py1au SOO) CS | ees 4 iS A , QO}Q0L9| $7114.00) SQ |S0.00 ay lun S Da} ‘ ‘Id 3ST |[8IN[q 3ST 
mae a | ms _| M00 
ee TVUOdNAL INAGNAdad INGTANGAIAANI 








‘LN NI SHAILONOl[adns INASTad 


1403 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 


‘aaTyounfqns Juosoid poyUNod JT: f ‘[B) 47 








TR rH Dea shee a > -\e1 5 28 Hl SOM baled walk froma 0 ks. amc moreno meen T 68 T LI BIOL, 
8 8 8 ’ “LL 
z : - on : Zz I : oe I oe oe WIT, Z 
9 . : . g oe z . . 9 ee os WIT, T 
F . . 7 . o- oe . . 7 oe o- ‘ydy 
$ A ° : F s ee a a 7 : ve Wd 
9 . . ° 9 I I os i a e are are 09 
8 oe as o3 : iy °% or . Sh Se L Ud 
T€é | & ‘ ERA AN GG & éI Ac 9 T:9 s§ ‘OW 
+1 age eee 4 ° Sid bale OL . eect Z ee I Zi ne c 3 - Te) 
(qI9A OU) | (qIdA OT) 
€& 17 Pre al sheep being Fc tro) aed persed Fareed Peel Gd peu wears een sel gm oT ¥ oie ts oeyee 
EES be! 6 a e Swe UP ae is kimi hk ie 6T iss ‘- GG Le & OSE 
e ate : oe e Spl tee a) aca dbo aae ig ae ~~ e os one UL Z 
fea | 
OT B ee TEE =e T L ‘a: en's: oe ci (Z) fic oe oa ee c ole 57 This 
(qaoA ou ‘T) 
4 © JIVLOL a an ayn seo S$ |ADL0| IVLOJ, phi od ae 8 pk 2 le 3173 an? | smu lr SM1LO 01} sence cede 
On $199.00) DyIAu SQLN2| Qo |S1L09| So ‘Td 3ST | [B40 3ST 
me MOOd 
ee a ee ee Se 
ae) 
TVYOC NAL | LINXHONadaa INHANAdadONI 





SATLSIdA ANITOVd —AAILONOlEOS LNaASaud 


1404 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


SUBJUNCTIVE TENSES — SUMMARY 





PRESENT AORIST 
|__| PER-] GRAND 
BOOK 
i Inde- |Depend-| Tem- T Inde- |Depend-| Tem- FECT] TOTAL 
OTAL TOTAL 
pendent} ent poral pendent] ent poral 
Mk 2 33 4 39 35 113 19 167 uk 207 
[ ] 1 1 2] 2] 
Mt 2 24 ‘f 33 12 159 32 263 1 297 
Lu 2 30 9 41 509 102 44 205 2 248 











Ac 5 a ee Ce 0) ee el 76 
Jo 5 77° | 4.| 864 20 | 16791614 S1.201e es pees 

[3] 1 1] 1] 
1 Jo 2 224)" Jones 23 93-|- 3 52 
2 Jo 3 3 2 all eck 6 
3 Jo. 2 2 2 2 4 








Rev. 2 12 2 16 22 36 12 70 86 
Heb. 11 9 20 il sak 3 ABS er 65 
Jas. 6 6 2 16 2 20 1 27 
1 Pet 2 n- 3 13 a 16 18 
2 Pet 1 2 2 9) 5 
Ju. — 

















Pages 854 (€), 929, line 3 ab imo, 1174 (b), line 3. In Heb. 13:5 
(LXX) éyxaradeirw is read by NACD°CKIMP 17. Mr. 
Scott thinks it odd that this reading escaped Text. Ree. 
But it is rather Alexandrian than Syrian. 

Mr. Scott again presents useful data on ob uj constructions 
(see inset facing this page). 
































FUTURE 
CONTINGENT INDE 
BOOK 
INDEPENDENT 
bs dv| éav | Total en y 
Mk. 13:31 mg. 14:31) 1 13:2a, 19 
Mt. 16:22 15:5/26:35| 3 21:19; 24:2, 21, 35; 25:9 
Lu. 10:19; 21:33 2 1:15; 18:7; 21:18 
I ee ee eee 
Jo. 6:35; 10:5 /|4:14 3 6:35, 38; 8:12; 10:28; 11 
Ac. Ss aye 
Rev. |9:6; 15:4; 18:14 2:11° 3:5, 12; 7:16; 1643 
Heb. 
1 Pet. 56 
2 Pet. is 
5 
1 Th. 5 
1 Cor. ; 
Gal. 
Ro. 


























o¥ 41] CONSTRUCTIONS 








AORIST SUBJUNCTIVES AFTER 



























































?LNDENT 
Impera- 
és bs Gy tive tay éay wh éws Los by éws | ews 
Present ob érov 
2) 13:2b | 9:41; 10:15 a H 14:25 9:1 
[16:18] 
= 5| .. |10:42; 12:32 mg. 5:20; 18:; 1:28; 26:291/ 8:18, 26; 16:28; 
(8:17 bis ie Sb ple se 
3 }18:30 18:17 6:37, 37/22:67, 68 mg 1:59; 13:35] 9:27; 21:32 |22:18]22:26) 
10 4 4 ca ay J 5 8 1 I 
:26, 56; 13:8;18:11 = 8 8:51, 52 Pry f ia 13:38] .. | 
18:7, 21/3b; 21:25, 27-14 Ai |. 
4a ens : Y Foi Sate ~ 
= = 5) 4 —ls = ie u 
2) = f it —_|—_ | 36 
ie. . a 8:13 ifs hall oie 2 
‘33 < -* 1 
2 oe 1 
2 — = 1 = = | = — — 
35, 4 r Tene Cer fk ey eens 4 
























































ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 


1405 














W. H. Marginal Readings for ov py 





Text 


Mk. 13:31, of Adyor pou ob rapedebaovrat 


Mt. { 


Lu. { 
22:08, éav Eowrnow ov 7) AtoKpLOjTeE 
Rev. { 


12:32, ds av elmn .. . ok AbeOnoerat 


10:42, ds dv.. 
10:19, ovd€v buds ob wr) adixhoe 


. ob un aTo\eon 


3:3, Kal ob uw yvas Tolay pay 
9:6 pep > \ G U ’ la 
:6, kal od un evphoovow abtév 


Of these 7 readings only 3 (Mk. 13: 
++) add to the examples of od un. 


Margin 


. OU un TapeAevoovTat 

. ob un adelf 

. ov wy amwodnTat 

. ov pn aduKHoN 

. ov uy aToKpLOnTE 4 &roNoNTE + 
. ov Un Yroon 

. ov un eUpwoty avTor 





Sd bes NY Brey DAG eed yo ed ah 
The remaining 4 are only 


variations of existing examples. Readings 4} are in the judg- 
ment of W. H. (Introduction, § 385) “outside the pale of proba- 
bility as regards the original text’: so that only Mk. 13:31, 
Mt. 12:32 can claim any right to be counted as additional ex- 
amples of ov un. 





SPEAKERS IN GOSPELS 


Boox TOTAL 
Jesus Peter Thomas Others 
Mk 8 [16:18] 14:31 9 (10) 
Mt 18 16:22; 26:35 a 20 
Lu. 18 ce me Lp 19 
Jo. 13 13:8 20:25 8:52; 11:56 Ay 
Total 57 (58) 4 1 3 65 (66) 








Jesus spoke the Quotation. 


Page 854 (¢). Mr. Scott gives the data for aorist and present op- 
tative. Aorist occurs 45, present 22 times. But Paul has 
aorist 31 and present 0 times, while the rest have aorist 14, 
present 22 times. M7 yévorro occurs 15 times and -évo.ro 
without yu} twice. Opt. 67 times in all. 

Pages 856, line 8 ab imo, 933, line 9. Mr. Scott notes that 3d 
sing. aor. imper. occurs 8 times in N. T.: Mk. 13:15 (twice) 
=Mt. 24:7=Lu. 17:31; Mk. 18:16=Mt. 24:18=Lu. 17:31; 
Mt. 6:3. 

Page 858, line 12. Mr. Scott gives the data for aor. inf. with 
prepositions (uera 14 times, mpd 8, pds 9, eis 38, ev 12, dia ace. 


1406 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


1, é&vexey 1, €ws 1=84). There should be added to the table on 
p. 858 for articular inf. in N. T.: pres. 164, aor. 148, perf. 
10=322. 

Pages 888, 1120. On the periphrastic imperfect Mr. Scott ob- 
serves that ‘‘Moulton (as usual) has counted Geden’s ex- 
amples. In Mark Geden omits 1:32 jv éoOwv; 2:32 kai dua- 
oyrfouevor; 14:5 Pepparvouevos.”” So Geden omits Mt. 24:38 
(four subs.); 27:55, 61. In Luke Geden omits 5:16, and 
grammatically 18:2 bis and 24:53 may be considered ex- 
amples. In Acts Geden omits 18:18; 9:9; 16:9; 22:20, and 
Jo. 18:18. In Paul Geden omits Phil. 2:26, but he counts 
2 Cor. 5:19 which Moulton excludes. 

Page 891, line 10. Mr. Scott’s figures for pres. inf. with preps. 
are with & 76 438 times, 61a 76 24, rpos 70 3, els 32, Ex Tod 1, pd 
Tov 1, avri rot 1, dca rod 1=106. 

Page 894, 2. Mr. Scott counts 868 perfect indicatives in the N. T. 
of which 37 are periphrastic (5 active and 32 passive). John 
(Gospel 205, 1 Ep. 60) has far the most and 1 Cor. (73) comes 
next. O?da alone occurs 208 times (Gospel of Jo. 61, 1 Ep. 18). 

Pages 903, 906, line 20. Mr. Scott reports his count of pluper- 
fects in the N. T. as 142 in all. (Mk. 13 and one in 16:9, 
Mt. 11, Lu.-31, Aes33; Jo. 46, [Joo Revise Gatec rome 
Of these 88 are simple and 54 periphrastic forms, divided 
again into active (simple 81, periphrastic 138) 94 and passive 
(simple 7, periphrastic 41) 48. These statistics are based 
on form only (#dev gives 34, tornue 20). | 

Page 908, line 4. Add “1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 9:3.” There are 22 
perf. subjs., 10 «i64, 12 periphrastic (ten passive, two active). 

Page 909. Mr. Scott, by the table on page 1407, corrects Votaw’s 
error as to the number of perfect infinitives in the N. T. 

Further investigation has shown that the number of per- 
fect infinitives in N. T. is 47 (of which ten (10) are articular 
— 31 separate verbs, but 47 instances). This may account 
for Votaw’s statement on p. 50, but he is undoubtedly in 
error in making only 8 articular instances. 


Page 917, middle. Ovyxi, Mr. Scott notes, occurs 54 times in N. T. 
It is a favourite word of Luke (Gospel 17, Acts 3) 20, Mt. 9, 
but not in Mk. It occurs in questions 43 times, 9 times in 
denials (qualified by 4\\a) of a previous question or statement. 
In Lu. 18:30 it is the equivalent of od uh. Odxi in Lu. 4:22 
is ok in Mt. and Mk., but Mt. has odxi like Lu. 12:6. 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1407 


Boor bua TO eis TO | wera TO | TOTAL ANARTHROUS 


— | — fe | | _ [| 


Lu. 6:48 ae Ae pel 
Ac. On beeboe 25940 as a 3 


Heb. 2 113°) 10:15 2 


fool 
rg 
(qe) 
ce 

WD ERNYOE ES RN OO]: 


Ro. Ae oa 7 a; 2 (+ 4:1 mg.) 
Len = Ar e Ae 2: 


‘2 
So 
_— 
bo 
PERE ENNNNRNEPHONOA oo 


ae 
je) 

cot 
ba} 

_— 
~J 
bo 
— 
— 
= 
ise) 
~J 
eae 
~J 


Pages 927, 13881. Prof. F. H. Fowler (Class. Weekly, April 16, 
April 23, 1917) subjects Sonnenschein’s theory of ‘‘deter- 
mined futurity” in “The Unity of the Latin Subjunctive” 
to a sharp critique. He objects that Sonnenschein makes no 
room for the personal determinant and ignores the Greek. 
Fowler holds that in Greek ‘‘the subjunctive, starting with 
the will meaning, developed the meaning of determined fu- 
turity, that the optative, starting with the wish meaning, did 
the same thing, and that the optative developed still another 
meaning, that of contingent determined futurity.” 


Page 928 (a). An instance of the futuristic subjunctive in an inde- 
pendent sentence occurs in Oxy. P. 1069, Il. 18-18 Gii/a.p.) raya 
yap duvvacbGyev holplutpetace cor Sto Kaunrous [zu]pod Kal wéuWe mpd 
cev. The use of raya with this subjunctive is to be observed. 

Page 931, line 3 ab zmo. Jannaris, § 1914, quotes this and other 
examples from Epictetus. 


Page 932, line 1. Add dedpo det&m (Rev. 17:1; 21:9). 
Page 934 (c). Mr. Scott notes that 7i in independent aorist sub- 


junctive sentences occurs in Synoptics 28 times, Acts 3, 
John 1 (Jesus, 7é ef7w), 1 Cor. 1, and not in any other book. 


1408 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 








~ 
Ve) 
re 
re 
N 
ion 
9A) 
N 
9) 
N 
N 
— 
re 
oO 
_ 
N 
bo 
sH 
re 
sH 
N 
rat 
Ss 
) 
me 
—_— 
3 
» 
° 
al 


























Ts | Beta Rea (ee | | AS = SIS | Mae a eee Se (04 pee ea ae ef 
iS i te ULL} 
T IT Md 
GI al ‘O" 
e Aye € [8D 
LEST 
: ‘ ‘OL: FI : rie 
14 = oo y “UL S 
click fll en ORES a FS ca Rae NG COR ge dP a ate a g OL T 
Es a ra (fc ly fre Sf = OA SSM | eae owe ee eed (08 aed Pacer sf ae 
= Te 6 ¥é 45 fe 
il 2 i T dG 
g z LI ‘FES I 1 dT 
1 Sie I I q°H 
ed fname al fl ie ce tm eh cemcno] Sime fa 4 el LS fi a a PG a a 
Rc Pek Ss aed Od) pes RV aed a Ss ee SN a pa S19 a ie eee 
: : 6E ‘ST: LS 0G:SG ST: LT 
: :C Brg relat : : See : 
LT | 9T:Sd| OT: eZ}s 61 FG a L616: LT a € | Fa:¢ L101 ime a 14 ed 66:96 0G:8 oV 
% spe Nocera if ar se wa ; . 93:ST €S:3S a Sen .|(Z) 91:0 : 
IT S18) 621/24 | 11:9 pee ‘og:gt ‘6:8 f | AS a 
E| 2] slay |e] sae ie el meal BI 3 
Ee a Z. quesalg | 4soy yuaselg ystIoyV | yuesolg | ¥ z 5. quosolg qyuesalg = yuesolg 3 4SlLloy e 
ey p ose) Bmee] fe pta BI] ea] ot 3} ee = 
(o) ° ° 
: See ee See pele 
Z tbat Beant ag OR ee 310“ | Sou av Y}IM aD qNOyyIA 
z “Ar enor EE SA ok eh aD JNOY}IM 73 url |-oL0w 1 Si yb Si av qaIM | 42 U9IM}] 4p QnoyITM sOOd 
me _ —— 
'g IVuUOdWa , NOILSGA’) LOAYIAGNT Ronee SAHSI MA 
SHONHLNAS LNACGCNAdad SHONHLINAS LNAGNAddaNI 








‘LN NI GAILVIdO 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1409 


In independent present subjunctive sentences ri occurs only 
in Jo. 6:28; Heb. 11:32. 


Page 936. Mr. Scott has a complete table on page 1408 for the 
optatives in the N. T. 


Page 936, 2. Sonnenschein (Cl. Rev., Feb., March, 1918, p. 211) 
says: “As in Latin the past subjunctive, so in Greek the op- 
tative may be a past prospective, owing to its inherent 
meaning. This I have recognised in my Greek Grammar, 
§ 504 (c) (e.g., Eromos jv radra moety a& eiros, ‘the things 
which you should say’); for the corresponding meaning in 
present time see Demosth. de Pace 11, rdnv bi & ay byiv eirw 
dvo, ‘the two things which I shall tell you,’ where av with the 
subjunctive expresses pure futurity, not generality.” 

Page 940 (c), line 7. Mr. Scott thinks that the direct question 
here would be ri rornowpev. I still adhere to my position in 
the text. 

Page 940, line 7 ab imo. In Lu. 1:29; 3:15 there is the optative 
without av, the simple change of mode in indirect question 
(indicative to optative). 

Page 941. Mr. Scott offers this table for the imperatives in N. T.: 


PRESENT AORIST PERFECT 
BOOK 3 ; ; x 
n on n an n 
a 2 o = ey 5 fs é or Ay 8 a & a8 
Mk. 74 Gime leiest bepe 1 -O 64] 1 
Mt DLO eee ph a ep ORE: Daa a 163 
Lu 118 Ouse alzs) 141 (12 1 | 154 
Ute Slew Lt O+L.1 oo Wioow 1|— 
Ac 3a Th) Vol ZU Po es} paleo eat vt 
Jo. and } 
Epp. 1, 2,3 61 8 BONTs76)| rive 
Rev. 26 1 DTNwAG 215 61 
Heb. 22 rr hss 5 al 6 
Jas. and } 
1,2 PetJu. 30| 15} 1] 46] 44] 8 1, 53 
Paul DBD TO WeLostoco liso |e 3| 99 
405 | 105 | 18 | 528 | 338 | 34 Ta oeo lala oe 
Total 707 | 128 | 24 | 859 | 679 | 73 8 | 760} 2;|;— 








Lu. 9:3; 10:4; 14:12 are counted as one each, 


tai ieee, “nian iidiniinitie 


Ee ee Ee Le nS Le ee aie ee ee ey Pee ee ee ee ALSO lion ral We ——— 





























WOT |T |e |h | |t ert |e | rej otter] ¢ | t/t i@ je |t |e {rt |r je jo | or |r jg je je jz% jore |i fo |g | rttlozire| + 

Os eg tet po er Pa ESS es TER OE ole Reise Gs 12) ee Lc Lea St Ws) RU | Soe eee eee melee reel ae ene) 

g G $ | eae 

1 : : A biked tea bee a 

6 Z ZO Teel seen eel Pte te 

5 2 Pid (nd | tia eo) Pe be ; ha eee ale 

: ; 2 ae ay 1 liege ce 

ial aalies SZ Sy ea al aT Titan ele Lo cE iON hia Ate Ye 

a hye ; ane a e BGM bt ata 

pove| Penecep ba] Lo STS | Co) Ti) £24.68) 6. | LER ee SS ea ah |S aed SO SS ec led | el eeeee ostce ee 

i I 1G = 

9 G yi es a PI js caged Sa} ig 

G = Ae I Te pice ele heat 

I I ; Teor 

6 I T 8 “Tobe tz -1e 

GG FI raeg Be aga ES if Zable | tue tone 

Sea Lea TAT cele le eo laee beled he ca ats Gin lG' Pes posatha Bel [eer b 

5 Emm ORM Pi Fc es ae 6.9 xf es ed cl alte ee on Eee SC ie ean a 

OF ee 9 PLS OSs el I ¢ ey I I Zo |FIIO | @ 

99 ed, |e 8 a5 Sal BSS OL TG ea Gey I Se legic 

9¢ I Paige g poly I Tt £Z IL1I9 | T 
pig isiz Talo | Be |. aeaibel Bio) sat B12 Sipe leon | neces ben lewralne peer seabed ely) 2 

ry | —|—— —— a j[——_{]_ |_| —___ | |_| __ |_| |_| 4 

5 ¢ ‘qdQ} 9At}¥orpuy : ‘fqng | ‘pur |*qng| ‘fqng |*puy] ‘fqng | fqng |"qng| ‘fqng |‘qng} *fqng |*puy|*puy} *fqng |*puy} *fqng : *“fqng | *puy 

S) S n SES amen Ta fe ase |e | eed ee 

[av] Av es Av AvD Av Av Av ADI ce Av 

S Pe Bee eats Ue ae a ap soug [Tua] 50 | oyna | spools] sep | go | 42C2) aoue [790] ap song | 5, av(2) $9 

aE 

oS 1 quqa 

eae HALLV.LdO SISOGOdV NOILONOLNOO WO HAILVINUY HLIM CGHNIOL SISVLOUd 





[®10], 


TD 
4d. 
“OT 

(ea 

"ION Z 
‘10D T 
UL T 





‘Sup 


(Te Er 
"AOY 
BO USG 
Bd le 

“or 


“OV 


ny 
“YIN 
“ALIN 


Mood 








‘L ‘N NI SNOILONULSNOD (av2) av 





1410 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1411 


Page ‘949, line 11. The other imperative in this idiom is in the 
aorist except Mt. 21:28 and perhaps Rev. 16:1 (durative 
present). The idiom is not used by Luke and the word is 
not used in Acts or by Paul. So Mr. Scott. 

Page 952, line 6. Cf. pp. 696, 714, 722, 724, 953, 962, 963. 

Page 956. Mr. Springer notes és &y and future indicative in 
Athenische Mitteilungen 25. 470; Papers of the Am. School 
II. 159; Inser. Graecae, Senats Dekr. 73 a. 

Page 957, middle. The 122 indicatives with the indefinite rela- 
tive are: pres. tense 52, imperf. 18, fut. 9, aor. 45, perf. 2, 
pluperf. 1. So Mr. Scott. 

Page 958. Mr. Scott counts 191 examples (as against Moulton’s 
172, Prol., p. 166) of ay and édy constructions in the N. T. 
according to the table on page 1410. 

Page 966 (d), line 4. In Luke 6:4 76 and inf. 18 times out of the 
32, pres. 14 (Gospel 8, Acts 6), perf. (Gospel 1, Acts 3). 

Page 969, line 4 ab imo. “Orov occurs (Scott) in Mk. 15 times 
(10 in speeches), 13 in Mt. (12 in speeches), 5 in Lu. (all in 
speeches), 30 in Jo. (17 in speeches). 

Page 969, line 6 ab amo. Ellipsis also in Lu. 17:37; 1 Cor. 3:38; 
Cols. blew ds. 710. 


Page 969, line 8 ab zmo. Mr. Scott gives this table for érov with 


subjunctives: 
Mark Mart. LUKE 
DDURERULELO CANUTE poe seers) ess we ee 8 6:10 
BEN ili Onan a Ae 14:14 
SL KOTO NGO eee eee eee ee ey PR ee 3 9:18 ay 
Sate, TKN PUXON RO CUA VEAL as to pea ea 14:9 26215 a 
Ter ady RUDE cate 19 VOn Meta (et) ee 14:14 A Zo2ue 
PROT OULEC TAILED Nia ee. vce ne elk) be. fs) = asl = te 8:19 9:57 
PROUD ETO CAT OO es. Se ge igl e Seg pat. ee 24:28 { sang 
ABP, lly Bette 206 a 2 eo rr rr 5 3 2=10 








Page 971, line 11 ab imo. “Ore (only ind.) 101 times in the N. T. 
(Scott), pres. 3, imperf. 16, aor. 75, fut. 6, perf. 1. 


Page 972, line 7. “Oray with subj. 125 times (Scott), pres. 35, aor. 
90, as given in the following table: 


1412 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Present Aorist Present Aorist 
Mark 4 14 John 4 13 
Matthew 7 LD 1 John Z 
Luke 8 23 Revelations 2 5 
Acts me 2 Hebrews ve 1 
Paul 8 16 James 7 i 

27 70 8 20=125 

Srap with indicative (Mk.3, Rev. 2 meee teeter ee 5 

dray in NT.) Se LS er ee ee 130 


Page 972, line 18. “Oray with the ind. only 5 times, pres. 1, aor. 
2, imperf. 1, fut. 1. Mr. Springer notes éray with ind. in 
Ignatius, Ep. ad Eph. 8:1; Barnabas, Ep. 10:3; 15:5. He 
also offers é7ay 6€ wéures in L. P. (ed. C. Leemans, 1888) 
ITI, 4. 

Page 974 (c). “Axpi(s) prep. 30, conj. 18 (ind. 7, subj. aor. 11). 
So Scott gives this table for axpr(s) as conjunction: 














INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE 
BOOK Pres. | Imp. Aorist Fut. Aorist TOTAL 
axpu(s) axpt exp 4x As aoe | saeae eae deh axpe ou axpts 
ov ov ov NMEpas HILEpas ov av av 
Mt oe 1 |24538° eee * 1 
Lu J Be iirgae 1 1220 4521:24 3 
Ac. 21233 | 0:18 | 12 : ts 3 
Heb. 3:13 ae ae be i! 
Rev. fi Lirelid, 4 as 2:25 6 
1 Cor x48 oe 11:26 i 
15c25.G) 
Gal me 3:19 i 
Ro 11:25 oe 1 
Total 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 + 1 1 18 
1 Gal. 3:19 mg. 


Note Oxy. P. 933, ll. 14, 15 (ii/A.D.) wept ris puxpas eyeraunv 
axpis av kataT\evon. 

Page 975, middle. “Ews as preposition (Scott) 86 times, con]. 62 
(ind. 18, subj. 49)=148. “Ews alone ind. 7, subj. 13, éws ay 
sub]. 19; éws drov ind. 2, subj. 3; ws od ind. 4, subj. 14 (Scott). 

Page 977. TIplv (4). Scott notes in LXX as preposition piv 
yevéecews attav Dan. Sus. 350 420; as adverb Aquila and 
Sym. Prov. 8:26 zpiv 4; with subj. Ps. 57 (58):10; Jer. 40 
(47):5; with inf. pres. 4 Macc. 9:27; Numb. 11:33 (B). 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1413 


Page 978, line 3 ab imo. For data in N. T. see p. 107. 


Page 983, line 1. Mr. Scott gives data for iva un in the N. T. 

There are 117 instances of twa with uy in N. T. (indice. 4, 
subj. pres. 37, aor. 75, perf. 1 (2 Cor. 1:10)). When the con- 
struction with iva is continued in a further clause by uy, un 
alone is repeated Mk. 4:12 LXX, Jo. 6:50, 11:50, 1 Jo. 
2:28, 1 Cor. 1:10, 2 Cor. 4:7, Rev. 3:18, 8:12; and so with 
wa wn Jo. 4:15, Rev. 7:1. In Rev. 18:4 iva py is repeated, 
but in Rev. 16:15 neither is repeated. When the construc- 
tion is continued with adda ‘but on the contrary,’ iva is not 
TeDedsedw@y Ovo: LO. 0709) 16:25, 2130. 6,-l Core 12225.) 50 
with 6¢ Heb. 12:13. In Rev. 9:5 iva is repeated. 

Page 984, middle. See Oxy. P. 1068, 1. 19 (ili/A.D.) etva wor wap- 
Tupnaovow aveNOovres, example of iva and future indicative. 
Page 986, line 6 ab imo. Mr. Scott notes that 67ws is almost 
confined to Matthew and Luke, and gives the following data 

for ézrws in N. T.: 


INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE 
BOOK MOWAT 
Future Aorist Present Aorist Aorist 
with av 

Mk. ae ay a 1 ue 1 
Mt. mS i 6:4 ive ws 18 
Lu. 24:24 3:26 bis, 28 3 2 a0 8 
— ih 4 Pal 1 74 
Ac. 13 3 16 
Jo. iV 1 
Jas. 1 1 
1$Pet 1 1 
Heb. 2 , 2 
— — — 18 3 21 
AAW oe ul 1 
deCcor e 1 1 
2 Cor 8:11 (no verb) 1 2 
Gal. oe 1 1 
Ro. 3:4 9:14.05) 1 -3:4.Q 4 
Phil. i} 1 
—_~ 1 7 10 
Total i 46 i 58 


Ro. 3:4 (Ps. 50:6 Swete has aor. subj. twice). 
[Of the 18 exx. in Matthew only two have any parallels: Mt. 12:14= 
Mk. 3:6; Mt. 9:38=Lu. 10:2.] 


1414 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


OoTE CONSTRUCTION IN N. T. 









































INDICATIVE IMPERATIVE| SUBJ. INFINITIVE 
Boox SS TOTAL 
Pres.| Fut.} Aorist | Perf. | Pres.| Aor. | Present | Pres.| Aor.| Perfect 

Mk 2 12 14 
Mt 3 12 4 19 
Lu 2 2 4 
Ac. ein ee ay 2 Gn Cae i o 7 12 
Jo. me) Sac) 32.164] ee ee ae ee a, a; 1 
Heb. 1 1 
1 Pet. 1 1 2 
5 1 — 1j}—}] — 33°| 13 — 53 

1 Th. i} Hi L 3 
ABI NO, uh 1 2 
1 Cor 3 i vf 5:8 3 15 
2 Cor 2 oe 1 1 4 8 
Gal. 2 2:13 2 ae eae 
Ro. 1 2 ‘i 15:19 5 
Phe 2 1 L + 
8 is 3 3 | 10 | — 1 8 7 1 42 

Total 13 1 4 3} 11 | — i: 41 | 20 1 95 
1 1 

add ‘Ro. 15:20”’ 


Purpose inf. 7 times, pres. 3 (Mt. 10:1 bis; Lu. 24:24), aor. 4 (Mt. 15:33; 
20s; Lit 4329;20726), 

dore With ind. aors. dependent twice (Jo. 3:16; Gal. 2:13). 

éore not in James, 2 Pet., Jude, 1, 2, 3 Jo., Col., Phil, Hph.,.1, 2 Tim; 
Titus (11 books). 


®OTE RENDERINGS BY R. V. 


INDICATIVE INFINITIVE IMPERATIVE CoNJUNCTIVE | TOTAL 


insomuch that} G. 2:13 23 24 
SO thinkt see 6 29 35 
60 OS @ peso at 3 3 
88 0... cer Su Mt. 15:33 1 
CO Ponce oe es (4 Lu. 9:52) 3 ; ‘en 3 
that. 24. 1 3 4 ae 4 
therefore? 35) Mel aoe ee 2 ae 1 
wherefore . . (e. 2 10 1 Cor. 5:8 18 
So.Lhen dete 5 - 1 6 


—$— = ~ 
— —_—_—_———— 


Otel Y tatied 21 62 11 1 95 








ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1415 


Page 988. Mr. Scott gives this table for unrore constructions in 
Nea 

















INTERROGATIVE 
AND DEPENDENT CONJUNCTION 
INDEPENDENT : 
aye GRAND 
< 
INDICATIVE Opt. INDICATIVE SUBJUNCTIVE i TOTAL 

a 

° 

Pres. Aor. |Pres. Future Pres. Aorist Perf. > 
Mk : 14:2 4:12 bis Q 3 3 
Mt ' NPA Aa alia) HOmCL2) : 15 15 
Lu Sel5 (12258! bass - 14:9 AIO eCZ a 14s 12 
— — 1 7 — 21 1 29 30 

5:39; 
Ac 28:27 Q heey: (4) 6 6 
Ind. j 
Jo. ae 7:26 ne — v, se ti 1 
Heb. |(9:17 mg.) aP BY 3:12 4:1 2:1 ie 3 3 
Subj 

2 Tim Ome ee o: 2 
_ 3 — 2 1 6 — 9 12 
Total — 3 1 9 1 Bui 1 38 42 





Lu. 12:58 has same form for pres. and aor. subj. I have counted it as aor. Mt. 25:9 may 
be independent. 


Page 990, middle. Blass, p. 235, points out that rod is added to 
the second infinitive. Add ‘Ac. 26:18.” 

Pages 995, line 6 ab imo, 1174, line 7. Mr. Scott thinks that 
ovx ... ov simply belongs to #é\w according to ordinary rule. 


Page 999 (8). Votaw counts eiayyedifecOac with wore, but it is 
more likely to be construed with the participle ¢cAorpob- 
pevov Which with ottws 6é€ loosely carries on the &ore clause. 
Leaving out this example there are 95 exx. of &o7e in the 
N. T. (See Mr. Scott’s tables on page 1414). 

Page 1001 (d), line 12. Moulton, Germ. ed. (p. 332 n.), says that 
Jo. 14:22 is consecutive. 

Page 1003, 7. Note Oxy. P. 1489, 1. 6 (ili/A.D.) ele mavras rerdH- 
pwxa ws Avalos Aaiuwv. 

Pages 1007-16. Mr. Scott has valuable tables on pages 1416-17 
for the constructions of ef with indicative. ‘The examples 


cover both (a) and (8), the two first classes (determined as 
fulfilled and unfulfilled). 


1416 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 










































































e T oy Se Ge Gia! sae T 9 1G OOT [B10], 
Z I 0g 6 iv tS 1 — ¢ OT $9 
os ra be | hy og Lawrie: | ae erm | a : om C=] aT 
4 : Cl -Galeclec "ULL, Z 
rs : ~ z G ° = s be z HET | 
ee T & 6Z:F oe sve ee ee oe oe ‘ydq 
7 . 7 ; ne ~ is = i, “mT 
a a : ¥ <n + me 1 105 
Se ; 9 ; 7 Be ef rt r ¢ TT 
oe T es ST 221 GS FL:F he F 02 ‘OY 
- GZ :¢ G rd 6 os es Tec =. 8 Te 
w - i: x ST =e Liege leoc: OT "ION Z 
Ce Cleciis FI F OT ST g oi Ges F¢ ZI "10D T 
+ , : = GY x iS o TZ 
S oe ; o id ne , LT 
Gree |e Ly re | ee De] BS ae eC) ey Se ee eee ee ee ee 
I I if I 6 aa 
A T T 8 04-c ac Z G es Eege | 
G e G 8 G ‘se 9 “sur 
oe ee | oO 5 Bae | ee | ee | | aikes! 
rz Seimei Weer Seer Pmt eee Pree eee be hee ren | hee ee 
; 5 i — OFZ 
if 1 T : ii ‘OF T 
9 s ¢ ) bs G ‘or 
ES EG ae ER RS PE ae oe | Sen Oe ee | Ca BEY, 
I eer |, AAG OU) Pe | es Gti ER GOs | os 2 Fr ae La ee en eee eee La 
Tones : a II Fert Oc P G Aaa 
. 9T CT PGT 6 eS re a G “VN 
r Z a E ie CerG |= arb “MIN 
4SlIoy yuoselg 4SLLOy qyussalg qyoojlog yoojroduly \STloW einjny | yuesorg 
IVLOL TIVLOT, 
MAILONAraag GAAILVUAAINT GHAILVOIGNT MOOd 
SISOdG Od V 


SISVLOUd NI HAILVOIGCNI LNaSaadd HLM 13 


1417 


EDITION 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD 





*p ‘sraglt 5% ‘a11aMadd 19 *T ‘aarloxmaha fF ‘—0Q70 19 
a a eae ea PO et a a a at a ce ge 
NS ————————————————————— ) 





















































































































































































































































































































































OI z 9 Zz 0Z a z SI — g I G 6 [BIOL 
ee ee Ty ae a Ta eT em rea a Sea | a | co 
I I ; GE WL, T 
. . ; ; ; e 2 ss be os alg ice ‘Oar 
os ae 9 : 9:0T G pe TP OLAS: FIL ois 9L:¢ "10D Z 
yooj1og 
¢ a e a rs * 6L'LUFLST “10D 
S LP *6U:8 | 829 OL: F | LL6T Zz 5 a Zz = Sil ESET ‘or 
I x a ZE9Z Z a CL:9T I ta = 2 aut Retre ‘OV 
es RS (eas entered deter cia Cais tial LL de | OT aed eA Anis Rl aS te oe abe Re A 
I av 6E:Z1 Z rs Z STL ZL ny 
aie $29 SE: FS Fae fs ba Ct ers: ar > ve : 
g eee I I ld WW 
-" és: T Ps : t ay re As %- se aN 
IVLOT, 4 os ey q foal ‘dwy IVLOL qslloy queselg IVLOJ, | stsopody on qoojsoduly 4slloy aIngn qyuosolg 
(Ol) SISOGOdV¥ SISOdOdV MOOd 
(sasejoid g) yoaj10dnN]q YIM 2» DATLVIIPUT JIJIOg Y}IM » :SISv}OIg 
EEE Ts ET OE a th ELI Se a re EE hl as OO ay MAS SO I ere a 
OL 9 F 69 Zz Or L 8 A 8 LT LI [B10], 
F ¢ I ee — OL eter, Z I Zz 8 OL 
I ZI I T ra ere “WILL, Z 
a aa G f (OL:¢) ¢ < : : “ULE, T 
¢ a : i # f a ; ae 52 a 
: es : ae 1 % me ; ne Ooze 105 
; A CT 19} LETT I CS:6 _ oT: 9 F ‘oY 
: : : z P i Z ; Tag 4” = : Thies Tey 
= fa “s g g Ze “3 ; j Ra (syd ‘10D Z 
g CT ‘FI: ZL6 F P ie 87g 40 ¢ "10D T 
& aT a Ok A CRE: BOER ena PRC Ge inaan mem ca Lae ee ee ata Sal eee Se 
: F 3 ¥ 7 x RediG 
z oe Orc , ; Ae i ie: ve = As 
; : Y $ : ° se aivtaa ~ 2 a <CSTT 
I is OTST T : T fe a GT:0Z “AOY 
Dx ee ee | ee er ee ee EOE Sea a ee ee ee | ee a ee ee eee 
I I ze; I ‘Of T 
; ; OT Es : 8 E bS ‘OS:GT S ¢ ‘or 
—_ = ———_ = rae are — — — ay 
g Bee ol ee | Oe oe | Se |S Die a aa ee 2 Se | ee) ee ee | ee 
I SII ue L ZPF:61 EL:OL 40 g z nT 
I fa: €8:9% 4 G c { ¥3:9Z € 4p CZ: 0T : “IAL 
I 63: F1 6 ¢ TZ: F1 OZ: a0 : 9: “MIN 
amyn yy yuasol gy 4stloy yuosolg IVLOJ, | stsopody on qooj;Lodwy 4slloy aM yn quosolg 
IVLO LT IVLOY, a RE 
GHALLVOIGNT HAILVUAdINT HAILVOIGNT 
Mood 
SISOdGOdV SISOdOd¥V 











eInyng YyTA 7p _SATLLOIPU] JSHOY YIM p :SIsv}OIg 





1418 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


‘sosopode jo Jaquinu oy} St AO” OT, 




















































































































LOT I I 9 II 88 G Ye 5 1g [BIOL 
ee — — — 9 Le VA = yi ST 
A . G:Z ‘WILL S 
“4 Vé = SZ ‘WIL, T 
1 s mye - eta vay ae ; Eas 105) 
SI 4 - es (OZ) & 6 CS:G i i ‘OY 
: ay # a: ie T “t aie mS) 
OT vs = a 829 8G: FI ia! T ZG II 10D 1 
8 sh Se SS Bee | i ee Re | oe eee ae ee ee ee eee et ee 
9 9 oor i sup 
G G { dan Boar \ mplee 
6 — — — 7 ce Ve Z 9 GZ 
OL OL AIC: 6 of T 
6 i GS €Z:06 | 9 ‘9:ST 9 OT or 
oes © TF: €1 is és ¥ G 29% é 8E:¢ v OV 
VC eT ea a ae a ce oe ere ae en en ee ee 
8 ee BF OC LL Me OL 8:01 G e SO ole Hag 
at e 6 8 pan eras “JIN 
i LP ‘Sh*6 YA (un a0) TE: PL (q1dtL) OF: T “MIN 
kr! ao 4STIOV 4Slloy 4SIIoV qyuosolg IVLOJT, u hae) & cf 4SlLloy 9In4n iT quaselg 
pee GMAILONO Lang GAILVURIN] AHAILVOIGNT MOOd 





SISOGOdY 


SISVLOUd NI GAILONOLans INaSaYd HLIM 493 











1419 











ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 

















































































































CF ‘6 — --- Z 8 Sj 9 ce fe Z OT Gy 
I I TZcc ‘ULY, Z 
I I Cle “WILT, T 
I I 8:9 ‘ydy 
T T OL‘? = nee) 
L I GL:0T oe 9 CCDi Gel "4 Z oy 
‘6 ae a 1+9.:8* 1 here) 
G I £6 = i g T:¢ ‘IOD Z 
LE a G WEN FP Co BC aLaL 8 GP ‘IOD T 
SB | PE | SRS] TS | | | ae a ae a tere een | 
L 1 2:9 4 9 9 AY 
1 4 Ae ms i Fs : i, seg ET: a 10d T 
Q ee ane ee ee G ole c ¢ Puc) ra + : Zz ee 91 on "ser 
i g Og - ef ie es = F dau a0? FT 2E me (0S: ZL. (OSS Ols 9c eee 
SE] UA ed POMS meena lpi esl es il PA Ned Ed eld Co cieeetg oak 3 ood te ee Go SS AR ad 
I ; if I Leyes 
OL rs G 8 ¢ G Ofat 
GP Zz G ve T jeu Sere €Z 0% LT OT OF 
= : G6 é Spat bse 
LL Zi ¢ 9 e OL 8 Sj gg — I 9g SI 

IZ g "6 S72 0G eG € “S: LT OT Et G nT 
SE 9 g g : ¢ F JT2SI LZ CT:8T 0Z 9° tN 
T I [ST:9T] [91] 
ye eG Z “i g Sw Teel rq G 1 XIN 

sate ae 4SIIoV 4Sllovy quosolg qoojiog 4stloy aINgN TJ quasol{ 
IVLO TL IVLOT, IVLOYL 
AA HONE MOOd 
aNVuo MATLONOL EOS GAILVUAIW] AALLVOIAN] 3 
SISOdGOdV 








SISVLOUd NI LSIMOV AAILONOALanAs HLIM 49? 


1420 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Pages 1011, line 15, 1012, line 4. Scott remarks that Moulton 
follows MG «i ov, p. 262, with addition of Jo. 1:25, but there 
are other doubtful examples (Jo. 3:12; 10:35; 2 Jo. 10; 
Lu. 14:26; Jas. 1:23) so that Jannaris with 34 may be 
correct. 

Page 1011, line 16 ab imo. Mr. Scott doubts if Mk. 6:4 is a real 
condition, and thinks 1 Tim. 6:3 the only normal example of 
el uw With first class condition. 


Page 1016, line 10. Mr. Scott observes that Moulton (p. 171) 
divides ei uy into three classes: 





1.in protasis |. 0s). <7 sts plea, dee eens een nn ne 10 
2. ‘except’ (1) without verb expressed: 
(a) preceded by negative. ....... 63 
(b) res share ey ee eo ee ee 10 
(2) with verb expressed (Mt. 6:5; Gal. 1:7) . . 2 
eb enre ao wae oes ear ee ee 3 
éxros. el py oes ip ae ee tee. 
3. ‘otherwise’: ef 5¢ 4) 6, ed depyye8 2... 2... ww Lage Ls. 
105 


Page 1017. Mr. Scott gives two tables on pages 1418 and 1419 
for éa4v and the subjunctive: one for the present subjunc- 
tive, one for the aorist subjunctive. He finds it difficult to 
be accurate, because of the compound protases and apodoses 
as in Mt: 5:23; 24:49: Tu: 20:28°71.Gor, 131l-o Jae 
22 =o: 


Page 1019, line 16. As already seen, éav with present subjunctive 
has future apodoses 30 times; éav with aorist subjunctive has 
future apodoses 81 times. Mr. Scott adds figures for éay 
with perfect subjunctive and with the indicative. 


€av WITH PERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE (Protasis) (Apodosis) 

Present Future 
JOR. EQ). [L7) T} O6OOLLEVOR pn tte RE goa, ov dvvarat 
Jo. 6:65 Be ihe] Sf A Oe Ser iene) Aimeere ovdels SbvaTat , 
Jase oS Kay Guaptias } memounKws . . . . . We adenoerar 
1 Cor. 18:2) “nat (ap) loa eae ee obdév eipi — 
1 Cor. 14:11. éav' pe) “8355 coe eee ee a évouat 
1. J0.:2:29... édp eldtire= (a ee VY LWMOKETE 


6 4 2 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1421 








éav WITH INDICATIVE (Protasis) (Apodosis) 
Boox TOTAL 

éav éav €av Ind. |} Ind. Indicative | Opt. 

Pres. Future Perfect Pres.| Fut. Perfect Pres. 
Mt. ae Lor LOW atl. ale, rhe ea aU 1 
Lu. ue 19:40 nd .. 119:40 os ae i 
Ac. et 18:31 a xe i he: lSralie it 
1L.Jo. ee ak 5:15 oléaper] .. ian 107 16 oldauer|! 72, i 
Rev. . 222 %: VPA | he a as | 
Tite sna 3:8 1 
Total it 4 1 Z 2 1 1 6 


Page 1023, line 7. For detre d7icw pou see 4 Ki. 6:19. 


Page 1027 (e). Add to examples of ed tws Ro. 11:14; Phil. 3:11 
which can be construed as aorist subjunctive with cxorév 
implied (so Thayer). 


Page 1027 (a). Recitative 67. occurs in Oxy. P. 1066, ll. 11, 12 
(ili/a.D.). Mr. Scott finds, taking R. V. as basis, 184 exx. of 
recitative 67. in N. T. 


Pages 1028, line 9, 1029, line 17. Mr. Scott considers Mk. 2: 
16 a doubtful example. In favour of the interrogative is the 
fact that Mt. and Lu. (the earliest commentators) read 64 
Tier we, 

Page 1029. Mr. T. Nicklin (Cl. Rev., Aug.—Sept., 1918, p. 116) 
suggests that a case like Ac. 4:13 shows that a distinction 
was preserved between éorw and joay in the indirect dis- 
course. The imperfect carries the idea of ‘‘had been.’ He 
insists on this meaning in Ac. 16:3; and even in Jo. 2:25; 
6:6; 9:8. Something can be said for this view. 


Page 1030 f. Note Oxy. P. 1204, 1. 24 (A.p. 299) iva dé évvopwrepov 
axovoein after an aorist imperative. 


Page 1032. Note Oxy. P. 14838, Il. 15-20 Gii/iv a.p.) toda as 
like ort. 

Page 1033. For double indirect discourse see Jo. 4:1. 

Page 1034, line 1. In Mk. 1:34=Lu. 4:41 67 is treated as causal 
by some. 

Page 1034, line 12. Subject clause. Add “1 Cor. 6:7.” 


Page 1035. Add yvrwordy torw... bre Ac. 4:10; 13:38; 28:28; 


1422 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


xapis TS Oe bre Ro. 6:17; civdnue bre Ro. 7:16; and perhaps 
mere. Ore Mk. 4:38; Lu. 10: 40. 


Page 1036, line 6. Mr. Scott observes that axovw 67 occurs 32 
times, acc. and inf. 2 (Jo. 12:18; 1 Cor. 11:18). ’Azoxpivopa 
dre (recitative) 3 times (Mk. 8:4; 12:29; Ac. 25:16), acc. and 
inf. 3 (Lu. 20:7; Ac. 25:4 bis). Nowifw 67. 4 times, inf. 10 
(Luke and Paul). Aéyw dre 162 (and about 900 object clauses 
without é7v), inf. 35. Ofda d7e 133, inf. 12. IToretw dre 25, 
inf. 2. Tuaoxw bre 71, inf. 3. Bodw dri 1, inf. 1. 


Page 1042, line 2. Mr. Scott has this table for the constructions 
of dxovw in N. T.: 






































Accusative enitiv 

cipee Accus.| Accus. 6 : Object lobiog 2 

Boox with | with Clau uraes |__|. 72%? S 

No ithe |pearet ause ause With With Objects & 

Object ‘ Simple Part. Simple Part. 

Mk. 2 \[16:111 1 6 7 2 44 
Mt. 28 9 2 20 4 63 
Lu. 26 1 1 20 14 1 2 65 
79 a 1 12 4 46 — wae S rag WY iP 
Ae 25 i: 6 1 23 2 15 10 6 89 
Jo 11 1 10 1a 20 Z 4 59 
Isso: 2 6 5 1 14 
24h AKOE Wee i 
oJ; ve 1 oe iL 
Rev. 8 i Ls vi 1 10 46 
Heb 4 4 8 
Jas. 2 1 3 
2 Pet. it 1 
51 1 1 18 8 54 iil 45 22 222 

Zirh: 7 1 
1 Cor. D 1 1 1 5 
2 SZOL- } 
Gal. 1 2 3 
Ro. 4 = 1 5 
Pie 1 3: 4 
Col. 1 3 4 
Phil if 1 
Eph. 1 4 5 
iL 4iieeay. 1 1 
O24 Draw ay 2 9 4 
10 1 — he i 15 1 2 —- 2 34 
Total | 140 2 2 oe es 115 12 ia Zo 15 [428 


Page 1042 (d), line 13. Mr. Scott’s data for eyévero construction 
with note of time and without follow here: 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1493 











Noun: “ €v TW : ‘ No note 
Boox év, META ois Infinitive rey Gen. Abs. of time Tota 
Mk 1:93)2,°23 a3 4:4 A: cP Aes we 4 
Mt. Te 5 Ny fad 9:10 18:13 fe 
Lu. 1592 1> i 1.820" 1523 84.1713 °215-21* 16:22 41 
46; 5:17; PA IG. Delon iakeiba! 
G:1eGaie: 9 AS 9 ars fe he 
t 72h 148¢1; Or1S,100, 
22;-9:28, eh heh EAS 
Sr 2071 iF pas WO 
by fea te: 
Sees 
19:15; 
24:4, 15, 
15730; 51 
15 5 21 4 4 3 52 
Ac Ns SO HE Bld 9:3; 19:1 16:16; 9:32, 43; ty 
43:11:26: 22:6 dat..|\e 1421; 
bate A 17 dat Zils 
27:44; 
28:8 
5 1 2 — 3 6 17 
Total 20 6 as 4 fe 9 69 
Ac. 10:25 \ 


Acts . 


TeeG 20 J not included. 


Mr. Scott expands the data for é& 76 with éyevero thus: 


Luke Gospel 


Kal éyévero . 6 | eyerero 6€ . . 4=10 

<s ter KROL ee ra, ee Rabe eo = LO 

Lu. 9:29 “ “ , with noun as subj. 1 omni? l= 2 
Total 14 8 =22 out of 38 
ral) 2= 2 2 
14 10=24 40 


Page 1043, line 8. Mr. Scott gives this table for éyévero with in- 


finitive wll bal kee (215,023) * Lu:.9'(621, 6,6, 12; 16:22, 
D2 taro e222) Nore (47.5953, 32,37,43:710:255 11:26, 
DGmzOrm al wim OsO ml Ue lool 212 leo 22: 6,17, 17s 27: 
44: 28:8, 17). ’Eyévero with infinitive occurs 25 times, but 
‘governs’ 34 infinitives. This raises the old difficulty of 
counting verb or construction. In this case, as it is a 
construction of éyé&.+infin., the infinitive clearly should be 
counted. 

Mk. 2:15 is the only example of yivera: in this construction. 


1424 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Page 1053. Meillet has a lucid article on ‘‘De Quelques Faits 
Grammaticaux” (Revue des Etudes Grecques, juillet, 1916, 
pp. 259-274). Page 264 he says: “ L’histoire de l’infinitif grec 
est done celle d’un développement entiérement neuf, propre 
en grec, qui s’est fait avant l’époque historique, suivi d’une 
élimination totale, dont les débuts remontent 4 la période 
hellénistique.”’ 

Pages 1059, line 11, 1078, line 15. For 70d infinitive as subject add ~ 
“Ac. 27:1.” Mr. Scott has this table for 76 infinitive in N. T.: 


SUBJECT OBJECT APPOSITION 
Boor SEE RRR TOTAL 
Present Aorist Present Aorist Present | Aor. 
Mk 12:33 bis 9:10 10 nt in 4 
Mt 15:20 20:23 2 
Ac : 25:11 1 
Heb 10:31 ot tt I 
leh . 3:3 4:6 bis 3 
1 GOP nt te ct 11:6 14:39 bis a = 5 
2 Cor. OF 4 (ek 8:10 Soe Se Pike | 8 
fe | 10:2 
Ro. 7:18 bis | 14:21 bis 13:8 Me 4713 eee fi 
14:13 
Ph. i Ba he Led Pad it ne a x2 10 
22, 24, 13 bis; 
29 bis 4:10 
Total 12 9 9 6 4 L 41 


If Mk. 10:40 and=were classed as subject the difference 
would be increased. 

Mr. Scott notes that there are 992 anarthrous object infini- 
tives in N.T.(Votaw’s b.), occurring in every book of the N. T., 
but most numerous in Luke, and Acts (179) more than the 
Gospels (156); in Paul 235 times, in John and Epp. 102. 
There are 109 finite verbs producing these infinitives (diva- 
mat has 212, dew 128, wéddrw 95, &pxouae 91, BobAouae 137, 
fnréw 33, mapaxarew 29, ddetkw 23). For the tenses see Vo- 
taw’s table, p. 49. 


Pages 1060, line 15, 1094. R. V. takes Mt. 5:34 as aorist middle im- 
perative (u duocar) instead of aorist active infinitive uw) dudcar. 

Page 1061, line 5. In Ro. 11:8 bis the quotation here differs sig- 
nificantly from the LXX text of Dt. 29:4. 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION ‘ 1425 


Page 1061, line 16. Lu. 48 (Gospel 24, Ac. 24), Paul 17, Mt. 7, 
Mk. 0, rest 8=80. So Mr. Scott counts. 


Pages 1061, 1089, 1094. Mr. Scott presents this table for ‘‘ verbs 
of hindering”’: 








ANARTHROUS i 

WorpD : 

Mt. | Lu Ac Heb. |1Th.} 1 Cor. |2 Cor./Gal.| Ro. |1 Tim a 

ame:Aew a ae 4:17 a 1 

EVKOTTTO ne a ae aa ce ae Be EER sce ay 1 

Kobe 19:14 | 23:2 | 8:36; 16:6; | 7:23 [2:16] .. ere iares eas! (i138 

24:23 

3 1 1 4 1 i! — — 1 —_ 1 10 
ARTICULAR 

KaTEX® oe Ree 1 

Kpatéw >. |24:16 ; 1 

KaTaTravuw ae vs 14:18 5 1 

trooTéAdw | .. .. |20:20, 20, 27 | > Tod ny a A Pee Pe 3 

EVKOTTW 2 - , Ay J se Sead thi ppe- 1 

éEaTropew ve 2 eo as a Teo ee) Ae TOU 1 

KwWAUW 5 Ae 10:47 14:39 ro 2 

7 — Pe 5 — — 1 1 — 1 — 10 


Votaw does not class Ac. 10:47 with “verbs of hindering,” 
but with ‘result,’ and 1 Cor. 14:39 as an ‘object’ verb. See 
~ Votaw, p. 24. 

Pages 1062-75. Mr. Scott’s table for articular infinitive in 
N. T., W. H. text, is shown on pages 1426-27. 

Page 1067, note 2. Mr. Scott expands his data for 7o0d-infinitives 
thus: 3 presents and 4 aorists in Mt., 6 presents and 18 
aorists in Luke; 3 presents in 1 Cor., 2 in 2 Cor., 1 aorist in 
Gal. (quotation), 7 presents and 2 aorists in Ro., one of each 
in Phil. 

Page 1068, line 8. Mr. Scott thinks Lu. 5:7 surely “aim or pur- 
pose.” 

Page 1069. See Th. P. 27, 1. 73 (B.c. 113) dvev 708 dotvar rHv aoga- 
decay. 

Page 1069, line 2. Cf. p. 647, 41 and note 5. There are examples 
of ydpu rod with infinitive in the papyri. See Tb. P. 38, 
Welvelero eh owmubee fo leco(B.GaLi3) Ub. BOs le37(B.c- 
140239) wb abo bia), -1:47.(8.c4118—-7) Tho P61) 144 
(B.c. 118-7), 2b., 1. 353. 


1426 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Epp.-Jo. 


Rev. 
Jas. 

1 Pet. 
2 Pet. 
Lis 


Heb. a 


10h: 


DY AWK: 
1 Cor: 
2 Cor. 
Gal. 
Ro. 
Phe 
Phil. 
Col. 


Eph. 
tear: 
2a Lin 
Aiety. 


Total 


ARTICULAR INFINITIVE IN N. T., W. H. TEXT 











TO els TO bia TO peTa TO pos TO TOU bua TOU 
E/E|/E| Sel 4/elale(a/e)eya| = | a 
Di ee a aah 3 2 1 

[1] 
2 See PAM AS Wa bg 1 5 | 20 4 
Ln Si i 1 2 A 6 18 
2 eae tO 12} 1); 4};—]|] 6;—]| 2] 51 9 pa — 
14) Get 6 3 6 1B pa 13 
Hf: ite 
| 
= 1227 
Pet Ge 1 1 
ibiraak 2 
Perf 
Se Ait eb ats: Lee 1 3 PBF 
—1 21) 48) 6.0) ae ee eer 20 1 
3} Oat 1 
2) Lite 

ANS) aaa 2 1 3 

24) OS eee. 1 ee7 oe 
Ee lal 1 
Laie oe) EM Pore vf 2 
Oe Lt ee et 1 1 1 
Pert, 
1 es 1 
23 | 10} 23 |26 1} 1}/—}]—{—| 1]—] 1] 31] 18 4 — 
25'| 16) (S288 22b 2442 1) 37 LAS ee heer 46 1 
41 72 32 te 12 80 


The “ Prepositional Infinitive’ = Votaw’s k. 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1427 


ARTICULAR INFINITIVE IN N. T., W. H. TEXT (Continued) 








—606060606060——owa“<*s0s0ooo0==SosSs 
; = po avrTt n ’ n oe a ev a on 
€K TOU ToD TOD TW €vVv TW €VEKEVY TOU €WS TOU re 8 2 
4 |\oo 
na ar Re Ile geet ee | eer & Pe) ke Adee . a A é 28 il 
GB lalaielaie) 4 (A/<21G| 2 fe] a 
2 15) 11] Mk. 
I) A El eae 
ii a 27| 18) Mt 
Pty 2 26| 8 73| 49} Lu 
io |—— ||| — 131!) 8i—|. — .J—- — °11161 79 
il vaca S408 521) 24 Ac 
1 i gt 4| 41 Jo 
a Ps C1 yo] een Keb 
ee tee fete , eee i See ee ine a ev. 
Bac bee a le Pee bie oe Br Che GhJas: 
Ae oele et. 
Paes 
ous 
ah 2 = e: a, 23 | 18} Heb. 
— 1} 3} lj—/—| — 9} 3;—| — |— 1 91 | 57 
13 Olen. 
Siropesco: 
ae rad Pont hae | eg ae As me peed Wi 28 ae ne We 16) Se leCor; 
orl Ue etn amn ease We ee | Bolts eal the 8 be TOS +. 19) 68i2-Cor: 
2 Us 5| 41] Gal. 
2 Sire MEO eee 
16 224 heh: 
Phil. 
Col. 
3} 3| Eph. 
2 bin 
GAM eae 
ite 
1 |—| 2}/—/—|— 1 3} 1|— 1 |—| — /|115] 64] Total 
1 1] 8} 1]—|— 1 |43/)12}/— 1 |— 118221200 
9 ti) 


Present= 164; Aorist=148; Perfect = 10. — Total= 322. 


1428 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Page 1069, line 11. Mr. Scott gives exact figures for relation of 
prepositional infinitives to total articular infinitives: O. T. 
800 to 2107, Apocr. 161 to 349, N. T. 200 to 322, total 1161 
to 2778. 


Page 1070, line 9. The figures for & 7 and infinitive are: with 
pres. 43, aor. 12, perf. 0 in the N. T. (Scott), 


Page 1070, line 10. Mr. Scott refers to Vulgate “postquam”’ as 
translation of wera 76 and infinitive as reason for taking the 
infinitive clause as ‘‘absolute.’”’? So Blass, p. 239, ‘an inde- 
pendent position.”” But the Greek idiom with the infinitive 
was not ‘‘absolute” and the principles of indirect discourse 
do apply. The acc. in Lu. 11:8; Ac. 18:3 is predicate adjec- 
tive only. In Lu. 2:4; 19:11; Ac. 27:4 the acc. of general 
reference occurs for what would be subject with a finite verb. 

Ava 76 is not repeated with the second infinitive (Mk. 5:4; 
Lu. 19:11; Ac. 4:2). Mr. Scott notes that 6a 76 with aorist 
occurs only in Mt. 24:12 (passive). There are 8 other 
passives (pres. 4, perf. 4). 


Page 1075, line 13 ab imo. Four of Matthew’s 5 examples are 
peculiar to him and in 26:12=Mark has a different construc- 
tion. In Mk. 13:22 (=Mt. 24:24, p. 990) Matthew has gore 
(‘pure purpose’’). Paul has 4 examples. 


Page 1084, line 12 ab imo. Prof. Walter Petersen thinks that 
yvevecbar, not efvat, was the original idiom, loosely changed to 
eval. 

Page 1088 (cf. 990). Mr. Scott adds this note: Votaw shows on 
p. 46 how his 211 anarthrous purpose infinitives (d) are distrib- 
uted in N. T. These infinitives are the product of 71 verbs; 
épxoua (40) and its compounds (36) [éfépxouar 17], arocréAhw 
18, did6wue 15, are the most frequent. I make 213 anar- 

- throus infinitives: pres. 36, aor. 176, perf. 1 (Lu. 12:58 which 
Votaw has not counted on p. 49). Matthew’s 38 infinitives 
are all aorists, while Mark has 8 pres..and Luke 10. (It is 
odd that the passages with infinitive presents in Mark and 
Luke have no = in Matthew, or have not infinitive where 
the passages are =.) 


Page 1106, line 7 ab imo. Add “Mt. 2:2” 6 rexGels Bactdeds. 


Pages 1106, line 3, 1123. Mr. Scott thinks that Néyorros in Mt. 
13:35 is simply “when saying.” He notes Mt. 1:22; 2:15, 
17; 333; 4514" 8:175 12 i ee a 





ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1429 


Page 1108 (c). Cf. Mk. 7:30 BeBrnuévov é€eAndvOés. 
Page 1120; line 6)abszmo. Cf. Oxy. P. 935, ll. 20, 21 Gii/a.p.) 


epbave yap tpoBacrtakas. 
Page 1126, line 9. Mr. Scott offers these tables: 


Finite verb. followed by \éywy and kai efzev: 


NARRATIVE 
Non- . Participl 
poe epee ieramlenite| crit | Toss. |,.rariele.| Seine 
E€LTTEV 
Mk. 2 Oo 8 15 15 30 
Mt. 5 3 2 10 45 55 
Lu. 1 2 4 2 9 37 46 
Ac. 1 34 13 14 6 20 
JO: 3 29 45 E 78 78 
Rev. 1 1 1 
Paul 1 1 1 
Total 13 31 70 14 128 103 Da 
’"AroxpiOels (—evres) followed by efzev, bn, Neyet, EXeyer and 
Epec: 

Boox elev én Neyer éXevyev Epet ToraL 
Mk 5 8 2 15 
Mt 43 1 1 45 
Lu. 29 2 3 2 1 aye 
Ac. 6 6 
Total 83 3 11 4 Bes 103 


Page 1142. Cf. Gildersleeve on Particles in Brief Mention (Am. 
J. of Ph., July and Oct., 1916). 


Page 1163, line 21. Ov belongs to implied #é\w in Mt. 9:18. 


Page 1166, line 4. Note odx dr in Phil. 3:12; 4:11, 17 to correct 
misunderstanding and not in classic sense of ‘not only.” 
This is a distinctive N. T. formula (cf. Jo. 6:45; 7:22; 2 Cor. 
1:24; 3:5). When not followed by second clause in classic 
Greek the meaning is ‘‘although.”’ 


Page 1169, line 5 (cf. 1011). In Jo. 15:22, 24; 18:30; Ac. 26:32 
el uw is in condition of second class. Mk. 6:5 can be regarded 
as ‘simply “except” (“if not” in origin, of course). 


1430 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Page 1174 (b). Cf. od wy construction with aorist indicative in 
Oxy. P. 1483, Il. 9-11 (ili/iv A.D.) Kal éwdiacas tots abrots ap 
obde ts ur) mapedé~ato Timqv. 

Page 1183 f. Gildersleeve is brilliant, as usual, in his comment 
on 6é, yé, dpa (Am. J. of Ph., July, 1916): “For generations 
6é has been translated with distressing uniformity by ‘but’; 
and head-master of Grayfriars school apostrophizes Pen- 
dennis thus: 

‘Miserable trifler! A boy who construes 6e and instead of 
dé but, at sixteen years of age is guilty not merely of folly 
and ignorance and dulness inconceivable but of crime, 
deadly crime, of filial ingratitude which I tremble to con- 
template.’ 

If the doctor had been spared to read Sir John Sandy’s 
translation of Pindar in which the ‘but’ translation is 
dodged at every turn, one ‘trembles to contemplate’ the 
consequences.” 

Of ye Gildersleeve says that ‘‘emphasis is the refuge of 
poverty” and gives it up. ‘‘As for apa, science tells us that 
it is short for dpapétws. The full translation would be ‘ac- 
cordingly,’ but what after it is reduced to the canina littera 
‘o’? There is an dpa of accord, there is an apa of discord, the 
familiar apa of surprise.” 


Page 1177 (i). There is also Mt. 20:15 otk ...;4...; 
Page 1187, line 15. For 4A)’ iva see also Jo. 13:18; 15:25. 
Page 1187, line 8 abimo. After Phil. 1:18 add “Ac. 20:23.” 


Page 1234. Add: Infinitive depending on infinitive, 1040, 1047, 
1049, 1085. 


Page 1378. Add to “Page 560, line 6,” this: Cf. also Mt. 14:14 
omdayxvicoua én’ avrots=Mk. 6:34 ér’ atrots and Mk. 9:22 
ép’ quas and Lu. 7:13 é2’ atry7. With this verb Mark has 
accusative only, Luke dative (loc.?) only, Matthew accusative 
and dative. See also éfouvcia éri with genitive and accusative 
(Rev. 2:26; 16:9). 

Jesus noticed small points of language (iGra & # ula Kepea 
Mt. 5:18), though we have no documents from his pen. The 
preacher can be accurate in details and have all the more 
power in his speech. Ta phuata & éym AedaAnKa duty Tredud 
eoTiv Kal Cwn éotw (Jo. 6:63). All the people still hang on the 
words of Jesus, listening (é£expéuero abtod axotwy Lu, 19:48) 


ADDENDA TO THE THIRD EDITION 1431 


for hope and guidance in a world of disorder and despair. 
The world will find the way out if it follows the leadership 
of Jesus. I could not close these three years of further toil 
on this grammar without this tribute from my heart to the 
Master, who makes all work worth while and who challenges 
us all to share his own work while it is still day, before the 
night comes when no one can go on with his work (épyafecbar 
Jo. 9:4). 


1 The Exp. Times for April, 1919, has the last article from the late Prof, 
Robert Law, of Knox College, Toronto, on ‘‘ Note on the Imperfect of Obliga< 
tion, etc., in the New Testament.’ I find myself in hearty agreement with 
his explanation of an antecedent obligation a debitum, not always lived up to. 
It is already set forth in this volume, pp. 886-7, 919-21, 1014. 





INDEX TO ADDENDA TO SECOND AND 
THIRD EDITIONS 





INDEX OF SUBJECTS IN THE ADDENDA 
B. O. HERRING 


References to pages. 


A 


&: see Sinaiticus. 

Ablative: c. xpeiav éxw, 1892, 1397. 

Absolute genitive: 1392; c. otros, 1396. 

Accent: of the vocative, 1387. 

Accusative: change to nom., 1378; 
kara and acc., 1379; 4 in 1 Cor. 
15:10, 1879; nom. in apposition, 
1390; c. mpooxvvéw, 1391; c. infini- 
tive after zovety, 1391; of a person 
or thing, 1392; acc. and inf. after 
verbs, 1422; as predicate adjective, 
1428; general reference, 1428. 

Action: iterative, 1364 bis. 

Active voice: original suffix in opt., 
1378; periphrastic perfects, 1389, 
1406; in LXX, 1398; pluperfects, 
1406; aorist inf., 1424. 

Adjuncts: prepositional, 1398. 

Adverb: xai mpds as adv., 1393; c. 
ovros joined, 1396; zpiv 7 in LXX, 
1412. 

Adversative use of kal: 1383. 

Anaphoric use of article: 1397. 

Aorist: compared with imperfect, 
1380; indicatives in John, 1380; 
participles, 1381; first and second 
identical, 13881; with és é4v, 1387; 
imperfect c. 7, 1390; imperatives 
and subjunctives in N. T., 1398 f.; 
table of subjunctives c. ob uA, opp. 
1404; optative, 1405; inf. c. prepo- 
sition, 1405; subj. c. é&v, 1420; 
subj. c. ef ws, 1421; imperative in 
papyri, 1421; middle imperative, 
1424; active inf., 1424; infinitives 
in Matt., 1428; indicative c. od un, 
1430. 

Apocalypse: 1378. 

Apodosis: indicative and optative, 


a table, 1410; statistical tables, 
1416 ff.; future, 1420. 

Apostolic Fathers: 1382. 

Apposition: acc. and nom., 1390; to 
pronoun in verb, 1397. 

Article: 1379; c. demonstrative, 1396; 
absence in papyri, 1397; anaphoric 
use, 1397; c. "Incods, 1897; c. proper 
names, 1398. 

Articular infinitive: 1406; table of, 
1426 f.; relation to prepositional 
infinitives, 1428. 

Associative instrumental: 1392. 

Asyndeton: 1378. 

Attic idiom: 1398. 

Augment: of an infinitive, 1389. 


B 
B: see Vaticanus. 
Balancing of words: 1378. 


C 


Case: 1389; oblique, 1390, 1392; after 
otdayxvifoua, 1430. 

Clauses: subordinate, 1382; parallel, 
1397; subject, 1421; object, 1422; 
infinitive, 1428. 

Collective noun: 1390. 

Composition: azo in, 1379. 

Compounds: of «#7 and od in Apostolic 
Fathers, 1882; protases and apo- 
doses, 1420. 

Conditions: first and third class, 
1382; conditional édy, 1410; statis- 
tical tables, 1416 ff.; first class, 
1420; second class, 1429. 

Conjunctions: éws, 1393, 1412; axpr(s), 
a table, 1412. 

Construction: od u7, a table, opp. 1404, 
1430; &v in N. T., 1410; dare, 1414; 


1435 


1436 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT / 


mnmote, 1415; adkotw, 1422; evevero, 
1422 f. 
Contrast: c. d\Aa — 6¢, 1385. 


D 


Dative: ethical, 1378, 1379; ¢. mpoo- 
xuvéw, 1391; discussed, 1392. 
Declarative Si6rt: 1381. 
Demonstratives: tables, 13894 f.; 3s, 
1396; dem. and article, 1396. 
Direct Questions: 1396. 
Direction: in dative case, 1392. 
Distributive use of 4vé and kara: 1379. 
Dual: original suffix in opt., 1378. 
Durative present: 1411. 


E 


Ellipsis: of the verb, 1379; ellipses 
cited, 1411. 

Enoch: book of, 1394. 

Epictetus: 1378, 1379 bis, 1381, 1407. 

Ethical dative: 1378. 


F 


Finite verb: a table, 1429. 

Future: linear, 1381; indicative, 1381, 
1411, 1413; futurity in subj. and 
opt., 1407 bis; ay c. subj., 1409; 
apodoses, 1420. 


G 
Genitive: 1387; absolutes, 1392; c. 
ovtos, 1396, 1397. 
Gospel of John: 1380. — 
Grammar: grammatical forms of W, 


1377; dative not a grammatical 
case, 1392; readers of, 1398. 


H 
Hendiadys: 1383. 
Hiatus :91.282- 
History of subj. and opt.: 1381. 
Hittite language: 1385. 


I 


Imperative: 1381 bis; form yv&, 1387; 
perfect imperatives in N. T., 1389; 
aor. imp. ¢. 47, 1390; aor. and pres. 
imp. in N. T., 1398; table of, 1409; 
aor. imp. in Matt., 1411; in papyri, 
1421; aor. middle, 1424. 


Imperfect: compared with aorist, | 
1380; opt., 1405; periphrastic, 
1406; in indirect discourse, 1421. 

Indefinite: aorist, 1381; relatives, 
1411. 

Independent sentences: c. futuristic 
subj., 1407; zi c. aorist subj., 1407. 

Indicative: 1381 bis; c. ds éav, 1387; 
perfect, 1406; future, 1411, 1413; 
c. indefinite relatives, 1411; c. dre, 
1411; c. drav, 1412; c. éav, 1420; 
aor. c. od un, 1480. 

Indirect discourse: 1421 bis; princi- 
ples of, 1428. 
Indirect Questions: 1396; change of 

mode, 1409. 

Indo-European: family of languages, 
1385; stem-suffixes, 1386. 

Infinitive: 1382; c. ua yévorro, 1382; 
in Papyrus de Magdola, 1382; ec. 
év 7@, 1385, 1428; c. augment, 
1389; as subject, 1389; ace. and 
inf., 1391, 1422; c. rod, 1392, 1415, 
1424 f.; aorist c. prep., 1405; artic- 
ular, 1406 bis, 1426 f.; present c. 
prep., 1406; perfect, 1406 f.; inf., 
and 6a 76, 1411; in LXX, 1412; 
purpose, 1414, 1428; after éyévero, 
1428; aor. act., 1424; prepositional 
and articular related, 1428, 1430. 

Inscriptions: in Phrygia, 1378. 

Instrumental case: 1392 bis. 

Interchange of #s and ért: 1382, 1389. 

Iterative action: 1380. 


if 
Judas Iscariot: primacy of, 1394. 


L 
Language: study of, 
points of, 1480. 
Linear action: 1380; future, 1381. 
Locative case: 1392. 


small 


1377; 


M 
Margin: marginal readings for od uf, 
1405. 
Middle voice: optative, 1378; re- 
dundant, 1380; in Phrygia, 1380; 
in LXX, 1398; aor. imp., 1424. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS IN THE ADDENDA 


Mode: change of, in indirect dis- 
course, 1409; in conditional sen- 
tences, a table, 1416 ff. 


N 


Names: name-element, 1377; c. arti- 
cle, 1398. 

Negatives: c. participle, 1379 bis; 
preceding «i uy, 1420. 

New Testament: idioms, 1379; perf. 
subj., 13887; anarthrous phrases, 
1398; pres. and aor. imperatives, 
1398; articular inf., 1406; impera- 
tives, 1409; constructions c. 4», 
1410; wa pn, 1413; data for dzws, 
1418. 

Nominative: changed from acce., 
1378, 1387; of time, 1390. 

Noun: definition, 1378. 


O 


Object: clauses, without 67, 1422; 
verb, 1425. 

Obligation: verbs of, 1431. 

Oblique case: 1390 bis. 

Optative: suf. for middle, 1378; c. 
subj., 1381; hist., 1381; aor. and 
imp., 1405; futurity, 1407; table, 
1408; past prospective, 1409; with- 
out ay, 1409. 

Origin: of od wh c. subj., 13881; of 
Indo-European stem-suffixes, 1386. 


P 


Papyri: see List of Quotations. 

Parallels: 1379; clauses, 1397. 

Participle: aor. and perf., 1381; c. 
negatives, 1382 bis; bunched, 1382; 
“confidential participle,” 1382; 
predicate, 1389; c. ofrws dé, 1415. 

Partitive use of éx: 1379. 

Passive: 1392; pluperfects, 1406; 
perf. subjunctives, 1406, 1428. 

Past tense: compared with aor. ind., 
1380; subj., 1409. 

Paul: style in preaching, 1386; use 
of uf and aor. imp., 1390; pres. and 
aor. imp., 1398; pres. subj., 1403; 
aor. and impf. opt., 1405. 

Perfect: participles, 1381; subjunc- 


1437 


tives, 1888; imperatives and sub- 
junctives, 1389; periphrastic, 1389 
bis; subjunctives in N. T., 1398, 
1406; indicatives, 1406; infinitives, 
1406 f.; subj. c. éav, 1420. 

Periphrastic: number of forms, 1388; 
perfect, 1389 bis; impf., 1406. 

Phrases: prepositional, 1398 bis. 

Phrygia: inscriptions in, 1378, 1380. 

Plato: teaching of, 1380, 1381. 

Pluperfects: number in N. T., 1406. 

Position of ottos: 1397. 

Positive: repicods cited, 1387. 

Preaching: style of Paul, 1386. 

Predicate: participle, 1389; adj.,1428. 

Prepositions: uéoor and éxduera, 1379; 
not repeated, 1392; 1393, 
1412; prepositional adjuncts, 1398; 
phrases, 1398; c. present infinitive, 
1406; in LXX, 1412; prepositional 
infinitive, 1426 ff.; 6€, yé, and dpa, 
1430. 

Present imperatives: number inN.T., 
1398. 

Present infinitive: c. prepositions, 
1406. 

Present perfect: periphrastic form, 
1389. 

Present subjunctive: number in N. 
T., 1398; tables, 1402 f.; c. ri in 
independent sentences, 1409; c. 
éav, 1420. 

Prohibitions: 1381 bis. 

Protasis: c. relative or conjunction, 
1410; in statistical tables, 1416 ff. 

Punctiliar action: 1380. 


ews, 


R 


Recitative 8tv: 1421 bis, 1422. 

Redundant middle: 1380. 

Relative pronoun: 1390, 1396. 

Repetition: of éxe, 1378; of wa, 14138. 
of dua 76, 1428. 


S 


Scepticism: of Blass, re waa, 1387. 

Sentence: cas at beginning of, 1382; 
independent, 1407 bis. 

Septuagint: cited, 1382, 1390 f., 1393, 
1397, 1412, 1424. 


1438 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Sinaiticus codex: 1378, 1394. 
Speakers: in Gospels, 1405. 
Spelling: in W, 1377. 
Statistics: on pluperfects, 1406; fur- 
ther, see Tables. 
Subject: infinitive, 1389, 1424; in 
Mk. 13:19, 1390 f.; clause, 1421. 
Subjective meaning of py: 1382. 
Subjunctive: theory of, 1381; c. ob 
un, 1381; history, 1881; table on 
perf. subj., 13888, 1889, 1406; sta- 
tistics, 1398 ff.; tenses, 1404; fu- 
turity, 1407; present subj. c. ré in 
independent sentences, 1409; dzov 
c. subj.; 1411; d7av c. subj., 1411 f.; 
in LXX, 1412; éav and subj., 1418 f., 
1420; aor. c. ef ws, 1421. 
Subordinate clauses: 1382. 
Substitutionary use of avrf: 13938. 
Suffixes: for middle optative, 1378. 
Summary: of subj. tenses, 1404. 
Superlative: in —raros, 1379. 
Syncretism: 1386; of dat. forms,1392. 
Synoptics: uses of éxetvos, 1396; ri in 
ind. aor. subj. sentences, 1407. 
Syntax: 1378, 1389; statistical knowl- 
edge of, 1398. 


ay 
Tables: oty in Synoptics, 1385; ay 
and éav, 1386; uses of perf. subj., 
1388; verbs of speaking, 1393; de- 
monstratives, 1394 f.; uses of éxe?- 
vos, 1396; aor. subj., 1398 ff.; pres. 
subj., 1402f.; aor. subj. in od 
un constructions, opp. 1404; subj. 
tenses, 1404; speakers in Gospels, 
1405; perf. inf., 1407; opt. in N. 
T., 1408; imperatives, 1409; a» 
constructions, 1410; dou c. subj., 


1411; drav c. subj., 1412; a&xpr(s) as 
con]., 1412; dmws, 1413; dore, 1414; 
unmore, 1415; conditional sentences, 
1416 ff.; ea» c. perf. subj., 1420; c. 
indicative, 1421; axédvw, 1422; eye- 
vero, 1423; 76 infinitive, 1424; verbs 
of hindering, 1425; finite verb,1429. 

Teaching of Plato: 1380. 

Tense: change of, 13898; subjunctive, 
a summary, 1404; in conditional 
sentences, a table, 1416 ff. 

Theory: of subjunctive, 1381; of de- 
termined futurity, 1407. 

Time: nominative of, 1390 f. 


U 


Uses: of re xai, 1382; of add\a — 6, 
1383. 


V 


Vaticanus codex: cited, 1378. 

Vellum: leaf of Gen. 2 and 38, 1388. 

Verb: definition, 1378; of speaking, 
1393; finite, 1424; hindering, 1425. 

Verbs of obligation: 14381. 

Vernacular: 1397. 

Vocative: accent, 1387. 

Voice: middle, 1380; passive, 1392; 
middle and active in LXX, 1398. 

Vulgate: translation of, 1389, 1428. 


WwW 


Washington MS.: 1377 f. 

Wishes: 1382; in opt., 1407. 

Words: number in Matt., Lu., Acts, 
1385; of Jesus, 14380. 


Z 
Zeugma: 1383. 


——— 








INDEX OF GREEK WORDS IN THE ADDENDA 
R. B. JoNgEs 


References to pages. 


A 


d&Kovw: table of use, and c. dr, 1422. 

GAAG: c. — dé, 13883; va... adda, 1413; 
c. iva, 1480. 

&AXos (or) — 8é€: table of use, 1394 f. 

dv: in rel. clause, 1381; spelling, 1386; 
tables e. subj., 1400, 1402; table c. 
opt., 1408; in indir. quest., 1409; 
tables of constr., 1410 f. 

ava: distributive, 1379. 

avtt: case of, 1393; table c. anart. 
inf., 1427. 

advatroAfs: form, 1390. 

dmevhéw: c. anart. inf., 1425. 

amo: in composition, 1379. 

amroxptvopat: form, 1388; c. b71, 1422; 
table c. verbs of saying, 1429. 

a&rrooré\Xw: c. anart. inf., 1428. 

&pa: meaning, 1430. 

&pxopar: c. anart. inf., 1424. 

avrés, 4: without art., and in oblique 
cases, 1379; c. prop. noun, 1380; 
case, 1392. 

&des: table c. subj., 1399. 

adiSw: spelling, 1386. 

&xpu(s): tables of use, 1401, 1412. 


B 


Bdéddw: predicate part., 1429. 

Bodw: ¢. drt, 1422. 

BovAopat: table c. subj., 1399; c. anart. 
inf., 1424. 


r 


yé: meaning, 1430. 

yeverlous: case of, 1392. 

ylvopor: c. inf., 1389; yévorro, 1405; 
éyévero, tables of use, 1422 f.; yeve- 
aba, 1428. 

ywookw: form, 1387; ¢. dri, 1422. 

yovat: case of, 1387. 


A 


S€: iva .. . dé, 1413; meaning, 14380. 

Set: subj. inf., 1389. 

Setva: indef. pronoun, 1387. 

Setpo: table, 1399; c. subj., 1407. 

Sere: in conditions, 1421. 

Sua: c. art. (table), and anart. inf., 
1405 ff., 1426, 1428; c. ré, 1421. 

S(Sopur: form, 1388; c. inf., 1428. 

Skave: case of, 1391. 

Sidr: for d71, 1381 f. 

Svvapat: c. anart. inf., 1424. 


E 


éav: table, for av, 1386; tables c. subj., 
1388, 1400, 1402f., 1418-20; c. se 
un, 1389f.; table c. wep, 1400; 
table c. ind., 1421. 

éavtdv: replaced by ceavrov, 1894. 

éykatadelrw: reading, 1404. 

oa: form, 1387. 

é0éAwpe: ending, 1378. 

el: c. 6¢ uy, 13889 f.; c. wn, 1399, 1402, 
1420, 1429; table c. opt., 1408; 
tables c. ind., 1415 ff.; c. od, 1420; 
ce. ris and ws, 1400, 1421. 

ew: constr., 1378; perf. subj., 1388, 
1406. 

eit: subj. inf., 1389; constr., 1390 f.; 
in indir. disc., 1421, 1428. 

els: c. &v, 13878 f.; like dat., 1879; for 
éré and bzép, 1393; c. inf., 1405 f.; 
tables c. art. inf., 1407, 1426. 

eis: for mp@tos, 1394. 

ei éXBorro: voice of, 1380. 

elre: constr., 1390; tables c. subj., 
1402 f. 

éx: partitive, 1379; table c. art. inf., 
1427. 

éxeivos: table as pronoun, 1396; c. art., 
1397. 


1439 


1440 <A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


éxrés: tables c. ei uy, 1402 f. 

*Edatov: case of, 1387. 

év: c. expressions of time, 1379; c. 
art. inf., 1885, 1427; without art., 
1398; c. inf.,. 1405 f.; table c. 76 
and éyévero, 1423. 

évexev: c. inf., 1405 f.; table c. art. inf., 
1427. 

évkomrw: c. anart. inf., 1425. 

évoxos: c. gen., 1392. 

eEatropéw: c. art. inf., 1425. 

éefovota: c. éxi, 1430. 

érav: tables in dep. sent., 1401 f. 

ér(: repeated, 1362; c. loc., 1393; re- 
placed by eis, 1893; constr., 1430. 

“Eppas: spelling, 1377. 

eoxopat: c. anart. inf., 1428. 

—es: ending, 1388. 

€or ATws: C. Exw, 1387. 

érepos: table c. de, 1394 f. 

éru: c. te kai, 1382. 

evayyed({er9ar: constr., 1415. 

evkotrOtepov: subj. inf., 1389. 

éxopeva: prep., 1379. 

ex: constr., 1378, 13889; meaning, 
1380. 

€ws: prep., 1393, 1412; c. wére, 1394; 
tables c. ay, od, and é7ov, 1401; c. 
inf., 1405 f.; c. art. inf., 1427. 


Z 


{ndéw: hendiadys, 1383. 
{nA€w: c. anart. inf., 1424. 


H 


4: in comparison, 1394. 

qoew: form, 1406. 

xo: form, 1389. 

Hpéepa: case of, 1390 f. 

qv oc 8wv: form, 1406. 

fvixa: tables c. av and édy, 1401 ff. 
jéa: form, 1388 f. 

qjoav: meaning, 1421. 


1) 


ders: table in interrog. sent., 1399. 
6é\w: constr., 1415; c. anart. inf., 1424. 
Seppatvopevos: form, 1406. 

Owpd: case of, 1387. 


-i-: suffix, 1378. 

ipiwv: case of, 1387. 

ie: meaning, 1396. 

“TepoveaAnp: c. art., 1380. 

"Inoots:.c. art., 1397. 

iva: in wishes, 1382; tables c. subj., 
1388, 1400, 1402f., 1413; c. fut. 
ind., 1413. 

—irkos, —toKy: suffix, 1377. 

tornpe: form, 1406. 

torw: perf. impv., 1389. 

ioxvt: spelling, 1386. 


K 

ka0es: beginning sent., 1382. 

kal: adv., 13883; crasis, 1386; c. és, 
1396; c. dradoyiéoua, 1406; c. eize, 
1429. 

Kady: c. éoriv, 1389; c. # IN compari- 
son, 1394. 

Kata: c. acc., 1379; in composition, 
and c. gen., 1893; anart. prep. 
phrase, 1398. 

katatrave: c. art. inf., 1425. 

katéxw: c. art. inf., 1425. 

KaToujoat: meaning, 1382. 

kpatéw: c. gen., 1391; c. art. inf., 1425. 

kwAvw: c. anart. inf., 1425. 


A 


Aads: case of, 13890. 

Aéyw: c. 671, 1422; meaning, 1428; 
table of \éywr c. finite verb, 1429. 

Avouswe: ending, 1378. 


M 


paddo: c. anart. inf., 1424. 


pév: postpositive in fifth and sixth 
place, 1378; in fourth place, 1390. 

pera: c. inf., 1405 f.; tables c. art. inf., 
1407, 1426 ff. 

péoov: as prep., 1379. 

Béxpts: table in dep. sent., 1401. 

BA: c. was, 1380; after od, 1381; ec. 
part., 1382; c. yevorro and inf., 
1382, 1405; table c. more, 1388, 
1390, 1400, 1402, 1408, 1415; table 
c. rls, 13899; tables c. subj., 1399 f., 


INDEX OF GREEK WORDS IN THE ADDENDA 


1402; table c. rov, 1400; table c. 
mws, 1400, 1402 f.; c. duocm, 1424. 


N 
voni{w: c. dri, 1422. 


O 

6, H, TO: C. ixavév and inf., 13885; subj. 
inf., 13889; tables c. we and 6é, 
1394 f.; as rel. and dem. 1396 f.; ¢. 
mwas, 1397; not repeated, 1398; 
tables c. art. inf., 1415, 1425 ff.; 
tables c. inf., 1424, 1426. 

olSa: c. dru, 1422. 

opo.de: constr., 1392. 

opdooat: form, 1424. 

8rov: tables c. (é4v) subj., 1399 f., 
1402, 1411. 

dmws: tables c. subj., 1400, 1402 f.; 
table of use, 1413. 

8s: 6, 1379; c. édv, 1387; tables c. 
subj., 1400, 1402 f.; od av, 1403; c. 
av and fut. ind., 1411. 

ocdxts: tables c. av and édv, 1401 ff. 

—-ocray: ending, 1388. 

bcos: tables c. av, 1400, 1402. 

gots: tables c. subj., 1400, 1402 f. 

érav: tables c. subj., 1401 ff., 1411 f. 

ére: c. ind., 1411. 

étu: c. @, 13879; in dir. quest., 1396; 
recitative, 1421 f. 

ov: after mas, 1379f.; tables c. u7, 
1381, 1899; c. compounds, 1382; in- 
set facing 1404, 1405, 1430; constr., 
1415, 1429; c. dre, 14293 odk ... 9H, 
1430. 

otv: postpositive in fourth place, 
1378; table of use, 1385. 

ovxt: use, 1406.. 

otros: use, 1396 f. 

épe(hw: c. anart. inf., 1424. 

8xAos: form, 1390; c. ixavds and zoNis, 
1397. 


II 


maisioKy: meaning, 1377. 

mapa: c. art. inf., 1382. 

mapakadéw: c. anart. inf., 1424. 

mas: c. ob and py, 1380; case of raves, 
1387. 


1441 


mepl: use, 1379. 

Teptoods: positive, 1387. 

trAtkos: for #Aikos, 1382. 

TLrTEVw: C. dT, 1422. 

mA90s: use, 1390. 

movew: tense of mores, 1381; c. acc. 
and inf., 1391; constr., 1409. 

motos: table c. subj., 1400. 

todas: case of, 1391. 

twotramos: table c. opt., 1408. 

morte: table c. subj., 1401. 

mov: meaning, 1382; tables c. subj., 
1399, 1402. 

mptv: table c. av, 1401; table c. 4, 
1408; use, 1412. 

mpo: c. inf., 1405 f.; table c. art. inf., 
1427. 

mpds: c. kai as adv., 1393; table c. 
airév and verbs of speaking, 1393; 
c. inf., 1405f.; table c. art. inf.,, 
1426. 

tmpookvvew: constr., 1391. 

mptos: replaced by eis, 1394. 

ms: tables c. subj., 1399 f. 


D> 


ceautov: for éavrév, 1394. 
omAayxvifopa: c. éri, 1430. 
oroxnoovor: linear fut., 1381. 


T 


—tatos: superlative ending, 1379. 

Taxa: ¢. Subj., 1407. 

te: c. kal, 1382. 

téroapes: case of, 1378. 

rex Oels: art. part., 1428. 

ti: meaning, 1396; tables c. subj., 
1399 f., 1402 f.; use, 1407 ff. 

tls: tables c. ri, 1408; c. av, 1408. 

Tou: meaning, 1382. 

trotvuv: meaning, 1382. 

Totos: Substantive, 1394. 

tupd€: case of, 1391. 

tux6v: adv. acc., 1378. 


Y 
tpiv: case of, 1378. 
tpav: case of, 1392. 


1442 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


irép: for eis, 1393. 
trooré\Aw: c. art. inf., 1425. 


} 
9avw: meaning, 1429. 
oPew: constr., 1378. 
dovevw: hendiadys, 1383. 
prvrdcoopat: voice of, 1398. 


dwvy: case of, 13878; zeugma, [383. 


x 
Xap: c. art. inf., 1425. 
xpela: c. Exw, 1392. 
xXpovos: substantive, 1394. 


2 
ws: for drt, 1882; tables c. (av) cubj., 
1400-3. 
ore: table of constr., 1414 f., 1428, 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS IN THE ADDENDA 


(a2) NEW TESTAMENT 
Kyte M. Yates 


Figures at end of lines refer to pages, 


Matthew 1EUPA ive 1428 
122 ames 1425 erilaiol oe 1379 
22 142%) 012232 . Inset, 1405 
21) 1388), 12:35 1397 
2:15 1428: 12:45 1396 
Hess 1428 13:14 Inset 
Oo5 Leos lose 1415 
3:14 1397 15e24 1392 
4:14 Tere 428 ot 2D 1385 
5218 Inset, 1480 13:28 1399 
SAW) pee eee UN SChne = Lex 1428 
5:23 move, 142) 14:6... 1392 
5:24 1888 14:14 1430 
Dao 1A or ew le 5 Inset 
HANG) Inset 15:20 1424 
532 Looe Loo 1414 
5:34 1424 16:14 1394 
5:47 Ios 16519 AREY 
6:3 meer 4). ths . Inset, 1405 
6:4 . 1402, 1413... 16:28 Inset 
Gan Meee Peis 1398 
6:8 Ta902) shisli 1394 
72 a all Baas Inset 
TAL IL ised 1394 
(PAW. 1402) 21813 1423 
8:2 TALS elon 1419 
Sols 1423 ele e17 1419 
8:19 1411. 18:19 1421 
9:6 1385 slo xis 1416 
9:10 1423 19:14 1425 
Cart 13962) 320515 1430 
9:13 1429 20225 1424 
9:16 Uae SPAN ee 1428 
9:38 14.5 ee eel Inset 
LOST 1414 21:28 1411 
10220 7 130 fae ee oa. 1395 
10:23 Inset 22:28 1378 
10:25 Seema ie. 823220 1391 
10:42 Inset, 1405 23:28 1378 
ite bbe/ 13908 aos 1399 
Tez! LAl yin 23239 Inset 
12:14 1413 24:2 Inset 


1443 


216. ica . Saar ee em 
26 pal Je See ae ess 
a Ereery ti Tenor ne ool Rat /o Be Teo: 
$125.08). See eee Sie Een 

Bera i | by 


DY PA Ce he rs Dae > AL 
94612 SRN Glee. urn rae AL aey 
24°18 We rent ges Oar eee mre LG )c) 
94°93} son Wie | on awe eee A NSCG 
DA Oh Sire oh aay ha 
JAS OS heen ea roe LAT 
D443 ears rene, aaah. ae L ACD 
DASA wee ee Reei halete a ia a SU 
BARB: USeet  aten G on  eLsee 
DA Re lated a eer 1406 tae 
CASAS Nie ee tee cre, Oe cae et ean 
Dil AO Apt tee eer curt lS ore ae ee 
PASSE Wie We peg LAP Pe eiierie me cr pd halts: 
OG ae tee oa wh, eo, eo 
BOE10. tine ees Vk Re ees 
DU Lae f 502 ent Bene eee 
QOL 4 Ree ewe wk Ok ee 
D624, AC ok ee 22) Sake. i ok a ee 
96:29. ts. SA 2. ee eieer B45) igs ROM, STP ee LEO 


3 
3 
4 
4 
4: Aes OPT Pedi | a Ae 
4330 Use cei bal ae en one 
4 
4 
5 
5 
5 
5 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
26:31-34° 205 6 8 8 oe ee OOF OTST eee eee De 
6 
i 
7 
8 
8 
8 
8 
9 
9 
a 
9 
9 
9 
9 
!, 
9 
9 
9 
9 


OG? far Pil wc bees ar Bae ae ar ae Te 
S385 Re. Gn oe Oe ee 
Oo, ee OU) oes SEU a ee 
: oN pot SR Se es es 
ys Sere aS Saar umn ry. 1H 
1: a ies) ee fer MAE 
SA ster dy thle Ee 
Sas, ae ‘ao eo we ee we bes 
ee oe Gd ee cae Lee 
Lee ee et aes gg AN 
DLS shin. OL ee ee are Dee 


26 233.7 od SN Aa ee 3) Tees pi, He ee BI, 
26°35", 2.0 Oh @ ee OLserLuD $30 303-8241. Pee eee 
2625422 ee if Seer ey ta dae MEE 
26°57 fe es car AS SURE ie eee Mee we de! 
26:66 =: 2 5 <5) Ale es ee O17 ro 0 ae bl > ee eee 
26°67. ote. 3a Rie ees 1355 i weal 2 eee 
D2 1. Re a a ee £37. ci etter Sy SR ee cane os Se 
DERAN sy Be Nee, eee pr nie ete tr aye 
QT 21D PAS es vats Mak Oe ene 2b Aa Sikes sat eens 
212A On Se ae Gee ee oy Pere PO Ar er RS 
QE TA ©. oT che eee eo S106 et ee ee 
ZOO ee. ee ee nat he SN Lit en ee Pe Ake gs 
2420121189 d., Seeks ose 22 6 Sot Oe a eee 
220m 3 nk hs Ve ed Coo a ae Fa ae ke eee Ls 
TaN W Meee Tne were ses ee sor 3 ait ts ii en eee ere ee AES 
STE 4 eG ee eee mn Beets 
SA na, Sd eh tah ee © oan 4, eee 
i OC ere! Ua ky) pete ALD) oo ste pins Pl wee ied a Ne ee an Ee 
e100 . abe a Aen eee eee ee SATs yg 6 oe) Ce Woes Le a ee 
S17 hk ea ean 3) GEERT SO De re) 
219... oe ne ab et 2 ES TORR ce De 
SBQ ce ee wee a ee de eh SL EOG Be 0 S20 ieee 
$04.8 6 oe Pe 42 a oe 
S400. ee a cn lS ee BRAT ee ee et 
SA ee bey a Se 9 TBO es er eo ae ee 
15 2) a te er 128 ee 
216 0 ly aE 896) D4 eee ee ee 
Soe 6 laa he lel eh es at tte, en oO etc c2 a a ie ene a 
>, a re) tale ie Bo ee 
S24 ok welts Feel Stel ie, ABO GT Meek Gee rte ete a 
S20 ua kb ee ables e hal came OO 2 mame band Oar 0) omen ene OU seem eee 
Wo) OL gia eg Ar oe | M406 218220 6 a oe ee ee 
Pe hc. eee ae be te gt te = LOSOs Rhee? Coen teh ah an ee eer cers 
ft rn mre aye bE Ae ee 
4. . rrr an erent 0 ie ee 
FL sa mate oh ae) eee eee 1885 13:30 Joie. we ee Lc 


Mark 


CORO CO COP NOUN Nh NS bop ee 
bo 
— 


726 b 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


Inset, 
_ 1407, 
_ 1399, 


: Inset, 1405, 


Luke 


1408, 1409, 


is, 28. 


_ 1418, 
1379, 1423, 


e191 eiey el: «| “eve F oF 6 866." 10 


1405 
1415 
1406 
1411 
1394 
1399 
1411 
1417 
Inset 
1417 
1418 
1388 
1392 
1399 
1385 
1399 
1406 
1422 
1419 


1423 
1405 
1412 
1423 
1409 
1408 
1423 
1423 
1408 
1423 
1428 
1423 
1390 
1423 
1413 
1423 
1415 
1423 
1413 
1415 
1406 
1414 
1421 
1425 
1425 
1423 
1423 
1406 
1425 
1393 
1391 
1378 
1423 
1423 
1408 


OOOO ODOGHOGOOOGOOGOOOMHO MMO ONNINNTNTNTNTDAAAADOOD 


IN THE ADDENDA 1445 


PLA PR ete keV ne, fee hn eT AOS 
AUN iy" S ot (ae ae SS Beta ae 43 (2492 
BOOP oa tne koe ge he a ol BL AES 
ios SERRE a TAM? vee ee LSet 
FD SEE ee ut ke, aaer AL OG 
Wi Meee wate 2 To) a T8068 
Lee nL ce ott 2b. S en TALS, 
Pe SAD Ei Go eC Mla Sane Ra sel 6 4252 
Meee ee cee se MMT SOO 
PU leer Carn ee ey vis. SAb1423 
eee eae et a het | 307 
PLO ag ye ao ee L430) 


Age L si ae BLN, LOD 
AO eR. 6g rk ye ATO 


Cee ene. eee to, PTADS 
LO aa, x oe 6 ITAO8 
wi 0 Sa eee... fan PI NSE 
BUTE ee in ¢ Po aed BYR! be CAS: 
Oe eee ee ete ie RLAOO 
eserahee oe ene AD an) os be a Oe 
Sere, erate oe te 2h 4S 
Bs ee ee eh ba Sa Pk OOO 
Spd ae, ea cal Res ok ak sl et ea LOS 
a Sik SER ov i ae ee LTSAt 
S28, Pag een een on ere LOU Seba 
ed ie a cant ang OMe ae ene me LO 
PSS Lk Ae RAL eteae or a ee LA 2S 
ED kg SAM ot At ek eel LOS 
SAG Be ara oe CN te a LAOS 
emia. Fee Peng ks “che Speen Ry ame LD 
Pa tee Re hoa te CEL 
Died ae ano <=, 2 Peg ee LOG 
Vb Te ae PR ee eee a ae BE 


We SG tE safes ican, ee cee NETL ALS 


LLU Ree Reel A a ar ee pore. ee FE 8) 
LOR erties: cue ce taut Gare eres eel Los 
LCST (citer carts gee heated i 
NO Fie Ea OPC eens em bey ep om ES UE 
TO iu oe ee eG 
OSLO Ue eers cotton ae . Inset, 1405 
LO () Ghat ce tks ae 2 Ae lao 
LEN RAS 7 ORE earns, aoe «es 1423 
1 ASRS Che es arene aes ee 13899 
de FAS Peas cansar tt) sackets EELS 
TU Se tees Serene lal aoe 
List Be ose Oe Ss eo ee aes Be Ihe 
g BUSA ES oS RO phe teen om aceae Sc P8225 | 
TIS 20 Sees. Gee! sence ay eee an LO 
LG De ctee sin ia vaso te 
PIU BOR bas on bah tet: eee eg OOF 
12:6 1406 
12:14 1393 
12:15 1385 
12:39 1417 
iB 3S EEA Ba Paci ahs 1393 
VCS ee ee a hae A A 1393 


1446 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


19°58." oe ee ee LOU 1415428 
12250 AEN ee ee eee sce 
13585) A Aa ae ccm so SLUICE 
LANIOY 7 a cee os ISG 
4th eee ee ee.) Loo lao 
pe ame ee Ao ears) LO 
PART Se aren see ay. ie WRU 
La Ss LO ue eee ey vey Oe 
TAZ OG ee eee os sks, oe LOS eeu 
Sinn, pee Oe a aR me et 88 SS 
Ole tates) ye ee ky ae ag ee 
iGO La ete Oe rns. av: oe 
TS Lee ae 48 Se hie se eee 
L702 een ce bots Bee is ag. oo 
7a tet oo. a Rees Eee eee 
7 Oltttn cs aceite tee, ates, Gane 
17 cS o ao Seal eos. See 
14 Be? ouee ia soe ee eee 
EL ass 
128° A uss! ao ee ee 
iE BLY ..2 @, eet oes 5 ee 
i Bie oe 2 Ae 2 eee 
ATE DT. ae eo ee 
PP er rae Na 
Leah ae 3 ers 
1885) 65'S 6) Ss Sees 
TS27, Go a 
US813" Aha Ree ee es 
18317 -o & gee ark eh eee 


LSE 206 ales cat ee eee ee 


138930 4a ES eee 
ISS es. tae eee 
IStB6- foo Se eee 
LOEB 2. G3 -o0 so A ean 


LO ARG ito a ee Chen, ae 
POS eee) cs, (8, ch ee Loe ee 
2O0E6 OS he CA ee = OG 
QO ET: Dh. ee ee aes 
20216 Re ass oe te ee ee 
20: 20°22) ah... “eal ie cp 
20328" ics Noe ae LE Seen 
Abe 18 9° GUS) eel el eee er 
21224. <. ne SON oa eee 
21228 .0 ste. 2 Be eee OG 
DLR e |... Sih ek tae 
Bie do) a),00) ot ct Ane De ee ee 
ED me OR ee oc ane nn SO 


WWMM DMD DINNTNADADAADADAMAMAOAOINKPE KERR KE PWWWWNH HE 


S11 SF. - Re Logue 
“18 Fs) ee eee ee 
922. Sea wl overt ete Oe 
123° | aS. hg. eae eee ee 
$26 ee SO eee Lee 
‘67 pee: ia oe a Te 
:687 —.) he, Ps a tale DLDSCt EUs 
‘Lr 108 ok VOR GIA eee US 
iy OE He Mo tk Ee 
i) ne erp ka 
Te tak Ds ee oe ee ee 
wD et ay ce a ee ee 
210% (tS. Ace (3 St ea Oe 
124 eis ata ogee ek Lyme 

cath |e tone dines Ge ap nS EE acs 
SD Limes Le ae ees 
S63 65 2c (11) Se a, 


1397 


25.5. a SA eee ee ee 
125 ea so aes tae RO OZ ee 
112 (wa Ree eee eee 
S169 "PSS S) See. Se Poe 
oT eee ee 
TOT Vlas oo Be deen 
1) boas QW ee at ee 
SAO ee ee in OP ae ede a 
2 tian ae ep! |i 
215 eS 0 Sa ee 
548 ek ee eee 
Ht 5 wate Ws Oe te 
“17; 19. "27 Vo a ee ee ee LO 
£00 i” do PAR oe ee oe 
DS I ea pee ee ee 
‘OF cura. Sale Ce ee ee ee 
OR eee 3 ee 
ORs [0 Se PSE, Ao oso a es 
Gs +9 Ee Bad RM Ree Ang Foe SSS 
ABS nue cae Oe ee 
+3} en ee Pee ec cis Refi: 
S46 Se sh A ee 
PAB aay eee oe he ee 
POO eo cd nen ace et en 
4 oS eS int ge oe ab bela: 
COD. 7 fe Ge ew aban Loosen ets 
0 0 REIT UO Ser vest 8 USE 
4 A ae RE ACN Cotte il TiS y 
Fata os Gal hs trap hy, ne ee ne 
226°: Mee ae ae ee Lae 
Bet oF feo ec ee ee 
SLs. COR ee ee Pe eee eee 
LQ ele ee en Oe Le 
5) loom tera tien oes AE ys 
D2 (b> 52) chy pale eee LOSS ae 
DOM ke ee ee ee 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS IN THE ADDENDA 1447 


Me eS ee. eh LAST 
DE SMe ei. ete eas. LA OT 
eee ee eons Meee ee oe. Inset 
De )S ar eee teres °, 3 ¢ 1887 
Ted eg ee eae ie... sf LOGE 
en. ae ae 7. oe inset 
nua tt) etree 2. 1490 
Titties 2 he ee 1AT7 
Mera Lome ie ee ey 1898 
ieee he ks Sa Inset 
ie wees es es A TAT3 
Tipo oe we ~ Inset; 1405 
il eee ee 1422 
EO ae. te es. « 1899 
ee eee ee ee. AOD 
ieee we were eae. = Inset, 1405 
LaLa eee Gt ee. Sk FLALZ 
ome net see. oe a...) 1430 
pean. ate Seer coe ee LB RI Soh DEE a eR o's. 6-5 wah A 1428 
tees ah. ee ee Inset te ae CS sees a ee Sek Be 
i ere ee eee CAP IST eee eee eee a 1408 
fee ee ee eres ree 141 IOSD) ee. 2 eS 1423 
eee eee ee ee Ih Se IOS ay) Vo cl. oe See 1425 
eye eee er ee el a A Oe ee Se Bn te ee, ae ATF 
ire eee eee ee A) TADS TIE 26 oe eee we oo. 21428 

Re eee 8 LAO La so8 oe ale Bee Be eal 
re eee ec Ps ee inset 18541) (202 y 0. Inset, 1418 
irene ere tro or ek TAO for VAN ho ee a a ie ©1428 
ities re eee eee eet ee ToS a Theda, gtk ce al 1894 
ere ere mee AIO” U4 8 nen eh oe a a te tm 1425 
Pvecoeeee ar. es L888" 15:6 1419 
et a eee rne ae 4590 - “15e8e-s 2. eS ok Rah a Oe 1 F896 
ieee eee eer een Pel 3G 164d) . e060 % 3 et ae Bs 1427 
6 
9 


See eee eS Sere 1300) 
AE SAE ie a I 5 
WOM ea rts ey a5 TIBSO 
TSOP me ie St pee SP RTALS 
ca}! bet ke Sy ee a rc iis Meme 4 
aivet WY) EAP ay ofan oe peamra aa kl O- 
TU Perea ee! ne 2 eS OF 
A es ay ae St en ae ee 6242) 
Pe Serene el Pe PAT: 
Pepe ee. fe ae BAS 
Poli ete ft 4 1408 $1491 

Se eo ee a OL ADS 
a ene ere et ae. 3 407 
eee Sy oe eee ee 41 OG 
Pope ct, fo ares. 14908 
vee fees awe ey be LAG 
Syl age. OR mee ocoe ee ea: sn ee} 
ite Ae. ee os Ot. LADS 


OMMMOOHO HOM HO ONIN Or Or Or Or Or 
No 
=) 


Vi) een a tt 1301" 16: 1425 
fe ee coe ean Ticeirs  16°9ie 2. a. e. Ya, 1406 
ion re terme.  140G% 16°1h 2. of 24.) poai ee 1419 
i eee nee TALS 1G816 | a et att .. Soe ee 1428 
eo) ee ee ee LADO A TT wate Be 1396 
ie O8 Ceres ee ee 1899 VAR) ee eee. ae 1408 
[Ont ere wea 144% 118 a eg GS 2 1.6 189451408 
D003 enon ee TAIS@ 1419 TOG ee oe BOL 
5 een em mes Inset, 1405: A727 os lG os ach on. See. 1408 
Diqae) (cee ne me ne TORT. TBODY | hr 1304 
LA eee ee ghee ns ake he. LATS 

Acts fl Shree ee eee pe mee are oe |e 
eee fete 81419 1818). eee ew oe a 1406 
oh eee eee erg 1906... 18:31 5-2 3. oe ks te 1427 
A nes Sere 1996 19> 6. Gos (eons 4%. 1423 
‘a ) area 1590; - 19736, 7) ow. |... 1889; 1806 
i ee ee tee, (300° 208163 acho te te aes 1408 
a weer 1498 OS 900 a, Ge a oe es 1 1425 
Pee eee eer ene ee) {49318 ONE IS. keen oe 1480 
Pl ee ey a eee er TAO Te  Q0PRT 8 syrah Pea ets © 1425 
a a ee he ee ies 1149 Te Olea A ai fy ei a) ee Se 1423 
a a eee nn eT AO5 SO [ied © oe oe hi ese 1423 
Doe ees eee 13078) OTRBS) ng 2 3988 1889,11408 


PPP RP RWW DN Re 
bo 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


On We Sf mee a tee gC) 


Ce bie fe Ay Be oR 


_ 1417, 
- 1408, 
~. 1392, 


. 1417, 


ENE: 


Romans 


"1399, 


1423 
1423 
1406 
1417 
1397 
1397 
1408 
1379 
1425 
1422 
1389 
1424 
1422 
1408 
1418 
1415 
1408 
1429 
1424 
1428 
1407 
1408 
1419 
1412 
1408 
1423 
1423 
1396 
1423 
1394 
Inset 
1415 
1421 


1417 
1418 
1413 
Inset 
1424 
1416 
1417 
1394. 
1417 
1399 
1422 
1419 
1422 
1424 
1378 
1413 
1417 
1399 
1399 


1419- 


1390 


1424 
1421 
1417 
oa iat Ney tes REA hg 
se faenre = ene 1390 
1416 
1424 
1395 
1424 
1424 
1419 
1414 
1414 
1425 
1403 


1 Corinthians 


. . 1888, 1397, 1406, 1413 


1417 

1388 

1411 

1417 

1417 

1414 

1421 

1394 

1419 

1387 

1424 

Mee ees else iy. 2, 
. 1399, Inset, 1416 
wh 3 kg” Sy eee 
1397 

1424 

. 1422 

. _ 1895 

1399 

1412 

1395 

1397 

1413 

1395 

rehes, dk 

. 1388, 1420 
ity a ESS 

- » 1888, 1420 
. 1378, 13883 
Hee wit: 
1379 

Pipers th. SEs: 

. 1424, 1425 

a Aig ashen 
1417 

Wp ye, Ai: 

. 1389, 1417 
1412 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 


2 Corinthians 


| 1417, 


1403, 1413, 1424, 


Galatians 


. 1387, 
. 1388, 


_ 1377, 


1416 
1408 
1397 
1399 


1425 
1388 
1413 
1429 
1424 
1417 
1417 
1427 
1395 
1429 
1417 
1417 
1413 
1419 
1417 
1406 
1399 
1417 
1424 
1427 
1417 
1424 
1427 
1424 
1406 
1419 
1390 
1424 
1417 
1399 
1416 
1416 
1403 


1420 
1419 
1403 
1414 
1390 
1417 
1416 
1412 
1417 
1403 
1394 
1379 
Inset 
1418 
1425 


O>? OS? SO? Or Or 


KH OOO E EWE 


Hm BH B OO OD DO DD DD DDD Fk RR 


PwWWwWNNNR FE 


RmwWwWh bd bd 


IN THE ADDENDA 


1449 


1399, 
Ephesians 
e356; 
Philippians 
Colossians 


1 Thessalonians 


Inset 
1416 
1419 
1378 
1381 


1407 
1387 
1394 
1397 
1416 
1419 
1388 
1396 
1396 


1394 
1430 
1424 
1424 
1424 
1398 
1398 
1392 
1424 
1424 
1424 
1397 
1386 
1406 
1421 
1429 
1424 
1429 
1429 


1397 
1398 
1382 
1417 
1399 
1417 
1411 
1418 
1419 


1403 
1425 
1390 
1424 
1421 
142% 


1450 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 
1 Thess. 


Oorrwwnhdr 
_ 
Or 


NONNNNWNFFE 
— 
jew) 


_ 
or) 


DOODOMOONINNNOOTIPREHRWWWWND WD 
iw) 


2 Thessalonians 


1 Timothy 


Titus 


Hebrews 


ofp fe eresk Ss 


Inset 
Inset 
1403 


1399 
1399 


1382 
1419 
1425 
1417 
1388 
1425 
1399 
1417 
1420 


1399 
1415 
1418 
1417 
1416 
1395 
1419 
1415 


1416 


1415 
1426 
1419 
1415 
1412 
1419 
1415 
1417 
1399 
1392 
1418 
1416 
1389 
1394 
1425 
1394 
Inset 
Inset 
1396 
1415 
1407 
Inset 
1424 


James 


ORPRWWWNNNH 
iw) 


1 Peter 


Cro WWD bd 
—_ 
i 


2 Peter 


WW re 
1) 
=) 


1 John 


OnrPNnNNwNre 
iw) 
Ne) 


2 John 


+ Revelation 


1419 
ee 
. 1402, 1409 


1417 


1418 
1388 
1421 


1413 
1420 
1388 





MmMmeommoemstayst Vt OWWwWwWwWWNhd 
—_ 


INDEX OF QUOTATIONS IN THE ADDENDA 


. Inset, 


1412 
See ast 
1405, 1419 
Inset 
Inset 
1413 
1394 
1413 
1390 
1396 
Inset 
1413 
DA: 
Inset, 1405 
1378 
1426 
1414 
1417 
1397 
1391 


145] 


Inset 
1411 
1430 
1413 


_ 1399, 1407 


1412 


- 1390, 1413 


Inset 
Inset 
1396 
1399 
1399 
1417 
1396 


_ 1399, 1407 


(6) OLD TESTAMENT AND APOCRYPHA 


Genesis 


Exodus 


Leviticus 


Numbers 


Deuteronomy 


T. W. Pace 
10:12 
emieee SIG Ie 
1398 LL22 
1398 15:10 
13k 22815 
1350M 2eal0 
29:4 
33:9 
1398 
1398 
T2ORwe eso 
1398 24:16 
1390 
1390 
Ostl 
els 
1390 22:13 
1398 
1398 
14:4 
1392 
1412 8:24 
See 
8:61 
1389 
1389 
1389 6:19 


Joshua 
1 Samuel (1 Kings) 


2 Samuel (2 Kings) 


1 (3) Kings 


2 (4) Kings 


1390 
Inset 
Inset 

1396 


1389 
1389 
1389 
1392 
1390 
1590 
1424 
1389 


1382 
1382 


1392 
1382 
1391 


1593 


1391 
1398 
1591 


1421 


1452 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


(18 3 Gp aad 
“19: veeals. sn ata a ta ee 
*2O° cathe htkas av cla eee ee 
f ars: BOPP rte die en 
AB ey Oh to eee 
10 Se Sra oy 
of De a eee wee ee 


Nehemiah 
he OO AR te es ce ptt LO 
«fe eee neti ice) OMe 


Esther 
REN fe ae nara 2 "TI 
7 1391 


DD orw»1w Ww Ww 
Or 


Job Hosea 
oat ht, Lol Ose ye Cee 1391 
1380 


1391 


1:5 

Lost 0) oe LAS RA aie Leia Warmer abt Boy | 
IE SUEY = i ce gira CaP O ier FF 
2:1 Opa te 
3:4 


“IW bo 
Ot bo 


1391 
1391 Amos 
B20 lS Not we a ee Ge 
Psalms 
Pe best Aca eae Gh, oa wan et Micah 
bi HS5)210 4 Ge... 0st eal ee Op hoa eae eee 
44 So 9 i eee 


si 
—_ 
pt 


Proverbs 
S226 10 Ge Sk en a ees Te Baruch 
S15 WS ES eee 
£20 ve ceng «Sg Ve eee 
oe ete. tai- Fr VA OE 
SL ne GS ie tt a ne 
7) See mens diel y 


Isaiah 
TLel6: 6+ kept pat ar ee ee 


NoOnwN ee 
(op) 


Jeremiah 
i Glee Ge UN eee Lc 
ib Gr PE erp ter 6) bh 1 Maccabees 
2B ck ecg had ad lame oe le da ee Beet 
172 BO wo ae ne ce ete ed ee ee OO a 
112896. 6 oe ee ee UO eae a, ce 
PUSS b- Ls 4.2 Se SPs cae 
(S51, - 6. G2) Se a 2 Maccabees 
BA(ATZ) 250 co cc ces nn ak es a ee ae 
9:2. ete. 1.20 Ce be. aa ee 
Ezekiel 
WL... sack. Re Ae ee ORE 4 Maccabees 
Tc cee ee ee Le Tg ae ee en 
SEB Sac ace SOF ec 
10%. Jefe a > emt ee Aquila and Sym. (ii/a.D.) 
S20. seis oft fwenne 6. LOSTS) aeiterononiy L122 eee ee 
8 ee Bh ee ge 8 bo TS COPED VELDS 6 520 ae eee ee 
Sf CRE ose art NE) 
1 ee wei eee bP Theodotion 
213. 2 eo. , So os 1878, 183 Dai o : 7,0) ee 


WWW Kee Re 
o>) 


(7) INDEX OF PAPYRI IN THE ADDENDA 


R. F. Patmer 

Bo F. P. 
No.2500 eee 6 oe SOY NG 
428 le a on eg SL OO 1393 
B. M. 11204 2 Ae yer 
No.613 2 6 so Soatce ale LBB Re 1387 





INDEX OF QUOTATIONS IN THE ADDENDA 


jt 92) 

Wind oe 4 eee 1412 

M. P 

Nollie aee ere) Ueeren 1382 

O. P. 

No. 226 1338 
237 1389 
488 1393 
903 SRS AR Toss 
933 . 1389, 1412 
935 . .. 1429 
941 1393 
1007 Phi eae ST SES 
1066 aps 420 
1067 an 1288 
1068 1413 
1069 1407 
1100 1379 
1102 M1970 
eeu 1381 bis 
1126 . 1878 bis 
1152 1379 
1158 1381 
1185 1388 
1189 1396 
1204 1421 
1297 1389 
1299 . eee 1882 
1409 188911393 
1414 RP 81389 
1450 1393 
1482 1387 


1483 . 1421, 1430 

1489 . 1388, 1415 

LOUREIRO eee 1386 
Par. P. 
OT Came eed ah 1387 
P. Tor. 


Papyri graeci regii Taur. 
Musei Aeg., ed. A. Pey- 
ron. 2 vols. Turin, 1826, 


1827 
1b Lie OE 1389 
P. Rylands 
Catal. of the Gk. Pap. in the 
John Rylands Library, 
Manchester, ed. A. S. 
Hunt. Vol. 2. Manches- 
ter, 1911 
Vol. il 1380 
Tbe: 
No. 5 1387 
6 eee Lao 
Di. . 1425 bis 
38 : 1425 
61 (a) 1425 
61 (b) : 1425 
62 Plast bis 
63 1387 
64 1387 
78 Pec 1386 
2 meine sa weelose OES 
L1G 2 1387 . 


1453 


(e) INDEX OF GREEK LITERATURE IN THE ADDENDA 


i. CLASSICAL 
Homer (? x/vili B.c.) 
Odyssey T. 464 


Aristophanes (v/B.c.) 


Plutus 965 
Ranae 198 


aE es 


de Pace 11 


Demosthenes (iv/B.c. 


Thucydides (v/B.c.) 


R. F. PALMER 
Xenophon (iv/B.c.) 
vTOmo ont 
1396 2. 2.30 
3. 2. 18 
1396 es Oo 
1396 Gyrus 4220) Pie. 
Hellen., Ox. P. 226, 1. 16 
el B92 Plato (iv/B.c.) 
) Apol. 28C . . ; 
1409 Leges 678D 


1396 
1396 
1396 
1396 
1392 
1388 


1381 
1392 


1454 


Eratosthenes (iii/B.C.) 
Catasterismi 40 
Polybius (ii/B.c.) 
BON) blow: 


Diodorus Siculus (i1/B.c.) 
Bibl. Hist. 10.3.4 . 


i. KOINH 
Barnabas (i/A.D.) 
8:5 
10: 
10: 
15: 


ow = 


Appian (11/ A.D.) 
Bell. Pun. 68 


Arrian (i1/ A.D.) 
Epictetus 11, 22,10. . 

Thes22 (oO me 

iv, 9, 18 

iv, 10, 20 

Ench. 1, 4 
Exped. Alex. 5, 370 


Artemidorus (i1/A4.D.) 
Oneiro. 3. 60 (61) 


Hermas (ii/A.D.) 
Vis. 3. 8. 3 
4.3.1 
Ltt Peed ars 


1392 


A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Ignatius (11/A.D.) 


Ep. to Ephesians 8:1 . . 1412 
Ep. to Romans 6:1. . 1394 
Lucian (ii/A.D.) 

De Asino 32 . 1396 
Phrynichus (11/A.D.) 

Ecloge Nominum Atticorum 1387 


Diogenes Laértius (? ili/a.D.) 


De Vitis 4. 50 1385 
Agathias (vi/A.D.) 

Hist. 2. 9 beh 8 oe 3 OOS 

4.°18 2... Se oe 


Menander Protector (vi/a.D.) 


Excerpta e Men. Hist. 30 . . 1396 
Diaconus 
Vita Porph. 99 . 1387 
N. T. Apocrypha 
Gospel of Nie., Pass I, A. 14.3 1396 
Didache 1:4 . 1393 
Xenophon of Ephesus 
De Anth. et Habr..4. 2 1396 


Const. Ap. (? a.p.) 


PE Asa aay 1392 


“a 


t 
vn Ay Sige 


vik ee 
es > 
mil ay ' 
, 4 
j 


7 








hs 4 


i hl a" i “way : 
i. 


Fae 
He 


} 


A: 
Ny 











Riess cere Anat 


“ Hee H 







Cd 
< Wiaiad dd ee Ph pad 
sel hodst Heb: ‘ ow fy 

winsiresatoe i eh Hei ais We iby ct att er: ie he * clepes 
bead ene pies fabs when <A sat ys is : ‘ foes seg itd hewey habeas jn winceesriyen ht 

nya (5 edbd oper th oh Mee he ths sae or ! ite eT bbe tt * iteaer " 
J Be aN peda pee tite Ruhetek ee eyk! 
wh dy a He rN Alla “hs 6+} pe PPelinveleler 
(hg beats fs aaa rei helt ii tieae be tee fied 

































egy 


9 Stree 
epee ityl pee v¥ ae wie 
















a Lkicaen es ote Hi We ifet i shea ie ‘ ' ; wd 
tbe iit i) i if Gh 34 4) eet fis ra Wpieteled du tgeerpien s #548 PGE Te 
See enaieer. “ eantd : eV eme det ate hte i pyres yf mi OPTS ig yih Rana 64 y 
ey PVE wre 
f aaa Pay : Lye 


nt time 


sata eH Raat eit PA813 .R64 1919 At olten ri Fins iris Fray Sah 
Hacer ai pi 





Waste Hed pallet te Fle ene [Leys 


aang ee eee §=— A orammar of the Greek pari rilleiieioieL Hinbamlse Gril cy kT ach AMS 































































































eyed carseat: r ¢ ‘ avd ' woe ce ny ” 4 His 
ne yen SPAN kee ta Pine . end) The: Hag a t f ; { etevay , mY 
ee a pe 4 sa ated Ra petit a yeh 9 vit “ Mon Princeton Theological Seminary— a4 7 4 : od he : $e, . ly 
‘ 4 t ; ; yok & ‘ ( 
ition ino ag eioten eyed ediadsefeoriakh) i lad f 9) » ’ ) 
fens y bie ented ee liohed oat Uciina see (eit ne tieuet Pie ake byerl 
hb necsiee deh tar Hishesiseanionrheteh sal ; Fad 4 Ate y 
7 ‘ Babe foowe at ie Cenel! vi li ai 
by ie © oats ee ie ie dataaliitat be i iy my Ly 
fi ae statuses Here aes viiwtry Ret! ah AS ji 4 nibh 
ise Hee tee it + nti Selle ‘ ( er 
ine bed Sal s Mat pealtate otet ayalettoie HENVEL 4 
se ‘ ‘a Ay AU ba) He (neh Hire © flag whieh ry * “i 
He Nabot $4 feds! ete cid eh ait FF aed Aes ¢ ( ae} aed ts 
i i ; felled Big di bit \ 
sae hr ooh Ae hee B. Veh oa! Bekd Oiseunnit 4 yy ‘ 
neg Ati Hib fo) Seuewen ae 
ee triuete vole i as an , P Ade, 
Hy May whe p ical Le Sash aged i de ah Ad Cad aH ‘ Metiy ‘ CiaA 
pels eh vfs ti aris at tied i i Aba vaaaons te Met us 
BUH pero feh wire Det Ae ibdad f i jpreed ate vt bella teNahelicie gent i TE ' — it phe ars 
allege he vet ptiydie ee Be sie Beal elie epee: vile oodhs it ele Hanekeae hy + ( Sane, } Hypa Wo figs OY rar: 4 % 
ae fy itaat alt vin betty ne! Beets PEM ICA oP AT Su Seay es “$k on ee ee is ey UP ' ; us 
vam eben dotiy tte heibetie Hub aylent RAPD ag ereke Oot fee Keitel ble: ; t bis Bhp eleee > d 
Sane Gan aye rete ite (bpm Ht DLkb fie ee ede lh! Us ett i red) AS} 
Jin Veta ew elle Avette (iad pede tie by toad! dha ups a BS y i ere r ‘ " ya ys * tid 
Perera ds We gf oe hed es i prvepehlik Pepe hue 4 j ba 2) é an ‘ : - ; 
ia chenibne Mat hye tie ted met neder Ile h eAtin, flier Hin keney wie a f ry mel! ' ¢ { r { n . 5 J Ph 
Paaeneeenynt Dit sels ht ae pe edie Benet Biteey eee eA gad Leen og + Pan } {pe} he ‘ tf { iy pe fie fst ti yy whe i ‘ 
ye Ur eee arate te eres errs reas aus ea ba bites Uo Bile Cp 4 thy efteh u i are) : 4 ‘ beh i i be 
Leuk iY nad i, ‘e BEE irive mar rivaiiy wee HeneueficDiitiee ft fief ; harnteetiey ; +4 yy crit ray A, int - ‘ GIL e ; Ski i by 
st wif at 5 AT Ve Bouenhe iebes : Water, f ; ; { ‘ : poe ny 48 oss * 
eae ce a afhae et! : eat Media ae doer L tert Bi heise ah ‘iy i o i ; i NM \ . herr t i > ' o's\( wip hore a 
ale 7 chs f aie ’ ee hi eed shire day j pet A ety i ray Ss abi Wet hens’ } Heep 
i Heke nhudes Hie ne Relist Bevel he Ant, f teas $ * Bp ed'e TU ey t if Fe (bie ‘ \y 
STAN a oe i¢ ete Ged bli ed wal lds eps Netlog j 3 5 } S pt te “ar 4 
ye a uate Fac Daan GMa i HY Hah } Aletiee bigs 1 y 4 1 4 Or mMles ca My f ’ j hrs 
; ‘ y dh i iehuuen’ i TA ; bed. as th ‘is 
bikie (ts Al « TT enea the aKaye Late : cdg thf ve Aorta Ter ‘ ‘ Mi epeer? Ae ; 
: Mel bar ped osiot plete? Shed Mii Ve A idee i Fan het * { ‘ . Cry 4 The he Hegeeenes “a é ‘ y poi 7 
yids bit Tet at ee t ah Hedi bie ethene! rb ifs Nit cai ie i i ieleidte ‘ Wet es OEP Te ROR ed is eit a . yap wes 
PHP MER F EM be of aa eens Deeper ut Die Gb igi: (eee asian cher ray ve ! ‘ Hike! ; i pra RO nats ire iy A - wy 
i nf eth eb Reet Pai ; i kik a pup ade ees BAR AE ‘ f Lae Lp i ete ly mh oth 
ivrbaeta ‘4 4 AE te t ost et Se TASS 
Vee ‘ t A 'y Sanh peiieec aint fi! 4 Hey ¥ ’ 
cer at yes ay 4 4 Cerise ah He 4 . ¢ bl) betel 4 : ’ ’ 
Bey i d the ite! Tiara alien tuna yay rary aliens ht Me { t AinG 4 j ; HVE EB Se fy BUS ape ok fy 8 Oabek } 1 
gt eat Bahl P) ‘ iv a “ eeiik (ye tent reds AA ety Ke ‘ " ' u $ ete * she , bite an ‘ 
Bye Y i Ve ih i iM arid ry a) Pati jedi hel Leis ees , if ivi? tis od. 08 4 phe 4 ° 
{ ' At ar ey mm 
Pict fte) Aigner ‘ : 
(nny de ig 4 ley vip 
% Fn: ¥4 ; ny; OA eceer ty ay | j © hs we ‘ owe 
aha ile fa oe Fp f i ‘ i 4 Ate | 4it; Taaivi fen yind Bea “ Arherry aoNe AT . ditiekin fi ‘ 
ji A Hd ERE Y Whee te Sor Ligne t + ‘ 7 a! 47 ; 
j as ‘ v ‘ ; pe) 
th babe Gera ¥ ; fen Wat, ¥ / 
hai phate car Aghyg. ne OU e ray nts é ps i ve men t é r 
bale Jisheted evatink 0 vias \ at SHE Sener Hs ting A ; ‘ f PEM bya) aig , ‘ : pe reline ped rh 
‘ ' } ; i CELE eth tee 4 i f Ve ethiset ay “ ES 56 ; ee Te 
3 Fieve ‘nites tr . / 4 ai} th Reto ie y (iE etete ¢ ie Fo a ‘ Sf a7d OPIATE Mpeg cy et of s ( af oy “ 
pa afte 4 id f Pel oben tee 0 ite 5 : p ag es Shite ors UE : ‘ Fi ) 
2 oo Le ties 8 este ety : ‘ ; 
“fats f { 
Mette a hd fy ag Se aaiet? cy f BSN} y ¢ oF4 
etivhate Rehabs iets Bae Hse ey Whee r i y - 
ik Rinekeey / tase P a 46 A ’ 7 eiet 
. a Rey fi “ iH Ney, on i ‘ ’ Wve ' ‘ 
Telenshieenrnenene it ata pee ends HOt yids } a) Pn 
An My ast asidale felt prmceb engl” hth Hei les ; , ' ¢ { r ow ‘ i 





hee be 


Sy ettl Peoeainnet hott Witt bss chu he es 
ean ther 


Ae geet 
3) BAe Uvtred a7 he 


‘ pen hy ten 
iS ty 


See Poe’ 







nian 










oie Be le 2 


#9) % 4 RY J é ASR eh set help ‘ , 
hae taieben, ' aed wer Tales ‘ Hep rariye i Bey hy | roy sin Hi eh fou { : ‘ ( DA oh Meee shel) bhai pe 
{ eae 1ee'e a pre * J 








Abide 


fait eden y! fi bijnle ine ies a} 


wry > ‘ boa ftp oe ot mah moet ‘ 
Rel Tbime ye bo iy By ret ys oe an eee) 





Pay Tehri 





patie 
A hee plies! veg MIS fhe 












Mae PO ROTEL GG Shen OU PU EORU PY 
vr get While UES par Fath Ge rE 
Prytalt wha we Uther ere 
pod taicnthrraped ov sue 
Sth och hg Fae eG eE erry 
usury THAP ETOH UTU RFU Le Far Ket 












Hi fhe 
















BEEFY OEE PaaS i 
Fi Pitue aes 



















Hence Es hts Free 
HOE ESIVEHEIS ULL Arte 







bareieae 
Mah 









vey ip Dae bet 


See WL} 















ed AR eee shea tr 

tyr WELTON Oh ie, Ee Heay ye 

us eure ated lap Med Ui ror y Pee Cty 
Arisa ita ds a ' 

; reseed 

eine 










ert ASH ed cuviit 





Hise 
yee van eg Lippe 
on MeL CAUSAL EA ky 
Fu OP ate Pep detye ware 

aeeaier UMC eto eed eal | rt poe Nanay Way ippher tet 
uh batehlog ac Mt Labhibh ts if tents Oth 4 




























Pee Niewen: Van 
peu by uae Lh 
RIV a Oe bt 
on 





Wee LENE ar ie ie. " ity haa! (hbo 
we Ue Laphdd DET ita ca he Pee Lan) PL 
ed hia a Bede we Woreniy ued beets 
ec eoeh 
















Wiite 
Li baka he ha i. Pet DL oe tk 
14 ‘ heehee CV amss tures aah 
Seth erat bee dee ‘ aM rai iy ¥ PANEME Gedy cle elaby 
oh weber oy, Abe oid FPL TES AL APPED Tea te MUP emia i She rh ER etd PL OT 
at ames RE hs ee Re Kote ded Beem oH UE Tey A Re ak 
4 Lies rener heber a heuanie 2 yt nok ered dr Re Hh PACA CSET 80 | RA ae 
EEA GE ger Mert aR ge icmp BP tied! 5 ER eee aera ey! lee iano 
Mais Wen os halle 0 ae ‘ yt GAPIN Rhee Abd Deve ped Gre Lepey 
res ee FUT aus we ¥ 4 ee be Aa 
{ 


vir 
wre opt Har 
fuse entra nistet i 




























ter 
oe ri) 
L ieladbrgeavin colt ath th oa evar IATL ATA MEE Jae 
Br. ie i Let ee eed ee 1h APU A ELLA Psd oo ak ee pepe aed po BP oa a 
Pebee opr urbaureras A uer tee rat et el elena RRO LEP Chil men arg Petrie fi ‘ 
hipaa SALE he bt finda gk 4 Ree ey  diifmren el he 1 oR SO previa 5 we eVenele iy wey o> 
+t Aleem ee Wet caibes Heer: ryt) I adhh Aisha debe ila Untrie win 
 prapendaearh bh ea phn yet Ay WHERE be gs OR POH HT oe | ht ot » ¢ 
Oe temerity Sage SU henene them Pwo ony bad toe ok muy 3 é { speries 
hp lyy ad (ets oe SeUat A peeve baob i de He bthe eS er ( oad 
RRP Lay HPD Fekis COR en! pyrite dprmme it ie dee hort # on Parte y whree eye rh »t 
te eh ee ee capes’ 


















bal AREY rane 
bait) tot ¢ Vhs anaes 








